Cases from our home states are required as examples. I live in Montana so Montana cases only please. Here are some examples, 2 are required and need to be referenced. No plagiarism and hit the distinguished marks on the scoring guide please.
State v Hegg, 1998 MT 100 Apr 30, 1998
Magone v Aul, 1994 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 612 Mar 29, 1994
State v Fadness, 2012 MT 12 Jan 17, 2012
The Eighth Amendment protections extend to the impositions of fines. That provision of the amendment applies to forfeitures, which is a process utilized frequently in departments. Often, a portion of forfeiture funds are reinvested in the criminal justice system, providing an incentive for departments to focus on securing forfeitures. Understanding substantive and procedural requirements is a must.
For this discussion, assume you are the state attorney general. You are pleased that a county in your state that borders Mexico has been extremely effective in the past year at reducing drug-related violent crime. When you spoke to the sheriff, you discovered that these reductions are because the number of deputies was doubled, electronic surveillance was increased, and the number of patrol cars was increased.
Wondering how this was accomplished without an increase in the budget, you find out that the police are stopping motorists routinely, asking if they are carrying cash, and then ordering them to sign over the cash or face felony charges for money laundering or other serious crimes. It was maintained that this is consistent with state asset forfeiture law, which allows the police to seize the profits of crime without a conviction. You are concerned about the measures taken from a substantive and procedural law standpoint. You decided to do some research to better understand the forfeiture requirements.
- Using research for your state in Lexis, locate two cases that provide insight into substantive and procedural requirements for asset seizures. Apply the cases to the scenario to reach a conclusion about what has been taking place.
- Based on your findings, articulate how you would address what has been taking place in that jurisdiction
|Main Discussion Post Response (60%)|
| Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
|Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.||Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.||Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.||Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner.|
| Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
|Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.||Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible.||Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.||Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives.|