Straight from the mouths of those who are doing it. Of course, this would never be abused and certainly they would never just target anyone other than drug dealers and other criminals.
Anyone still believe that this hasn’t turned into a racket?
This shit is out of f-in hand. That is NO DIFFERENT than a f-ing thug stealing your shit. Criminals with a badge is all.
This must be reigned in. Where is the outrage over this practice? It’s not okay to use it on anyone, be it drug dealers or law abiding citizens, without ACTUAL proof and a conviction showing that said property was purchased with illegally obtained funds.
The stories of cash being taken from law abiding individuals are myriad. And there is no recourse. This is truly unbelievable.
In my experience a dui seizure of your vehicle only happens once you’ve had a previous dui CONVICTION and you get caught driving again.
The other classic example of assets forfeiture occurs on drug dealers who have sold shit tons of drugs and racked up very high amounts of unpaid taxes on said illegal narcotics. Then the forfeiture dude comes to their house and takes whatever is valuable and can be sold at auction. Some of the money goes to the school system and some to local PD.
I fail to see how we are common criminals and no different than a dude who would stick a gun in your face and steal your car.
Any asset forfeiture should be decided at the time of sentencing for a crime that warrants such things.
Well the problem is any forfeiture which comes PRIOR to a conviction. Now if you convict somebody and part of the sentencing is forfeiture of assets then fine, that is due process. Grabbing goodies from somebody who has yet to be convicted of anything is a much different thing.
That shit is ridiculous.
Seizure post conviction vs. prior to conviction is the difference. Do it prior to a conviction and you’re no better off than the thug on the street corner robbing people.
Then you are woefully uneducated on the current going ons of civil asset forfeiture around the country.
I don’t care what the local PD says someone did. Until they are convicted, as Steyr said, then you shouldn’t get to proceed off your job. And the stuff seized, after a conviction and court order, should be sold at auction, and the money put in the state general fund.
Not that I agree with drug laws but in some use case scenario where this would come up. I don’t think local LE should get the benefit directly.
And how is a drug dealer supposed to pay taxes?
These forfeiture laws were passed in 80’s during the Reagan anti-crime era and when really cheap drugs came onto the scene. Like a lot of other things Americans tend to do civil asset forfeiture was passed as a knee jerk reaction to a problem that burned itself out anyways. Now we are stuck with these unconstitutional laws and people who like to brag about it.
This.
The current form of “asset forfeiture” without a criminal conviction, and sometimes when no criminal case is even pursued, is outrageous.
Some of the forfeiture cases would be outrageous even if there was a criminal conviction. Some of you may want to review the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines, along with cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to outlaw seizures that are disproportionate to the offense, see United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bajakajian
It would be sweet, sweet justice indeed to see a RICO case brought against some of these people.
I used to volunteer with HPD. A few officers and I were discussing taking a trip to Louisiana to gamble, at which point one of the officers made the point that if we won big that we should deposit the money before coming home, because police departments along I-10 had been cleaning up taking money from people.
It’s a real problem, it’s unbelievably wrong, and the fact that in some(or even most) departments it’s used judiciously(and as ethically as taking property from someone not convicted in a court can be) doesn’t address the underlying problems with the practice as it exists in the codebooks.
There are members here who I respect, that use civil asset forfeiture in their professions…I tend to believe them when they say it’s not used improperly where they work. The problem is that this practice(even if only used against the handful of kingpins truly comparable to Pablo Escobar) is incompatible with centuries of common law and the presumption of innocence which has existed as a legal right for millennia.
It should be done away with.
Absolutely agree. It is truly unconstitutional. What happened to due process and the presumption of innocence? Seems like this country is going straight into the crapper. I would rather have 10 drug dealers get away than have a single innocent have their money confiscated unconstitutionally.
And THAT is how I feel, too.
^Ditto.
…and without a criminal conviction, some may also want to review the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
This is the only way to keep people honest.
There is way too much money in this and the way it is currently being done. When the drugs come in on one side of the highway and the money goes out on the other, which way do you want the Cops to make the stops?
