quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
... let's at least be intellectually honest and stop having the police respond to these financial crimes where people get bilked out of $2,000 to $200,0000 if you're not going to give the cops the tools to win...

I support LE seven ways from Sunday, but, with all due respect: Bullshit.

You have the tools. Acquire the evidence, bring it to trial, convict, celebrate. That's the way it's supposed to work in this country.

Civil asset forfeiture is an egregious violation of the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. It amounts to apprehension, trial and conviction by a single entity, with no jury, no opportunity to confront ones accuser, and little accountability. Could it be a useful tool? Certainly it could. But it is abused. Sorely abused. The accounts of that abuse are legion.

I would have little problem with CAF if, upon the government's failure to obtain a conviction of the property owner in a timely manner, the property was promptly returned to the owner, but that often does not happen. In fact the owner, not infrequently an innocent third party, has to retain counsel, at their own expense, and go to court to get their property back.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is on shaky Constitutional grounds in the first place, IMO, but, given the widespread abuse I'd see it ruled unconstitutional in a New York Heartbeat.

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin

"...that generous Maxim, that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent." -- Voltaire

"For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” -- Sir William Blackstone

Nope, I've never shot at you.

And I'm happy to be mistaken with respect to what was behind your terse response(s).

And I'm pleased you're in the puzzle solving business. It's (generally) important work, and it takes dedicated and bright people. How about we trade all the meter maids for more puzzle solvers? Or cut the mayor's salary in half and funnel it directly to your efforts. I'm open to a myriad of alternatives, and I'm actually quite confident we can be as effective as now / as we'd like to be, and still be free-er than now, with less systemic bullshit than now.

I simply insist/expect we (as a country) err on the side of individual liberty. And as much as it may hamper your efforts, even the most noble ones, I'd rather see 10 criminals make off with $1 million each in ill-gotten booty than see one innocent person get fucked out of $10,000 in cash because we were trying to catch the bad guys, so to speak.

quote:

t is nothing personal. Nothing ever is. (With the exception of people that shoot at me, that is personal. You haven't shot at me recently, have you? )

Good, and likewise.

quote:

Originally posted by Sportshooter:
Teneha, Texas seems to have gotten a nasty reputation for using the forfeiture strategy. It was reported that they didn’t limit the use to just the evil doers. It’s common knowledge that minorities aren’t inclined to use banks and wind up carrying cash, sometimes lots of it.

That was why the legislature added 59.03(d) code of criminal procedures several years ago. The Texas case mentioned in the article is more than 10 years old and that conduct has since been statutorily prohibited.

Not that any of that matters to the author of the article.

quote:

that conduct has since been statutorily prohibited.

Excellent. Sounds like a great start.

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
The Texas case mentioned in the article is more than 10 years old and that conduct has since been statutorily prohibited.

Just because something has been prohibited does not mean that local/state/federal assholes will stop doing it. This activity goes on daily and the police/prosecutors hope that nobody presses the issues.

So if someone's pushing drugs as a side business to his main job, how do you determine how much of his assets were gainfully obtained? It's not like he included his side business when filing his 1040..

quote:

Originally posted by SIGSense:

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
The Texas case mentioned in the article is more than 10 years old and that conduct has since been statutorily prohibited.

Just because something has been prohibited does not mean that local/state/federal assholes will stop doing it. This activity goes on daily and the police/prosecutors hope that nobody presses the issues.

I have no idea what goes on in other states, but in Texas, the process is well layed out to be an above board, transparent and well documented process where no proceeding is done without public notice, replevy of property is available, and all possible stakeholders are required to be notified.

Also no forfeiture can be completed without filing a formal open proceeding.

But then whatever, there was an article in the slate.....

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
So if someone's pushing drugs as a side business to his main job, how do you determine how much of his assets were gainfully obtained? It's not like he included his side business when filing his 1040..

The last one I did was a guy 2 months out of prison with a half pound of penalty group 1, a stolen gun, no job and $20k in cash, so it was pretty obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
... let's at least be intellectually honest and stop having the police respond to these financial crimes where people get bilked out of $2,000 to $200,0000 if you're not going to give the cops the tools to win...

I support LE seven ways from Sunday, but, with all due respect: Bullshit.

I would have said 'horse shit', but you beat me to it.

The widespread abuse of civil asset forfeiture is well known.

Asset forfeiture has an absolute place. It sounds like they're just targeting old people moving their life savings and young people on their way to buy a house or a car or people with gambling winnings because that's what the same media you all deride for its inaccuracies and half truths is telling you. My agency siezes and forfeits tens - sometimes hundreds - of thousands of dollars from criminals every single year. And we are extremely self-restrained on what we take from who and when. Got 20 crack rocks and $500 in twenties? We ain't taking it. Got a pile of unexplained cash in your Buick Skylark and ten prior drug convictions? Keep it.

