Curtailing The Cash-Confiscating Constable

On August 17, 2016, I posted an essay on how the governments (federal and state) took money, cash assets from citizens and kept it, under the premise that the money was probably obtained illegally. (If you wish to read the article, it is posted on under the name “Grab the Money, Ignore the Law.”) The seizure of assets, or asset forfeiture, by government agencies (FBI and local police agencies, among others) without proper legal proceedings, as I stated, has become intolerable. In case after case, government officials confiscate cash that citizens are carrying, and it is up to the citizens to fight to get it back. Essentially, if any police or law enforcement agency finds that you have a lot of cash, they seize the money, under the assumption that it was obtained illegally, whether or not they even charge you with a crime. This behavior of confiscating assets is nothing more than theft, abuse of power, and denial of the rights of citizens. Only an out-of-control police state would do such a thing.

Recently, Miami-Dade police have lost a case where they attempted to keep $19,934 that they took from the trunk of a female entertainer who worked at a gentlemen’s club. Long story short, the court ruled that not only are the police required to return the $20k, they will also compensate the owner of the money $3k for legal the fees required to get them to return the money. Score one for the entertainers. But the situation is improving.


According to Ilya Somin, Constitutional Law professor at George Mason University, this fall, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case of Timbs v. Indiana, a constitutional property rights case. The case will determine if the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment applies against the states as well as the federal government. According to Somin, “it will also have to consider exactly what kinds of fines qualify as ‘excessive’ and to what extent the Clause applies to asset forfeitures, as well as more conventional fines.” As I have mentioned before, in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and not the states. The Barron v. Baltimore ruling was addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, where it heavily implied that the Bill of Rights restricted the states as much as it did the federal government. There has been widespread opposition of the forfeiture of assets, from groups too diverse to name here. Suffice to say, the government has gone far off the reservation taking cash from innocent citizens who have to fight in courts to get their property back from the government.


Ilya Somin thinks that the court will side with the citizens. Justice Clarence Thomas has in the past expressed his opposition to seizures of the property of citizens. In fact, three states, North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska, have abolished civil forfeiture entirely. It is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue of rights of citizens. One problem is that the Timbs case is a civil forfeiture case, whereas asset seizure is a criminal procedure. The court could certainly rule that excessive forfeiture and civil forfeiture are essentially the same, thus curtailing the seizure of the assets of citizens without due process. Due process in this republic means that incarceration and seizure of assets must only follow the ruling of a court, and not simply because the assets present themselves. The other discriminatory nature of asset seizure almost always involves cash; the police agencies seize cash if they find it on your person, in your car trunk, or in your domicile, and almost never when it is in your bank account, mostly because your bank isn’t going to give a police agency money from your savings or checking account unless they see the proper legal papers. Asset seizure has been the legal loophole that police agencies have used to steal money from citizens; it is time that behavior, that the blatant violation of a fundamental right, the right to property be curtailed.


While it could be said that asset forfeiture keeps criminals from their illegally-obtained assets, the notion of due process insists that until you are convicted of a crime, you are not a criminal, per se. Asset forfeiture has impacted the poor more than others, because poor people are not as likely to keep money in banks. But where we keep our money has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not we are criminals. The criminals in these instances are clearly identified, and it is not the citizens. Many of us will be watching the Timbs v. Indiana case, and see if the Supreme Court will restore a right that should have never been taken away.    


Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:20am
I completely agree that civil forfeiture by the government ought to be abolished.
However, in the case of the ‘entertainer’, Porn and strip clubs ought to be illegal.  
Our nation is being desyroyed ny taking sex outside of marriage, the resultant low fertility rate, and all the corruption that accompanied that.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:22am
I type quickly on my cell phone and don’t always go see how auto correct mangled my spelling.
Flying Junior Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:12am
Just edit your comment.  Make sure the site is still up and running.  Go into Profiles and delete the misspelled comment.  Then you can drop back in and leave a well-edited comment.
