Posted on 07/30/2014 9:03:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2003, a Nebraska state trooper stopped Emiliano Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 and found $124,700 inside a cooler on the back seat of the rented Ford Taurus he was driving. Gonzolez said the money was intended to buy a refrigerated truck for a produce business, but the cops figured all that cash must have something to do with illegal drugs.
Although there was not much evidence to support that theory, under federal forfeiture law the government managed to keep Gonzolez's money based on little more than a hunch. A bill introduced last week by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would make that sort of highway robbery harder to pull off.
Civil forfeiture allows the government to take property from people who are never charged with a crime, let alone convicted, based on the fiction that the property itself is guilty. Gonzolez's case, for instance, is known as U.S. v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency.
A federal judge initially rejected that forfeiture. But in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit concluded that the government had "demonstrate(d) by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense."
Preponderance of the evidence, which requires showing that the government's theory is more likely than not to be true, is a much lower hurdle than proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," the standard used in criminal cases. In between is "clear and convincing evidence," the standard that Paul's bill, the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, would require for federal forfeiture.
Nebraska, where Gonzolez was pulled over, actually requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to complete a forfeiture under state law. But police can avoid that requirement, as they did in his case, through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program, which allows them to take advantage of looser federal standards and keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
A 2010 study by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that defends property rights and other civil liberties, found that "equitable sharing" is especially common in states with relatively strict forfeiture rules -- strong evidence of what I.J. calls "policing for profit." The FAIR Act would abolish equitable sharing, thereby preventing police and prosecutors from evading state reforms aimed at reducing forfeiture abuse.
Those reforms include channeling forfeiture revenue to functions other than law enforcement, a change designed to eliminate the profit motive that warps police priorities. Similarly, the FAIR Act would assign federal forfeiture proceeds, which last fiscal year totaled more than $2 billion, to the general fund instead of the Justice Department.
The FAIR Act also beefs up protections for innocent owners. It requires the government to prove that the owner of an asset allegedly used to facilitate a crime either himself used the property for illegal purposes, consented to that use or was "willfully blind" to it.
Current law puts the burden on innocent owners to show they did not know about the illegal use or "did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use." In other words, property owners are guilty until proved innocent, turning an ancient principle of justice on its head.
These reforms should not only make it harder for the government to take innocent people's property, but also discourage it from trying. The latter effect is important because fighting a forfeiture is arduous and expensive -- so expensive that it typically costs less simply to let the government keep its ill-gotten gains.
Last year, after Russell Caswell succeeded in blocking the federal government's forfeiture of his Massachusetts motel based on drug offenses committed by a tiny fraction of his guests, he said he could not have done it without the pro bono help of the Institute for Justice. As Caswell noted, "The government goes after people they think can't afford to fight." The FAIR Act promises to make such contests less lopsided and less common.
It has always puzzled me that police reports often contain this line:
“Suspect was found with a large amount of cash”
As if carrying large amounts of cash is somehow illegal.
Dump a large sum of money into a bank when you normally don’t do so and you’ll go on someones’s list.
I know a guy who lived alone, worked a good job and didn’t spend much. He just cashed his check and stuck the rest in a safe at home. One day he realized that keeping a couple hundred grand at home probably wasn’t a good idea and took it to the bank in a duffel bag.
The FBI showed up at his house that day and his bank account was locked down till they decided he had earned the money by legitimate means.
The wars on drugs and terror are in the end wars on all of us.
Do I laugh or cry?
Get caught with any amount over $10,000 and they will take it.
Deposit or withdraw $10,000 or more and you will have to fill out special forms that go to the IRS/FBI.
Guilty UNTIL proven innocent beyond all reasonable doubt, I guess.
It's like Kafka and the Twilight Zone had a baby and called it U.S. Law.
This legislation strongly needs to be supported and even strengthened to require conviction before the assets can be seized.
Asset forfeiture is just a fancy name for the government stealing private property.
Like most of the WOD it is corrupt and corrupting.
Deposit or withdraw $10,000 or more and you will have to fill out special forms that go to the IRS/FBI.
That's the Drug War for you. Are you a supporter?
I’m not a drug supporter, what makes you think I was?
>>Get caught with any amount over $10,000 and they will take it.<<
If you do keep more than 10K at home divide it out into amounts less than 10K and keep it separated from the rest.
Beyond firing dopers in the past when it was my job to do so, I don’t much care what they do.
It is illegal, so you will have to face the consequences of your actions if you get caught.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.