I'm all for transparency and reform. Make us establish a link to criminal activity. That's reasonable. That works for us. Make the legal process more accessible. I get that. But trying to completely abolish a practice that hits these assholes where it hurts is foolhardy. There's a certain point in the process of being a dirt merchant in the face of a system that doesn't adequately punish to achieve deterrence that it's "just another case." It becomes almost like a shrinkage write-off. Hell, I'd be all for using forfeiture funds to subsidize the cost of incarceration if it meant some of these people faced actual consequences.

quote:

Got 20 crack rocks and $500 in twenties? We ain't taking it. Got a pile of unexplained cash in your Buick Skylark and ten prior drug convictions? Keep it.

Ain't that sweet!
Your example is still woefully lacking due process.
Prior offenses and a foggy memory is still not proof of anything.
Not much difference in just shootin' the bad guy 'cause we know he's guilty.
The rules of engagement for confiscation should follow the constitution not you are guilty and have to prove your innocence.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Got 20 crack rocks and $500 in twenties? We ain't taking it. Got a pile of unexplained cash in your Buick Skylark and ten prior drug convictions? Keep it.

Ain't that sweet!
Your example is still woefully lacking due process.
Prior offenses and a foggy memory is still not proof of anything.
Not much difference in just shootin' the bad guy 'cause we know he's guilty.
The rules of engagement for confiscation should follow the constitution not you are guilty and have to prove your innocence.

You're misreading me. We don't seize for forfeiture in either scenario. Only when criminal charges are being brought and there are relatively substantial sums being taken.

You know how sometimes you need to punish your children to teach them a lesson?

In this analogy the System is the child, not you individual officers, and the reality is that too many in the system have abused this privilege which has questionable breadth and depth in any case, and we the people cannot trust the system to carry this out without excessive abuse. So no, junior (the system), you can't borrow the car again this weekend because you fucked it up 18 times already. I'm sorry your date is hot and would blow you, take a bus and get your shit together, then *ask* to get this permission back later.

Don't be mad at me/us... be mad at the pieces of shit in your profession who fucked it up, and be mad at the politicians in your area who voted for such things and made those rules.

But yeah, focus on irrelevant details like it being a Slate article if it makes you feel better.

As Para and others have noted, this isn't a new notion, and the only meaningful part about the Slate article is that it references the court case which may impact this. Keep it straight.

If the money from asset seizures went into the state general fund, that would remove most of the tendency to abuse the system. Any time a PD is the direct recipient of the money earned, there is a motive or force driving some individuals to abuse the system. Cops are like anyone else, most try to do a great job but there is always someone who will take advantage of the system.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

As someone who, on principle alone, opposes almost every conceivable thing about Civil Asset Forfeiture

Were you to rewrite the "system": when WOULD it be permissible to take the proceeds/fruits or instrumentalities of crime? What kind of proceeding? Or not at all?

I don't have some prepared answer, but I'll wing it to facilitate the discussion.

First, let's talk about theft. Fuck thieves. Fuck em in every orifice. I defy anyone here to cite some example of me liking, supporting, or in any way giving a damn about thieves or suggesting leniency. So if there are useful cases involving recovery of stolen property then that, at least at this altitude of specificity, sounds perfectly reasonable. How can I/we help? Y'all wanna round up a posse to get the crooks scamming our grandparents, sign me up.

What I don't support, and vehemently loathe, is how some aspects have been turned into a business unto itself, like the example cited in the source article, law firms suing, seizures that are vastly disproportionate to the crime/fine and so on.

Did you guys even read the article?

Lastly, I know I wasn't around for several months this year, but I have never been shy about or inconsistent in my general opinions here, and while I lean little-L libertarian I've never advocated ending entire agencies, or dreamt of some lawless society, or any similarly kooky bullshit. Sovereign Citizen sorts can get fucked, as far as I'm concerned. I despise bullshit, double standards, abuses of power, bloated bureaucracies. And things of that sort.

On the fly was fine. That was a genuine question, not trolling.

I guess a better way to ask would've been: Is your objection to forfeiture per se, or to the process?

I have never personally used civil forfeiture, but that’s because I’ve generally never had a problem drawing a rather direct line between a specific asset, a specific crime, and a specific defendant in my white-collar crime world. Criminal forfeiture has been pretty efficient/easy in those cases. I present my PC, a U.S. Magistrate agrees that there’s PC, and a few minutes later I have a seizure warrant. We lock up the asset, and when the defendant is convicted for the underlying crime a forfeiture order issues for any property (including what we’ve already seized pursuant to a warrant) constituting fruits or proceeds of the crime. No conviction? No forfeiture. That’s pretty good “due process” protection in my mind.