I think that's your entire problem in a nutshell.  You live your life way too fast, always in an agitated state.  You never really take the time to consider just what it is that you are doing or saying.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:23am
My cell phone won’t let me access my profile to edit. 
Not sure why.  
I still correct myself before you liberals do.  Unlike you, I can admit my mistakes and I don’t trust myself.  You liberals are so cocksure of your cockamamie ideas, and you are dead wrong.  Funny, but sad.
Speak for yourself.  
I have lived a lifetime examining myself and the lessons of history, so when I encounter specific situations, the answers aren’t hard.  Just like a test that you’ve studied hard for, and ace.  You liberals never seriously study yourselves at all, and when you do, you use the wrong standards. So you are deceived and deluded.  Nothing worse than self deceit and you liberals have nasty cases.  
Lets take you for instance.  How many notebooks do you have where you’ve sat down and examined yourself for why you did what you did?  I’m guessing none.  You indicate zero self introspection, just like most liberal men. 
Red October Added Jul 8, 2018 - 8:55am
“Essentially, if any police or law enforcement agency finds that you have a lot of cash, they seize the money, under the assumption that it was obtained illegally, whether or not they even charge you with a crime.”
The ability to confiscate without due process holds the potential for great injustices.  In other words, if the cops were dirty, they could confiscate for the sole purpose of taking from the rich.  I’m inclined to think the cops aren’t dirty and are confiscating from those that are likely violating laws.  Either way, I agree that it’s an abuse of power, where we disagree is in the notion that they’re confiscating from those that didn’t break the law as you assert in that quote. 
I would also add that there are some pretty good arguments for why this practice should continue.  For example, assume a boat is found running drugs from Cuba to America.  Do we allow the criminals to continue to run drugs with that boat until they have their day in court?  It could take years for that criminal to be found guilty and even longer to take his assets via court decision. A complete article would explain the arguments put forth by the other side.  
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 8, 2018 - 9:33am
Good article Jeff. I touched upon this in my own recent post. 
I'm not going to be spending a long time here, so I'll go ahead and step in it. I note Ryan's comments and as I have checked in here just recently to catch up with some WB friends I have found a number of his comments. I have also found that he tends to upset a number of people. Thats not bad, it's what this forum is about, isn't it?
My observation is this, for good, bad or indifferent: Ryan seems to typify the reason why even those who despise the democrat party (I count myself in that number, full disclosure) still refuse to register as republicans (I count myself in that number as well).
I had a conversation once with William Stockton, whom I respect and largely find myself in agreement with. I posited the idea that not all drug use constitutes drug abuse and he disagreed. Thats fine. I still respect him, still agree with most of his ideas and found no need to name call. 
Let's posit this proposition in a different light, shall we? When is law enforcement actual enforcement and when does it constitute legal abuse. Can we agree that there are distinctions of degree?
Though drug abuse is an issue that warrants more serious treatment of the problem, this pales in comparison as a danger to the republic when weighed against the legal abuse that runs rampant in this country at all levels. We have devolved from a rule of law to the rule of lawyers.
Always sharp Jeff. Promise to look you up whenever I get to check in here.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 10:55am
Greetings Burghal, 
Outside of Profanity, and a propensity to revel in Lewd terms and potentially lewd behavior, you and I agree on quite a bit.  
“No man is hated more than he who tells the truth”
That is why I upset people.  Many may not agree now, but history will give that verdict, and that’s what I’m interested in.  Never mind what the common man today says, what will those five hundred years from today say.
I’m not a registered Republican, and supported Cruz over Trump.  All who are virtuous and wise love me, and many of those who reject the aforesaid often hate me, though they never suspect their own choices and actions are to blame.  It is common to blame the messenger of truth for ones rejection of it.  That’s why Jesus and Socrates were killed, and why the very wise Founders learned from this. And sought to save people like me with the First Amendment.
