Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Fourth AmendmentCA7: CPD arcane forfeiture processes violate due process
By John Wesley Hall, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENTS
The City of Chicago’s forfeiture processes violate due process. The rules are arcane, obscure, and hard to find, and people who actually try to follow them are essentially thwarted by the CPD’s rules and failure to tell people how to do anything. Also, the City sends forfeiture notices to the residences of people in jail, and refuses to check the jail records to see if any of the notices returned involved people in jail. Gates v. City of Chicago, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19940 (7th Cir. September 27, 2010)*:
The plaintiffs claim that forty percent of Pollard notices mailed are returned to the police department undelivered. The City does not wish to bear the expense of the additional search of the Sheriff's website and a possible second mailing because the amounts at issue are so small...continue to full postFull post as published by Fourth Amendment on September 30, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

The debate over civil forfeiture
New L&C Law Scholarship: Forfeiture and Cross-Examination
R. v. Craig and the Equitable Underpinnings of Forfeiture
Three main practices in process improvement and two comments