I think many people read “civil forfeiture” as meaning “no due process, the .gov just takes it.” Uncle still has to demonstrate that the property under forfeiture was derived from or facilitated a specific crime (though admittedly, to a civil burden of proof rather than “beyond reasonable doubt.”) The case cited in the article doesn’t argue that there was a lack of due process, or even that the car didn’t facilitate the crime, merely that the seizure of his car (and the car’s value) was disproportionate to the maximum fine and therefore, excessive. So from that perspective, I think it’s a bad “poster child” for forfeiture reform.

Although I’ve never used it personally, I *have* seen civil forfeiture used in the sorts of cases jljones described: Investigators knew WHERE the proceeds were, HOW they got there—the specifics of the fraudulent scheme—and WHO the victims were. The suspects, though, were either unknown or not reachable by U.S. justice (out of the country? Dead?) So the action was taken against the bank account, not a person. But, the same elements of proof had to be presented to the court.

Show me that a citizen’s property is being taken without due process, realistic recourse, or some reasonable connection to a specific crime, and I’ll actually stand alongside you in condemning the mechanism that made it possible. I don’t see that here.

As an aside, the whole concept of “private forfeiture” is a foreign one to me.

I had to carry 10K in cash once to deposit at my bank. I was nervous carrying that amount of cash and it wasn't my choice to receive that money in the form of cash but it was the way it ended up. Funny thing though I wasn't afraid of being robbed or having the cash stolen in a hospital or a morgue after a car accident. I was afraid of the police taking it, legally or otherwise during a traffic stop, unlawful search etc. These days I'm more afraid of police officers than common criminals. I would probably feel differently if I lived in a bad part of town but I don't. I don't encounter police very often since I'm honest exceedingly boring and pitifully law abiding, but based on the spotty quality of people being hired these days and the low character and poor ethics displayed by a generally predictable percentage working in government, I no longer automatically trust police in general and sometimes fear them outright. You know our policing and justice systems are screwed up when law abiding citizens of good character fear the police, justice systems, and governments more than any common criminal or scammer.

I know this will piss off our good officers in this thread but my rif isn't about the good people in policing, justice, and governments. It's about the high percentage of very bad apples in all three. The proportion of honest people in these fields should be equal to or higher than the rest of us honest and hard working six pack joes, but unfortunately it's lower and sometimes by a lot. It's hard to resist a criminal with a gun when the criminal is exercising their crime on behalf of their government employer. Disgusting isn't enough to describe it.

There I said it so let the arrows fly.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If the money from asset seizures went into the state general fund, that would remove most of the tendency to abuse the system. Any time a PD is the direct recipient of the money earned, there is a motive or force driving some individuals to abuse the system. Cops are like anyone else, most try to do a great job but there is always someone who will take advantage of the system.

It depends on how the money is seized.

If the money is narcotics or narcotics related, it hast to go back to something in the narcotics lane. Training, equipment (vests, weapons, rental cars tech-equipment), overtime...

If its from "theft" or "fraud" it can go into a general fun for law enforcement.
HOWEVER.... This is all looked at (or should be) when fiscal year / budget time comes up.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:


As someone who, on principle alone, opposes almost every conceivable thing about Civil Asset Forfeiture this is particularly interesting and good news if it curbs this often vile practice. And anything that removes any possible profit motives from law enforcement at all levels is an unarguably fantastic thing. Like Ghostbusters, those streams ought not cross.

Not that jljones needs my back-up, but that statement from you says a lot.

You, just "on principal alone, opposes almost every conceivable thing about Civil Asset Forfeiture". Am I correct?

So, its ok, according to your principal, for a Gang, even an individual to profit off of illegal activity?
Sell dope, which is responsible for countless numbers of murders (and not just gang on gang, but innocent people as well) across the country, get caught, go to jail, but still get to keep all those fancy cars, big houses, and stacks of $$$?


I can only talk of narcotics seizures, because that's pretty much all of the seizures I've been involved with. I've done a little credit card/Tax refund stuff when I played with the USSS, but that was VERY LIMITED.



I haven't been involved in the "Dope Game" here in about 6 years. I'll admit, I've slowed sown for a number of reasons, but that's another story for another day.
My numbers are slightly dated, however... For us, the Chicago Police Department, anywhere between $8 to 12 Million a year in Narcotics related seizures. That's from these people (or folks, for those who get that joke) who we like to refer as "Bad Guys".
Those "Bad Guys" do "Bad" things. Like selling narcotics. Whatever your feelings are about the sale of illegal drugs (ie Crack, Cocaine, Meth, Marijuana, Oxxy, Exstacy...), it's still ILLEGAL.

So again, according to your principal, one can go out, make anywhere from $1 to MILLIONS of dollars from selling illegal drugs, and he only gets incarcerated? He gets to keep all that money?

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

If you're in law enforcement, it's the fault of no one here that you cannot accept the glaringly obvious fact that civil asset forfeiture has been and shall continue to be abused by law enforcement agencies. It's not our fault or our problem that some police cannot deal with the reality of the matter. You'll just have to work it out for yourselves. Maybe you can find a blind man who can help you see it.