Without that, WBs bloodthirsty and savage liberals would have slaughtered me Long ago, if they had a chance, and a way to get their hands on me.  One particularly savage character on here,  tge badly named “Speaker of Truth”, actually summoned the FBI on me, though he lived in Canada, out of ‘fear’ I was a threat to his grandchildren, when I knew nothing of who they were, where they lived, and had never dreamed of harming them, nor had I given the slightest indication I had.  Another liberal on here, Marilyn French, tried to report me to my job to get me fired. Pagan people often work this way.  They will stop at nothing to destroy those they disagree with.  
I completely agree with William Stockton.  All psychoactive drug use is bad and abusive.  A prime example is China, when they introduced opium in the 1800s and in less than a century, their 3,000 year old empire was over, and they only got rid of drugs again when the brutal Mao slaughtered 60 million.  The most valuable asset a civilization possesses is the mind, and when that is attacked, no matter it’s technological, military, or academic superiority, it is doomed, unless it quickly reverses course.
opher goodwin Added Jul 8, 2018 - 11:51am
Jeff - I find that amazing. They can take your money off you for no reason?? That's incredible.
Innocent until proved guilty?? What happened to that?
On an aside - I thought Strip Joints and Porn sites were legal?? Do we now have the sex police deciding the morality of the nation and taking away freedoms??
Doug Plumb Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:08pm
The word constable means tax collector, it does not mean "keeper of the peace". A constable collects tax for the king, now the Jewish banks of the City Of London. Your speeding ticket money does not go back into the community to make the roads safer - it pays for the sickness that now surrounds us.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:10pm
Under the rules of commerce, the cops should have given the dancer her 20 K back, plus another one to two times that amount.
You have to be careful not to give these people jusrisdiction, unless you are operating commercially. When you show ID you are given jurisdiction.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:20pm
Red October, the Constitution applies to all equally, otherwise it is meaningless. You have interjected a fact not in evidence. "For example, assume a boat is found running drugs from Cuba to America.  Do we allow the criminals to continue to run drugs with that boat until they have their day in court?" No, we arrest them because they have drugs! The people I am talking about do not have drugs in their possession, they are only "suspected" of having drugs, so they have their money taken. If they have drugs with them, I would say that the police have a reasonable suspicion to take money.
It is seizing money from people who have no association with drugs that I have a problem with. The terms "reasonable suspicion"  does not include taking cash from citizens; taking money from innocent people is theft,and the people who do it are thieves. Thanks for your comments.
Katharine Otto Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:20pm
Good post, clear and informative.  I didn't know the difference between civil forfeiture and asset seizure.  When you say "asset seizure" is a criminal procedure, I'm assuming you mean asset seizure is based on the belief that the money or goods were obtained illegally.  In any case, I claim asset seizure is criminal, by the police.
Unfortunately the AG Jeff Sessions wants to increase asset seizure as part of his war on drugs and money laundering.  I believe the federal government is desperate for money.  This may come to a head with the states that have legalized cannabis and should be considered a major states' rights issue.
I believe police are doing more "asset seizure" (ie theft) than we know.  That's why people are losing faith in them.  It comes down to the police-person's word against that of the victim.  How did that entertainer know or prove the police took $19,934?  Did they give her a receipt?  How does anyone prove how much they had?
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:27pm
Opher- strip and porn are free expression protected by the First Amendment. Too many people are using their own sanctimonious, highly flawed "interpretations" of our beloved Constitution to justify their own personal beliefs. Thanks for the comments.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:30pm
Doug Plumb, we must have different dictionaries. defines constable as:

an officer of the peace, having police and minor judicial functions, usually in a small town, rural district, etc.
Chiefly British. a police officer.
an officer of high rank in medieval monarchies, usually the commander of all armed forces, especially in the absence of the ruler.

It might be that the term "cop" came from "constable on patrol." Thanks for your comments.
Dino Manalis Added Jul 8, 2018 - 1:48pm
 People's money must be protected and not stolen from them!
