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.
A black-robed tyrant would very happily "award" that if they get a kickback.
But... but... the thin blue line! Back the blue! It's only a small minority!
I think you need to go back and re-read your post #36, I am assuming your POS comment was directed towards??
OK, I don’t know what your background is and I will try and see if I can explain how the system works. The biggest problem with your premise is it doesn’t take into account the “straw-owner” concept. Using a drug dealer as an example, most drug dealers do not put things in their name. Whether it’s a car, house, property, what-have-you. They use a third-party to avoid losing the property.
This is why dealers use rental cars to have mules move drugs from point A to point B. They know rental cars will not be seized so they are not out anything.
So the drug dealer is stopped driving his Mercedes. The dealer has been seen driving the car on multiple occasions and he claims the car is actually owned by person B.
The car is seized pending forfeiture because there is a track record of only the drug dealer being seen in the vehicle.
At this point, the forfeiture investigation looks at: Who is the car titled to? How was the car paid for and by whom? Who has physical control of the car? Has the titled owner ever been seen driving the car? Has the titled owner paid for repairs or fuel for the vehicle? Does the titled owner have the resources to pay cash for the car?
In other words, building a case to show the titled owner is a straw-man and the drug dealer is the true owner of the vehicle by virtue of use and possession.
The case is then filed against the CAR. The car is considered proceeds or facilitation. It was either purchased by illegally gained money or it was used in the transaction of the drug dealers business. There are no charges against the titled “owner” of the vehicle because he really isn’t the owner.
So you can’t get a felony conviction against a straw-owner.
Many times, property/cash is returned promptly to an individual because the investigation shows there is no criminal conduct. A lot of times, the cash is just abandoned by the dealer as the cost of doing business.
In the example cited, it appears the S/O was running a scam stealing money from casino winners under the guise of “forfeiture”. It wasn’t. It was theft and should be called out. But on the same token, don’t paint everything with the same broad brush.
That’s why I said forfeiture is one of the least understood aspects of policing.
That’s a damned good way to get a midnight visit by a large group with ropes.
Again, forfeiture or theft? Sounds like theft to me.
The problem is that it is badly written law that incentivizes bad behavior. There really should be a requirement for conviction before forfeiture.
Otherwise, it’s just robbery by legal technicality rather than constitutional due process.
The law, depending on state, is probably written well. I will not dispute there are some departments that have used the law in a way it wasn’t intended. But I submit most departments don’t. In previous posts, the actions of departments cited sound like departments that are out of control. I guess people will also complain these towns are speed-traps, abusive to prisoners, sit outside bars a closing time and arrest drunk drivers, or all of the above.
I submit there are bad apples in any organization. It’s easy to pick on cops because whenever a crew shows up at a scene, at least one person will not be happy. Someone will either go to jail, get a ticket, or not get the desired result. But there are departments that do forfeiture the way it was intended. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand how the process works and seize on the outlier as the norm.
The proper response to armed robbery is...
“the 95% are just as bad as the 5% if they don’t actively work to get rid of them.
Show me a bad ______ and then tell me half the _____ didn’t know.”
Doctor-Hospital
Pilot-Airline
Teacher-School
Electrician-Union
Fireman-Department
Reporter-Media outlet
Pick one.
Apparently licking jackboots, according to some.
Something to consider.
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/bad-apples-bad-laws.pdf
This report summarizes the results of an original study designed to test the incentives created by civil forfeiture law.
Steve Lehto has some good videos about this on YouTube.
steven lehto civil asset forfeiture - Google Search
https://www.google.com/search?q=steven+lehto+civil+asset+forfeiture&oq=steven+lehto+civil+asset+forfeiture&aqs=chrome..69i57.18331j0j9&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4f13c396,vid:OKdlHtViW_Y,st:0
A couple of observations on the report.
First, they start out with anecdotal information regarding a police raid where the son was selling drugs in the house of the mother. The mother, according to the authors, was not involved in the sale of narcotics.
Fair enough.
What isn’t said is the possible back-story. I have no first-hand knowledge of this case, but I can see the same scenario here as what occurred with rental cars. Is it possible this wasn’t the first raid on the property where drugs were being sold? Is it possible the son was involved in drug activity using the house previously, the house was searched and the owner advised that further facilitation of drug activity could result in forfeiture? Again, I don’t know all the facts of the case.
Like the rental cars, dealers would rent cars for explicit purpose of delivering drugs from point A to point B. The rental car companies didn’t care because they got the rental fee and the cars returned. The drug dealers didn’t worry about having their own vehicles seized. It was a win-win for the drug trade.
This went on for quite awhile until the rental car companies were put on notice that the continued rental of vehicles for this activity could subject the vehicles to seizure for facilitation. The rental car companies became more selective on how they rented out their vehicles.
It eliminated one way for drugs to be transported across country.
The “informant” who stated the police were only interested in the cash and not the drugs...again, not enough information to judge, but there may have been other issues the informant wasn’t aware of such as the ability to secure a search warrant, the physical location where the drugs were stored, or minor children in the residence and the potential of the dealer to be armed. Again, not enough information to judge.
Also, the game’s participants were college undergraduates. They did not have a law enforcement background nor were they trained in either law or rules of evidence. While generalizations could be similar, would you accept this “game” as indicative of an outcome if it were geared to another profession?
Lastly, and most importantly, the report was generated for a group with a stated agenda of eliminating civil forfeiture. I tend to look at these types of organizations as being less than unbiased and neutral. It would be the same as a report by Brady Group on gun control. The conclusion is reached and the evidence offered supports an already stated objective.
Color me skeptical.
By now you have probably surmised I have been up close and personal with forfeiture cases. I have won some and lost some. But I never took advantage of the law to deprive anyone of their property illegally.
If that qualifies me as a POS or worthy of a 158 gr. round, so be it. The difference is I know the law, presented the case before a judge, and didn’t base my argument on anecdotal articles that I read somewhere.
True.
I’ve seen Steve’s videos before and as a defense attorney, I expect him to make those arguments. But would you give the same weight to a DOJ attorney making a case in favor of forfeiture?
Every case is unique and has it’s own set of facts. There is no “one-size fits all” answer to every situation. All police departments don’t abuse civil forfeiture either. To assume they do is a disservice to guys who are trying to do it right.
Can’t argue with that.
They were no better than the guys burglarizing a house or robbing a convenience store. But I would bet, the rot ran from top to bottom in that department. The Chief was probably as dirty as the lowest patrol officer.
That scenario didn’t happen overnight either. It was an accepted practice for a long time.
Everyone in town was aware of it but the powers to be either got a cut or were too gutless to act.
“would you accept this “game” as indicative of an outcome if it were geared to another profession?”
Yes, actually, I would. Humans are naturally self dealing, altruism is secondary and a lot of altruism is disguised self dealing. Hell, that’s what liberalism is.
Cops are human and respond similarly to the same incentives and disincentives and in the same general proportions as the rest of us
The reason you behave honorably in the system isn’t because of the system, it’s because of your own innate character. But everyone isn’t you and forfeiture laws do have perverse incentives to bad behavior. After 40 years it’s time to take a look at them and fix or end them.
Self government is meant to be self correcting.
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.