If you said dope comming in, take a look on YouTube and you’ll see it doesn’t work that way as often.
I personally have never witnessed a seizure decision prior to a criminal conviction. The items that are subject to seizure (cash, cars, guns, and rarely a property in my experience) are held pending the outcome of the proceedings, but are not actually forfeited at that point.
At least in my jurisdiction, seizure proceedings are initiated in civil court (not criminal) almost concurrently with the initial arrest, as the deadline for filing them is very short. Upon indictment, the seizure proceedings are then usually held in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal case. A big reason for the delay is that in civil court, there is no fifth amendment protection. One can be made to testify against their own interest in civil court. So no potential conflict with the right against self incrimination influences the criminal proceedings, the civil case is thus delayed.
The standard for conviction is also lower (preponderance of evidence vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt) in a civil case, thus the ability to sometimes gain a seizure in a case that has not resulted in a criminal conviction. Again, because these matters play out in two separate systems.
While it is true (and common sense) that seizure proceedings are used to target high end items (we do not benefit from junk anymore than anyone else) this is not the Monty Haul booty chest most here seem to paint it as. The cats with the real high dollar assets are few and far between and like many other court cases, defendants enter into plea agreements outside of trial. Many times this results in lesser seizures than initially sought, often so the three or four babies mommas can have diaper money while daddy is a guest of the state.
At least in larger agencies, the initiating officer usually sees no direct benefit from the seizure. It is not like they will be driving the Ferrari like Sonny Crockett the next day, or wearing the Rolex home. Most officers see no direct benefit (which is how it should be to avoid abuse). The proceeds are often split between several agencies (a battle unto itself) and then the bosses decide the use of the monies. I personally have not witnessed the conduct that many here seem quick to paint most if not all LE with. Are there abuses, yes. As in any endeavor taken by men, some will always find a way to corrupt it for individual gain. This is true in any profession. These abuses are a failure of leadership and training at the level of the seizing officers, and a failure of the courts to properly evaluate the circumstances and render an appropriate decision. But again, in my experience, which is limited to my area and those areas I am aware of, it is not the widespread plague upon the rights of the innocent some would have you think it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU&feature=youtube_gdata
I think we had a multi page thread on this about a month ago, but here’s a reminder.
This, 100%. Laws aren’t written to control good and honest people. (Well, maybe they are today, but they shouldn’t be.) They should be written to control the people who would otherwise lie, cheat and steal. The fact that not all states or departments do bad things with forfeiture laws doesn’t mean they are good laws.
Forfeiture laws vary widely by state, and I imagine that the way they are used varies widely by department and/or prosecutor. You may be in a place that has more reasonable laws and good people enforcing them in legitimate ways. That’s great! I do not mean any slight to you. But we cannot rely on all people, departments and/or prosecutors being good when given a tool like this.
IMHO, the process that is apparently followed in your jurisdiction is not bad, with the exception of the forfeiture being a separate civil case. I believe any forfeiture of otherwise legal items (obviously not illegal drugs, etc.) should be allowed only after a criminal conviction of the person who had possession of them, for a clearly related offense.
Finally, I think the proceeds of any forfeiture should go strictly into a state general fund, with no amount going directly or indirectly to the agencies involved, in order to minimize the risk of agencies operating for profit rather than operating for public safety.
Snipped for brevity.
To your first paragraph, there is a member here (who can bring it up if he wishes) who was not found guilty of carrying a weapon unlawfully - nor is he being pursued for civil litigation - who has yet to receive his weapon back from the Gestapo.
To your second, this makes absolute sense and we are in agreement. Your posts always bring clarity and a levelheadedness to threads like this, however despite it not being as big of a problem as you might think, it certainly is a problem. It is more of a problem because it is something that is lawful and perceived as a good thing from those at the top in LE. If it were a bunch of roadside bandits, that’s one thing. When you have an organizational mentality that civil forfeiture is good, that’s another.