Posted on 04/07/2021 1:49:17 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The current state of civil asset forfeiture in the United States is one of almost naked tyranny. Don’t believe us? Listen to the latest Resistance Library Podcast.
Picture this: You’re driving home from the casino and you've absolutely cleaned up – to the tune of $50,000. You see a police car pull up behind you, but you can’t figure out why. Not only have you not broken any laws, you’re not even speeding. But the police officer doesn’t appear to be interested in charging you with a crime. Instead, he takes your gambling winnings, warns you not to say anything to anyone unless you want to be charged as a drug kingpin, then drives off into the sunset.
This actually happened to Tan Nguyen, and his story is far from unique. On this episode on the Resistance Library Podcast Dave and Sam discuss the topic of civil asset forfeiture, a multi-billion dollar piggybank for state, local and federal police departments to fund all sorts of pet projects.
With its origins in the British fight against piracy on the open seas, civil asset forfeiture is nothing new. During Prohibition, police officers often seized goods, cash and equipment from bootleggers in a similar manner to today. However, contemporary civil asset forfeiture begins right where you’d think that it would: The War on Drugs.
In 1986, as First Lady Nancy Reagan encouraged America’s youth to “Just Say No,” the Justice Department started the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This sparked a boom in civil asset forfeiture that’s now become self-reinforcing, as the criminalization of American life and asset forfeiture have continued to feed each other.
In sum, asset forfeiture creates a motivation to draft more laws by the legislature, while more laws create greater opportunities for seizure by law enforcement. This perverse incentive structure is having devastating consequences: In 2014 alone, law enforcement took more stuff from American citizens than burglars did.
Republicans haven’t been a damn bit better regarding Civil asset forefiture.
There should be no civil asset forfeiture at all.
The laws provide for fines and punishments ... on conviction there should be nothing beyond those. If the fines aren’t adequate then increase them.
the 95% are just as bad as the 5% if they don’t actively work to get rid of them.
Show me a bad cop and then tell me half the force didn’t know.
And the limits for what existing laws allows as fines.
No.
Forfeiture is one where any non-fascist is utterly and unalterably opposed to ANY of it happening until a conviction in court for a felony. Period. Anyone who can support, justify, or rationalize it, AT ALL except upon conviction is a lowlife thug needing a 158 grains to the cerebellum
There should be no civil forfeiture at all, under any circumstances.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/14/humboldt-county-settles-suits-i-80-cash-seizures/
"Nguyen was given a written warning for speeding but wasn't cited. As a condition of release, he signed a "property for safekeeping receipt," which indicated the money was abandoned or seized and not returnable. But the lawsuit says he did so only because Dove threatened to seize his vehicle unless he "got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened."
After Nguyen's stop, the sheriff issued a news release with a photograph of Dove pictured with a K-9 and $50,000 in seized cash "after a traffic stop for speeding." "This cash would have been used to purchase illegal drugs and now will benefit Humboldt County with training and equipment. Great job," the statement said."
And that is the misconception of civil forfeiture. You DO have to show the cash/property is either used in facilitation or proceeds of a criminal act. You just don’t go into a court and say to the judge the property was used in a crime, you have to show the nexus of how the property is related to a crime.
For example...a known drug dealer has a Mercedes and is seen constantly driving the car. He is stopped with coke in the car and the car is seized. He goes to court and says the car is actually his mom’s and although he drives the car occasionally, the car is really hers. Mom brings in “friends” that testify they see her drive the car to church every Sunday. Since there is corroborating evidence the car is mom’s the state doesn’t prevail. BTW...this is a real example.
The investigation into forfeiture is usually done by detectives other than the ones who initiate the seizure. The problem is there are too many “horror” stories about forfeiture (just like stories about bad cops) that taint the way the process is done. Like I said, in the example stated, this wasn’t a forfeiture, it was theft.
So was it forfeiture or theft?
And anyone who makes a blanket statement about something they obviously haven’t read the law on probably couldn’t find a person’s cerebellum to place the aforementioned 158 grain round.
Awwww, somebody didn’t lick your jackboots?
Institute for Justice has been fighting this for a long time.
It falls in the same category as child molestation:
-I don’t need to read any specific article, or ANYTHING to know that it’s *always* wrong,
-and I don’t need to know anything more about someone than that they could *ever*, in any circumstances, for any reason justify or rationalize it to know what to think about that P.O.S.
I believe the DA’s excuse was “procedural issues”. LOL.
That’s theft by playing loosey goosey with the law till they got busted and sued.
How else do you explain the wrong type of receipt being issued and then the DA’s office not filing proper seizure cases against the property in a timely manner.
Plus the pretextual speeding stops that turn into vehicle searches without reasonable suspicion. Or the little statistical issue of how they keep finding casino cash, but not drugs.
They settled to avoid discovery.
As an observation, I think you will probably find more abuses of the system in a sheriff’s office rather than a municipal department since most sheriffs are elected and their departments are more subject to political influences.
That may be too broad of a statement, but it seems most of the abuses tend to be done at the direction of the top cop.
In the case mentioned, the subject signed a release basically abandoning the cash. The S/O had the news conference and said how they had “forfeited” the cash that would have been used by a “drug dealer”. I would be willing to bet if you did a deep dive on this case, it still went before a judge and the S/O using the “abandoned” cash receipt got a court to order the forfeiture.
Regardless of verbiage, it still takes a court order to take items from an individual. Again, on this particular instance, it appears the the S/O was more guilty of theft than anything.
So now we are down to name calling rather than having a discussion? You made a broad statement without a fact base. I’m willing to discuss the process from professional experience. What about you?
No, that was one of the procedural issues. The DA was not filing in a timely manner. We’ll never know what else they were up to or how many people just gave up because legal fees were mounting up.
Like I said, they settled to avoid trial discovery.
I don’t see calling theft as theft is “name-calling”
Civil Asset forfeiture in any case except after conviction for a felony is wrong.
If you can possibly refute that in any way I’ll be utterly amazed, but please go ahead and try.
I’m saying this: some things are *wrong*, always and in any circumstances, and the people who believe otherwise are evil. If you have facts or experiences to counter this, in other words circumstances in which the State taking the property of a citizen without trial by the threat of force without recourse to a jury, please post them
A ‘court order’ should never be enough to take items from an individual, ONLY a conviction.
I tend to agree with your assessment on this.
Most people don’t know the prosecutor’s office gets a “piece of the pie”. It was probably a case of settling to avoid discovery since it could come back to impact the prosecutor...who is an elected official.
There are horror stories about all phases of law enforcement. Unfortunately, forfeiture is one of the least understood processes in the system. I do not condone, nor have I ever condoned abusing the process to enrich a department. Most departments have used asset forfeiture in a responsible manner.
Are there outliers? Of course, there are outliers in any profession, but to paint all departments with a broad brush without an understanding of the process is just as bad as departments that abuse the system.
My point is, although a police department can hold a press conference and say they seized money/property doesn’t mean they get to keep said property. There is a process that goes with the seizure. The police department doesn’t make the final decision, and it takes a court order to forfeit property from an individual.
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.