James Travil Added Jul 8, 2018 - 4:38pm
Good article, and you are right, a lot more of this kind of injustice goes on than we hear about. The corporate mainstream media works for the establishment, not the people. They have no incentive to report on criminal abuse by the police unless it is otherwise brought into the public sector (by social media or through police departments losing cases in the courts usually). And this kind of behavior is clearly criminal as it violates the basic premise of innocent until proven guilty. Who cares if some "probably was doing something illegal". It's up to the police to either PROVE the supposed crime, or leave innocent p the hell alone. And last time I checked there is no law against having a certain amount of cash. I read about one person who was arrested for buying a airline ticket in cash because that's what drug dealers would do, they said. Outrageous! What happened to the America I grew up in? It's turned into an insane asylum of extremism and the criminals masquerading as police! 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 4:45pm
Opher, porn and sex clubs are never legal.  Until our rogue SCOTUS went along with Kinsey's debauched research, which is largely responsible for creating nearly every libertine man on here, and legalized porn in 1969, porn had been illegal in America, and rightly so.  A society that takes sex outside of marriage, and practices birth control is committing suicide, and that is what America has been doing for the past fifty years. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 4:51pm
Jeff, pornography is never legal, as our rights were derived from nature and nature's God, and they never gave us the right to look at naked women unless they were our wives in our bedrooms.  I'm disappointed that conservative men like yourself are not in the trenches fighting this fight too, and suspect your favorable inclinations towards it may be the result of either a passing dalliance with it, or a current one. 
If you and other conservative men cannot find it in yourselves to stand up fearlessly and courageously for virtue, then you deserve to be slaves.  Liberty and freedom are only possible for the virtuous, and porn is one of the most debauching and emasculating habits imaginable, along with vile strip clubs.  When men allow women to be treated like slaves, and every woman who strips and does porn is little better than a slave, as they are all there because of financial or emotional vulnerabilities, we shortly will become slaves ourselves. 
I get frustrated with women's stubbornness too, but surrendering to the temptation to take advantage of them in porn or stripping is not a habit I'm going to yield to, though I was not always innocent.  Suffering teaches wisdom.  I'll just stay single and abstinent, and refuse the temptation to indulge.  Learning self denial is an attribute every leader must have anyway. 
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:22pm
Katherine, you are exactly right. Most of the people carrying large amounts of cash are lower-income people who do not have bank accounts. Funny, you don't see law-enforcement agencies taking large amounts of cash from lawyers who are driving a Mercedes-Benz, now do you? My earlier article documents the abuse of power by police agencies. No wonder the public has lost their trust in law enforcement; they'll take all of your cash and if you cannot afford a lawyer, you're just out of luck, and as documented in the earlier article, sometimes they keep some of it anyway.
Yes, Jeff Sessions wants to ramp up the seizure of assets, all the more reason for the Supreme Court to rule that it it unconstitutional to do so. Thanks for your comments Katherine.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:26pm
James, you are exactly right that the mainstream media doesn't make these crimes against the citizens public, because they would be seen as "anti-police." But the word is out there, and more people are becoming aware of it. If I may say so, more people need to read my posts here and elsewhere! Thanks for your comments James, please pass on the word, the public needs to know and press their congressmen to do something about this. As usual, the poor suffer the most, and as previously stated, the police are only making themselves trusted  even less. Thanks for your comments James.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:30pm
James, the government that you grew up with, and the respect that law enforcement had for citizens has devolved into an "us-or them" mentality, along with "mission creep" where they use tactics that the American public thought would never be used against them. These seizures are the beginnings of a police state. I hate to say so, but the laws no longer protect the innocent, everyone, even innocent citizens, are suffering at the hands of law enforcement, and that is not what our nation stands for. Thanks again James.
Adolf Dick McMenace Added Jul 8, 2018 - 7:13pm
Good post Jeff. Seizures are a useful secondary income to many police departments, and, of course, the cops themselves. I like how they turn seized sports cars and high-performance motorcycles into police vehicles,
James E. Unekis Added Jul 8, 2018 - 7:28pm
Good article.  Many people carry large amounts of cash when, say, buying an ATV, motorcycle or collectibles.  I strongly suspect that, in a few years direct seizures from citizens bank accounts will begin, based on any number of "unusual" banking activity.  Our government is corrupt from the top to the bottom.
