Civil Forfeiture. WTF?

[Z..]

This thread goes for everyone but Will, since he will undoubtedly respond with a 4000 word post about Obama.



How is this crap allowed in America? How can something of yours be confiscated when there is no illegal activity going on? I see this as being the catalyst for something bad. One day a cop is going to try and take something and it's not going to go over...I'm wondering how I'd react if a cop tried to steal money from me. That's what they're doing, stealing.

[Will Robinson]

Too bad you need me to be your 'bogeyman'...the "anti-Obama" voice when I've actually pointed this crap out long ago and have offered solutions like ending the war on drugs, abolishing the Dept of Homeland Security, etc. etc.

But since you need the bogeyman carry on pretending I have an anti-Obama position on this. I guess you think it makes your anti-conservative phobia less obvious huh? Yea, like a three strand of greasy twirled comb-over on your shiny scalp it does.

[Z..]

No sir, you just contribute diddly squat to the conversation(s). We all already know what you're going to say, so don't even bother. I'm not sure eliminating the DHS is going to stop a cop in Nevada from confiscating cash during a routine stop, but sure man, you certainly have the answers that we've all been looking for! I don't need you to be a boogeyman--you're just incredibly boring to talk to. Verbose posts don't change the fact that it's gibberish within the sentences.

[callmeslick]

the laws about forfeiture, and when it can be done, vary widely. It has been, in some quarters, abused and utilitzed as an asset builder for local police departments. Most of the time, there IS a crime utilizing the property to commit. As such, it is a deterrent to those who would run drugs in the car, or use a piece of remote real estate for a meth lab. There should be very stringent controls on the use of forfeiture, but I wouldn't favor removing it from the arsenal of tools for crime fighting.

[Foil]

There's a pretty good state-by-state rundown of civil forfeiture laws for the U.S. here:

http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfitPDF

...I wouldn't favor removing [forfeiture] from the arsenal of tools for crime fighting.

I would.

[fliptw]

seizures should be by default temporary, unless the previous owner was indicted or convicted of a crime in the meantime. A month would be more then enough.

[Z..]

So next summer, when I move and by chance decide to carry a large amount of cash, I should have to wait for a month for some precinct in Arkansas to return my money to Colorado even though I've done absolutely nothing wrong?!! WTF is the matter with you people? Aren't we supposed to be either in the act of committing a crime or have already committed a crime for property to be seized?? How is this even defensible?

The fact that it can't be evenly applied means it shouldn't exist. The law is supposed to be black and white and this is way too much of a grey area.

[Tunnelcat]

This almost sounds unconstitutional. From Foil's PDF.

Once your property is taken, the government
will—perhaps—send you a notice letting you know
that the burden is on you to try to get your property
back.

This is putting the burden on the owner of the property, innocent or not, to get that property back. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? And didn't a lot of this come about when the war on drugs ramped up years ago?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... iture.html

http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-g ... -property/

[callmeslick]

sure, let's all go with the Freemen's approach. It's called anarchy. I'm not endorsing a wholesale confiscation of property, nor would I think that it should ever be done putting the burden of proof upon the person who forfeited same, but still, I can see instances where it may be a valid deterrent to certain types of crimes, in which the person earning the most on the illegal act bears the least exposure(lots of drug crimes).

[Tunnelcat]

Sure, but what happens when it's taken too far, as appears to be happening in some police jurisdictions? It's being used as a pure profit maker. There's no checks and balances to regulate the use of this law by the authorities when they abuse their power.

[Will Robinson]

Sure, but what happens when it's taken too far, as appears to be happening in some police jurisdictions? It's being used as a pure profit maker. There's no checks and balances to regulate the use of this law by the authorities when they abuse their power.

Where is the Constitution and all the laws at State level that demand due process, etc.
Sure a local department may seize some assets that they shouldnt but there is usually a lawyer or a swarm of them willing to take on the system when it is being abusive.

To say there 'are no checks and balances' implies these seizure laws have truly defeated some fundamental rights that are inalienable.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Sure, but what happens when it's taken too far, as appears to be happening in some police jurisdictions? It's being used as a pure profit maker. There's no checks and balances to regulate the use of this law by the authorities when they abuse their power.

Where is the Constitution and all the laws at State level that demand due process, etc.
Sure a local department may seize some assets that they shouldnt but there is usually a lawyer or a swarm of them willing to take on the system when it is being abusive.

To say there 'are no checks and balances' implies these seizure laws have truly defeated some fundamental rights that are inalienable.

How's this for an idea... The police department itself should not benefit entirely from the forfeiture. I would make it law that monetary assets go to the police department, but sale of all property goes to non-police-department public construction and maintenance.

[Spidey]

Police would simply (so to speak) funnel the money into corrupt businesses to get a kickback, and they would have to steal (calling it what it is) even more property to get what they want. And even more people would have skin in the game.

No, the last thing you want to do with something like this is spread it around. (like cancer)

The laws need to be removed, that’s all there is to it, they were never designed to deter crime, the total purpose is to circumvent the constitution by bypassing due process, and allowing double jeopardy. (in the case of other “civil” statutes) (just ask OJ)

If you want to find some irony here…the same class of “civil” statutes that allow the government to prosecute you for violations, makes it legal for them violate civil rights.

[Sergeant Thorne]

A good point. I guess I was thinking more of road construction, etc, where the city/county is the one doing it. But I strongly disagree with bypassing due process.