Nope, not all. I'm not talking about a traffic stop where personal property/assets are seized. Although you'd be surprised how often hundreds of thousands of dollars are seized along known drug and human smuggling corridors in this country, usually in the possession of illegals with no explanation as to how they came to possess that much money. They're usually returning to Mexico after a dope/human smuggling delivery. Or US citizens headed to Mexico to buy dope, return to the US and sell for huge profits.

Our probable cause, supported by a lengthy affidavit which usually detailed months of investigation, documentation and surveillance, at the direction of a special prosecutor and approved by a county or state or federal judge (depending on jurisdiction) was not easily obtained as some would think. If we didn't have proof, it was returned.

If LE wasn't able to seize early enough, the assets would be transferred and disappear.

Believe what you want, but it's not always as some defense attorneys would have you believe.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Nope, not all. I'm not talking about a traffic stop where personal property/assets are seized. Although you'd be surprised how often hundreds of thousands of dollars are seized along known drug and human smuggling corridors in this country, usually in the possession of illegals with no explanation as to how they came to possess that much money.

Our probable cause, supported by a lengthy affidavit which usually detailed months of investigation, documentation and surveillance, at the direction of a special prosecutor and approved by a county or state or federal judge (depending on jurisdiction) was not easily obtained as some would think. If we didn't have proof, it was returned.

If LE wasn't able to seize early enough, the assets would be transferred and disappear.

Believe what you want, but it's not always as defense attorneys would have you believe.

Yes, this is hugely correct.

The forfeiture is the end of a process that was lengthy, with plenty of AUSA oversight and lots of affidavits, supporting documents to support the underlying arrest and the accompaning forfeiture.

This is not some bubba sheriff hiding behind a bush with his radar gun and then seizing a car and contents for his department or personal use.

Far from it.

If the police had not severely and over a very long period of time abused this process, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


You can put the blame squarely on those greedy agencies who used these laws for their personal shopping sprees.

I know we have police officers in the forum who think that asset forfeiture laws are great things and they don't like my opinion or the opinions of others about this stuff being shot down. Again, look to the behavior of your own agencies before you get your mad on. It has become crystal clear that these laws were being abused, blatantly and severely. If this crook or that gets to keep his ill-gotten gains because these laws are being shot down, you know who to blame

Related topic, people tend to think that getting a telephonic/electronic wiretap is an easy thing to do. That's what they see on tv.

I worked with federal agents and state officers who spent months writing hundreds of pages of affidavit requesting a court order to monitor a telephone and/or cell phone. Again, almost always at the direction of a special prosecutor. The affidavit had to detail how every other normal LE procedure that been exhausted before the request was made to a judge. Many times only to be denied by a judge.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
When you have suspected criminals without any legitimate means of income per their tax statements, living in expensive homes and driving $100,000 cars, then yes! They also received food stamps!

Oh yeah, they dealing in kilos of dope or human trafficking that we followed up from the Mexican border along US interstate highway. The cartels pay so well that we caught an AZ DPS officer who hauled kilos on his days off.

We found millions of dollars per month going into multiple accounts to the same name. We thought it was dope, but it turned out to be human smuggling. At the time, that did not qualify under RICO so the cases had to be turned over to Immigration.

then the irs should be involved

Para, I respect your opinion but the abuse by a few agencies does not justify denying a very valuable tool to LE when strict oversight is established. Obviously, SCOTUS sees it differently.

The bad guys win again and another defeat for 99% of agencies who used the tool legally. To me, that's akin to taking guns away from law abiding citizens because a very small % of criminals use guns to commit crimes.

I can't speak to every agency in the country. I can only speak to my experience.

quote:

Originally posted by side_shot:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
When you have suspected criminals without any legitimate means of income per their tax statements, living in expensive homes and driving $100,000 cars, then yes! They also received food stamps!

Oh yeah, they dealing in kilos of dope or human trafficking that we followed up from the Mexican border along US interstate highway. The cartels pay so well that we caught an AZ DPS officer who hauled kilos on his days off.

We found millions of dollars per month going into multiple accounts to the same name. We thought it was dope, but it turned out to be human smuggling. At the time, that did not qualify under RICO so the cases had to be turned over to Immigration.

then the irs should be involved

Absolutely. And we did involve every agency who had jurisdiction.

Its the correct decision, and as Para said, the law was being abused, JMO there isnt' any reason for a government to take someones property until a verdict is reached in front of a judge and jury or a plea bargain deal reached.

Allowing a state to take someones home, savings, business, cars basically shutting down their lives and confiscating assets in effort to force a plea bargain is significantly too much leverage for the government.

You wonder how many people have plead out and paid some or all of their assets just to stay out of jail. Its way too much power.

As much as we want the bad guys off the streets we don't need the government getting absolute power over citizens property.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:...The bad guys win again and another defeat for 99% of agencies who used the tool legally....

How about just actually reading the opinion. No body "lost". Interestingly, Ill appeals court got it right, the Ill Supreme court got it wrong.

But just in case you dont want to read it, here is the holding:

"The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause"

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Para, I respect your opinion but the abuse by a few agencies does not justify denying a very valuable tool to LE when strict oversight is established. Obviously, SCOTUS sees it differently.