Leroy Added Jul 8, 2018 - 7:29pm
Another well-alliterated article.
There was a heartbreaking story of a Romanian (IIRC) immigrant to the US that took his life savings back to Romania to fix up or buy a house or something like that.  They took everything he had.  It made the news, so some lawyer will probably help him pro bono.  It's just wrong.  You spend as much or more money with lawyers just to get your money back.  That's the crux of the problem.  It's good work for lawyers if they can get it, and since we live in a lawyerocracy, it's not going to change.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 8:28pm
MichaelB. Thanks, I see those seized cars transformed into police vehicles. The problem is, do you know how much it costs to have a Lamborghini serviced? Not a cheap ride. I'm sure that the law enforcement officials use some of them for "business purposes" after hours. They like seizing exotic and expensive guns as well. On the bust in question, the Miami-Dade bust, they took two firearms that the owners were registered and licensed to own. They just take everything and let the citizens fight for it back in court. Taking things without authorization, I though was a crime. Silly me. Thanks Michael.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 8:30pm
I'm with you James. Perhaps the crypto-currencies have a place. If you never reveal your password, they can't get to it. Americans, especially the survivors of the Great Depression, (those that are left) still don't trust banks. Thanks for your comments James.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 8, 2018 - 8:32pm
Thanks Leroy. Perhaps if we didn't have s many stupid laws, we wouldn't have as many lawyers. The other thing is, if lawyers were on a program where if they didn't win, they wouldn't make anything, a lot of them would refuse work, or try a heck of a lot harder. Thanks as always Leroy.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 7:38am
re "Doug Plumb, we must have different dictionaries. defines constable as:..."
We do, believe me, the differences are not only there. Its like what Orwell said in 1984. All the words are changing. Check out "fame", and "personality" sometime. Totally different than today and had a lot to do with ones moral goodness.
Doctrines in law are changing too. The "Four Corners Rule" has changed meaning. It used to mean that if a doc contained a single lie, the whole thing had to be thrown out. Imagine if people applied the Four Corners Rule today. Today it means something different.
I read old law books because I like to read stuff that actually makes sense.
A constable went around to stables to collect taxes for the Crown.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 7:41am
Cop = Constable On Patrol
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 7:48am
re " The other thing is, if lawyers were on a program where if they didn't win, they wouldn't make anything, a lot of them would refuse work, or try a heck of a lot harder. "
They shot and burned out all the lawyers at the Confederacy end. What you have is attorneys.
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 9, 2018 - 9:46am
Doug-interesting historical notes. I'm guessing your sources were the internet.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 2:14pm
No, I read old PDF's off the web.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 2:18pm
There is no more reliable information for serious study in print since 1900 ish that has to do with poli sci or laws. Thjere is John Salmonds book, published in the 40's, standard text until the 70's. Law schools stopped teaching theoretical jurisprudence around the 70's. Everyone is assumed to be under the Admin Procedures Act of 1947. You don't have any rights, unless you demand them and an attorney has his first allegiance to the banks. He is not going to help you out of a statutory jurisdiction.
Neil Lock Added Jul 9, 2018 - 3:02pm
Jeff: Good article.
Doug: I like your derivation of "constable." Cons the stable. But change in meaning works both ways. In New Testament times, a "publican" was a tax collector. Now they run pubs - though, of course, they're still tax collectors indirectly.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 9, 2018 - 7:02pm
I think it probably started out as slang, right around the time the Crown was billing people for sunlight.
Red October Added Jul 10, 2018 - 9:00am
I never suggested the Constitution shouldn’t apply equally.  I have interjected an argument as to why the practice of asset seizure began and why it continues today.  If it were clearly a practice that was Unconstitutional a lawsuit would be filed and the Supreme Court would put an end to it.  That being said, I largely agree with this article and think there should be more difficult for government to seize assets. 
