This guest post by BC Law Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Daniel Lyons first appeared in the AEIdeas Blog.
Reclassification opponents have long warned that net neutrality could be a Trojan horse for broadband rate regulation. Partly in response to this criticism, the Federal Communications Commission’s recent Title II reclassification order expressly reiterated its commitment to the agency’s long-standing, bipartisan commitment to keeping the Internet free from price controls. But even before the order had been finalized, New York’s Affordable Broadband Act began testing the strength of that commitment—and the agency’s initial response seems to be reinforcing its critics’ concerns.
Third-year student Jillian Jacobson recently had an op-ed published in Newsweek Magazine.Check it out below!
Rochester, New York, resident Cristal Starling was diligently saving money to turn her hot dog stand into a full-fledged food truck business when local police raided her home and confiscated her savings. The reason? Her then-boyfriend was suspected of dealing drugs. The agents found no evidence of her boyfriend’s alleged drug dealing, but they did find more than $8,000 of Starling’s hard-earned money—which they took and never returned to her, even after her then boyfriend was acquitted on all charges.
Like many other Americans, Starling is a victim of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement agencies to seize personal property on the mere suspicion that it was involved in criminal activity. After a lengthy appeal, a federal appellate court in New York has given her a shot at getting her personal property back. In addition, the court set a more just standard for victims of civil forfeiture who attempt to regain their property. This is a big win—both for Starling and for other Americans whose property is unjustly seized every year.
Since 2000, the government has seized more than $68.8 billion from Americans through civil forfeiture. When law enforcement suspects personal property is connected to a criminal act—whether the property is cash, jewelry, a car, home, or business—the agency seizes it and a prosecutor later moves for the state to keep it permanently.
BC Law: Impact 