The bad guys win again and another defeat for 99% of agencies who used the tool legally. To me, that's akin to taking guns away from law abiding citizens because a very small % of criminals use guns to commit crimes.

I can't speak to every agency in the country. I can only speak to my experience.

I see it opposite of you. It seems to me that you think it’s okay to infringe on the rights of some law abiding citizens as long as some criminals are hurt also.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Its the correct decision, and as Para said, the law was being abused, JMO there isnt' any reason for a government to take someones property until a verdict is reached in front of a judge and jury or a plea bargain deal reached.

Allowing a state to take someones home, savings, business, cars basically shutting down their lives and confiscating assets in effort to force a plea bargain is significantly too much leverage for the government.

You wonder how many people have plead out and paid some or all of their assets just to stay out of jail. Its way too much power.

As much as we want the bad guys off the streets we don't need the government getting absolute power over citizens property.

I won't say there weren't abuses but in my experience, the people who have houses, cars, hundreds of thousands of dollars seized are not modeling for Norman Rockwell paintings and when you have their own words that the $2M from the last drug sale is in the safe in the garage, it's a statement against interest and there isn't a lot of mystery left when you open the safe and the $2M is there.

Seizure in that case is an effective tool because the money will be laundered or shipped out as their business model. Is that the result we want? For them to reap the gains from illicit acts?

Well I guess this means El Chapo is Not paying for the wall.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Nope, not all. I'm not talking about a traffic stop where personal property/assets are seized. Although you'd be surprised how often hundreds of thousands of dollars are seized along known drug and human smuggling corridors in this country, usually in the possession of illegals with no explanation as to how they came to possess that much money.

Our probable cause, supported by a lengthy affidavit which usually detailed months of investigation, documentation and surveillance, at the direction of a special prosecutor and approved by a county or state or federal judge (depending on jurisdiction) was not easily obtained as some would think. If we didn't have proof, it was returned.

If LE wasn't able to seize early enough, the assets would be transferred and disappear.

Believe what you want, but it's not always as defense attorneys would have you believe.

Yes, this is hugely correct.

The forfeiture is the end of a process that was lengthy, with plenty of AUSA oversight and lots of affidavits, supporting documents to support the underlying arrest and the accompaning forfeiture.

This is not some bubba sheriff hiding behind a bush with his radar gun and then seizing a car and contents for his department or personal use.

Far from it.

I'm glad they have it all buttoned down where you guys are. It's not that way in Tennessee for sure. There are drug task forces that are funded solely by what they are able to seize. Salaries, overtime, training budget - all funded by asset forfeitures. There was a case where 2 officers got physical with each other on the side of the road fighting over who would get the bust and the assets. It's out of control and there is no other way to describe it.

https://www.newschannel5.com/n.../policing-for-profit

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:...The bad guys win again and another defeat for 99% of agencies who used the tool legally....

How about just actually reading the opinion. No body "lost". Interestingly, Ill appeals court got it right, the Ill Supreme court got it wrong.

But just in case you dont want to read it, here is the holding:

"The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause"

I didn't go to law school as you did. I see it as a loss to LE who used the tool in accordance with the law under strict guidelines. The state and federal agencies I worked for and with didn't abuse the law. We didn't use asset forfeiture as a means to gain a confession or force a plea agreement. Waiting months or years for a trial and verdict will find all RICO assets long gone.

Asset forfeiture was utilized as a means to recover part of the costs of lengthy investigations. Less tax dollars. As some apparently believe, the investigating agency did not immediately start driving someones Porsche. Assets seized were administered by a special prosecutor to determine what if any proceeds went to the investigating agencies involved. So I see that as a loss.

SCOTUS is the last word. I don't agree with it as I'm certain rulings of the court don't set right with you, either.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:

The bad guys win again and another defeat for 99% of agencies who used the tool legally. To me, that's akin to taking guns away from law abiding citizens because a very small % of criminals use guns to commit crimes.

And now you're off the rails. This statement shows how flawed your line of thinking is and others like you. The government should always have the burden on it and not the other way around. You comparing taking away an individual right because others abuse that right and break the law with a check on government because government entities by nature always tend towards gaining more power and abusing the power it already has is exactly why supreme court decisions like this should be celebrated.

You're on the wrong side of things, my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:... To me, that's akin to taking guns away from law abiding citizens because a very small % of criminals use guns to commit crimes.
...

To me, that's akin to taking money away from law abiding citizens because a very small % of criminals use money to commit crimes.


Wait, which side of this argument are you on, again?

It sounds like some agencies were using this appropriately. Good.
The point is that they *didn't have to*, the way the law was being read. No limits from the Constitution, no required oversight. That's bad.

This puts the state governments right where they should be: obeying the Constitution, period.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
The SCOTUS just put the profit back into crime.
< snip >

No, SCOTUS just put the "nor" back into "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and "nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

SCOTUS ruled narrowly, as they are wont to do; however, I think the ruling is a shot across the bow of every agency that abuses asset forfeiture.

That pesky Bill of Rights wasn't put in place to protect the government from over reach of the citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

Seizure in that case is an effective tool because the money will be laundered or shipped out as their business model. Is that the result we want? For them to reap the gains from illicit acts?

If it means protecting innocent people caught up in this anti-Constitutional nonsense, then absolutely it's what we want.