Where we disagree is in your continued assertions that the police are taking money from people that have “no association” with illegal activity.  They may freeze bank accounts and impound cars, but they don’t take anything like money to spend at their pleasure.  They also don’t target law-abiding Americans. That’s just you embellishing things to the point where they’re totally untrue. 
The issue is that if the police were corrupt they could seize assets from innocent people. On occasion that probably has happened, but that doesn’t mean the practice of taking from the innocent is common.      
I will make another argument for why the practice is in place.  Suppose you’ve been convicted of drinking and driving and had your license revoked.  What should the police do with your car if they catch you driving again? 
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 10, 2018 - 9:58am
Red October: I do not appreciate your accusation that I am "embellishing things to the point where they’re totally untrue." I will not however, go through all of the examples, and there are many  times the government has taken, and kept portions even when the citizen was innocent. The article was: Grab-the-Money-Ignore-the-Law  -August 2016, here at Writerbeat. I am not going to post all of the information contained in that article just because you aren't willing to read it. The facts speak for themselves. Just as an instructor is not going to repeat the lesson because one student doesn't get it, I will not repeat the article, the facts are there.
The USA today article:
Be sure to write them and accuse them of embellishing the  information, I'm sure they'll appreciate your insight.
Ari Silverstein Added Jul 11, 2018 - 8:30am
The first Asset Forfeiture laws were enacted in 1789.  So if you have any respect for our founders, you’d think twice about abolishing them.  They argued that property that is unlawful to possess, like counterfeit money, was OK to seize.  From there we got modern forfeiture laws where all sorts of other illegal items could be seized.  If a carjacker steals a car and claims it to be his own, do you really think it shouldn’t be seized and given back to the rightful owner? 
So as you can see, forfeiture laws make a lot of sense.  It also makes a lot of sense to have limits and controls on these seizures.  The devil is obviously in the details and this post takes a way too simplistic approach to the issue.  
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:29am
Ari, show me where anywhere in the article it said anything about not seizing counterfeit currency? Anyone with a car, has the title to the car, and if it has been stolen, it is reported stolen, and whoever has the car must show proof of ownership. Property reported stolen certainly should be seized. Just because any citizen is carrying cash is not a legal justification, legal or ethical, to seize the money. I know people that have large amounts of cash in their homes. The government has no right to seize it, just because it is in their possession.
Forfeiture laws only make sense for things that can be proven stolen, but that does not include someone carrying cash. Given the logical progression of that mentality, law enforcement should be able to seize any cash whatsoever, on the premise that it "might be stolen," or "it was obtained illegally." The point of the article was that government officials are seizing cash without justification, and that is exactly what they are doing. It must be stopped.
Ward Tipton Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:26pm
Regarding the Constable from Blacks's Law: 
CONSTABLE. In American law. An officer of
a municipal corporation (usually elected) whose
duties are similar to those of the sheriff, though
his powers are less and his jurisdiction smaller.
He is to preserve the public peace, execute the
process of magistrates' courts, and of some other
tribunals, serve writs, attend the sessions of the
criminal courts, have the custody of juries, and
discharge other functions sometimes assigned to
him by the local law or by statute. Allor v.
Wayne County, 43 Mich. 76, 4 N.W. 492.
In English law. A public civil officer, whose
proper and general duty is to keep the peace
within his district, though he is frequently charged
with additional duties. 1 B1.Comm. 356.
There are "high," "petty," and "special" constables.
See the definitions, infra.
In Medieval law. A high functionary under
the French and English kings, the dignity and
importance of whose office was second only to
that of the monarch. He was in general the leader
of the royal armies, and had cognizance of all
matters pertaining to war and arms, exercising
both civil and military jurisdiction. He was also
charged with the conservation of the peace of
the. nation. Thus there was a "Constable of
France" and a "Lord High Constable of England."
Rich v. Industrial Commission, 80 Utah 511, 15
P.2d 641, 644.
Constable of a castle. In English law. An officer
having charge of a castle; a warden, or keeper;
otherwise called a "castellain." Stat. Westm.
1, c. 7 (3 Edw. I.) ; Spelman, Gloss.
Constable of England. (Called, also, "Mare
shal.") His office consisted in the care of the
common peace of the realm in deeds of arms and
matters of war. Lamb. Const. 4; 3 Steph. Comm.
47; 4 Bla. Comm. 92.
Constable of Scotland. An officer who was formerly
entitled to command all the king's armies
in the absence of the king, and to take cognizance
of all crimes committed within four miles of the
king's person or of parliament, the privy
seems to be to keep the king's peace within their
respective hundreds. 1 Bl.Comm. 356; 3 Steph.
Comm. 47; Coke, 4th Inst. 267.
High constable of England, lord. His office has
been disused (except only upon great and solemn
occasions, as the coronation, or the like) since the
attainder of Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, in
the reign of Henry VII.
Petty constables. Inferior officers in every
town and parish, subordinate to the high constable
of the hundred, whose principal duty is the
preservation of the peace, though they also have
other particular duties assigned to them by act
of parliament, particularly the service of the
summonses and the execution of the warrants of
justices of the peace. 1 Bl.Comm. 356; 3 Steph.
Comm. 47, 48.
Special constables. Persons appointed (with or
without their consent) by the magistrates to execute
warrants on particular occasions, as in the
case of riots, etc."
In 2014 Federal Forfeiture Law saw the government stealing more from the people than the criminal class did for the first time in History. Boca Raton was prohibited from using federal forfeiture laws, not because they stole too much from the people, but because they did not share enough of their booty with the feds. 
Numerous real estate brokers, people going to tax auctions, heavy equipment auctions and other places that only accept case and even a restaurant owner as I recall, have had large amounts of cash "forfeited". 
As Doug has noted often, as federal citizens under the fourteenth amendment we have privileges not God-given and consitutionally protected rights. 
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 14, 2018 - 4:55pm
Ward, I think most of us agree that a constable is a law-enforcement officer. Yes, it came from English common law, in that England does not have a constitution per se. England considers the centuries of legal decisions their unwritten constitution. Sometimes English rulings go back to the 13th century.
A sheriff, another law enforcement officer, comes from the word shire, which as a marked territory from good old England, and there are, as far as I know, still shires. Yes, the intention of the 14th Amendment was to establish the rights of citizens and to protect citizens from getting their rights violated, because, as has been cited, Barron v. Baltimore said that the U.S. citizens were only protected from federal violations of their rights, and not violations by the individual states. The 14th Amendment's purpose was to amend to Constitution to protect the rights of citizens from being violated by the states.
Thanks for documenting even more upstanding citizens whose money was "stolen" by the government. I am hoping the Supreme Court puts an end to all of this. The government has no right to seize cash just because they see it. Pretty soon, they'll just start shooting people because of suspicion, with no proof of a crime. Oh wait, they already do that. Thanks Ward.
Ward Tipton Added Jul 15, 2018 - 2:05am
Dustin Theoharis, shot sixteen times, during a warrantless search, by a cop and a corrections officer (who was illegally at the scene to begin with) while Mr Theoharis was sleeping ... because the cop and the CO felt "threatened" because he was sleeping with a hand under the pillow ... would concur. But no worries, the cops got a paid vacation, the police investigated the police and discovered that nobody had done anything wrong, and the entire operation was well within "department parameters" and the American taxpayer footed the bill. 
A lot of people here seem to be having a difficult time also distinguishing between Asset Seizures which (rightfully) occur in the case of criminal offense and civil forfeiture which requires not so much as a hint of a criminal offense, but merely because the cops can take something, they do ... and it is up to the people to prove their innocence. 
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 15, 2018 - 6:25pm
In fact, three states, North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska, have abolished civil forfeiture entirely.- Let's hope the Supreme Court protects the rights of citizens and abolishes civil forfeiture for all of the states and the federal government. Thanks for your comments Ward.

Recent Articles by Writers Jeff Jackson follows.