Export thread

This article is an insane read. How can cops think that this is ok? Understand that this is talking about civil forfeiture, not criminal forfeiture. This means that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime for them to take your stuff. And the defenses coming from cops on this are crazy. Anyways, read for yourself

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

I agree this is reprehensible, but so is almost anything where the cost to fight it exceeds the cost to "settle" with the aggressor (see patent trolls). That it is the "government" makes it 1,000,000 times worse in this case.

Louisiana is likely the worst state for forfieture. I have a friend that is black, who buys and sells sports/concert tickets for a living. When ever he has to travel to buy tickets he gets stopped in LA multiple times coming and going. Luckily he is savvy enough not to get all that cash taken. A black man with $7,000 cash if very suspicious on Interstate 10.

Do I even need to... no, I don't think I do.

Oh, is this the first time some of you have heard of this, @Necronic ?

Texas has made the headlines repeatedly for this issue, stealing large sums of cash, cars, etc. from "suspicious" people that happen to go through specific towns.
It is reprehensible and should be stopped, but until the civil forfeiture laws are reformed, just avoid going through Texas. Simple, right?

--Patrick

sixpackshaker said:

Louisiana is likely the worst state for forfieture. I have a friend that is black, who buys and sells sports/concert tickets for a living. When ever he has to travel to buy tickets he gets stopped in LA multiple times coming and going. Luckily he is savvy enough not to get all that cash taken. A black man with $7,000 cash if very suspicious on Interstate 10.

Click to expand...

might make him look like a scalper.

Scalping is legal if you do it online. But it is difficult to get out of a traffic stop on a major highway with a large amount of cash.

PatrThom said:

Oh, is this the first time some of you have heard of this, @Necronic ?

Texas has made the headlines repeatedly for this issue, stealing large sums of cash, cars, etc. from "suspicious" people that happen to go through specific towns.
It is reprehensible and should be stopped, but until the civil forfeiture laws are reformed, just avoid going through Texas. Simple, right?

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Honestly, I live in Texas and I have never heard of this. This could be because I am white and have enough money to fight it though.

Yeah, this is an absolute bullshit process and is routinely derided by everyone save the law enforcement individuals who defend it. But you'll also notice nobody is doing anything about it other than yelling.

I think it'll take a Congressman or other politician having their money taken to get anything done.

So, what happens if they give you the option of forfieture, and you just say no?

You have no option. If you say no they take it anyway.

Your best bet is to tell them no when they want to search your car in the first place.

Ravenpoe said:

So, what happens if they give you the option of forfieture, and you just say no?

Click to expand...

They do everything they can to bury you in court, most likely using fabricated evidence and false testimony, and take your stuff anyway.

Dave said:

Your best bet is to tell them no when they want to search your car in the first place.

Click to expand...

Always the best response.[DOUBLEPOST=1376502320,1376502286][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tress said:

They do everything they can to bury you in court, most likely using fabricated evidence and false testimony, and take your stuff anyway.

Click to expand...

Channeling LeQuack there much?

Dave said:

You have no option. If you say no they take it anyway.

Your best bet is to tell them no when they want to search your car in the first place.

Click to expand...

I always do this. On the rare occasion that I have to drive through Georgia, I -always- get stopped by highway patrol. I assume it's for my Florida plates. They always give the same song and dance, about how they need to search the car, and if I say no then they'll call out police dogs to find probable cause, or call for backup, or blah blah blah. I always say whatever they have to do, they're not searching my car, and then I'm on my way.

Covar said:

Channeling LeQuack there much?

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the police in general, I was talking about the particular department mentioned in the story. But if you want to defend their glorious and noble mission to rob random people of their valuables, be my guest.

Necronic said:

Honestly, I live in Texas and I have never heard of this. This could be because I am white and have enough money to fight it though.

Click to expand...

I've heard of it through friends that travel through LA, and when the owner of the Pappas restaurant chain had several thousand dollars taken from him when driving through LA. That dang sure hit the news.

Huh, I always assumed that saying no to a search WAS probably cause.

Necronic said:

Huh, I always assumed that saying no to a search WAS probably cause.

Click to expand...

Well, you will be better protected in the long-run. It may cost you an hour on the side of the road, waiting for a JP to pass out a warrant to search.

Necronic said:

Huh, I always assumed that saying no to a search WAS probably cause.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, no. They might tell you that (I don't think there's a law against cops lying to you as long as they aren't flat out misinforming you of your rights) but you still have the full right to refuse a search without a warrant. The times it's happened to me, I've heard all kinds of threats about how bad it will be and how much of my time it will take if I refuse a search, but none of them have ever come to pass. Once they realize I'm not saying yes, they're done with me.

sixpackshaker said:

Well, you will be better protected in the long-run. It may cost you an hour on the side of the road, waiting for a JP to pass out a warrant to search.

Click to expand...

also if it is a dirty cop, by time they call into HQ to wake up a JP, other units will arrive. Even dirty cops have a hard time harassing you if there are other cops there.

Fuck the Police.

streamers fall from ceiling, banner unfurls "CONGRATS ON 100 FUCK THE POLICES"

*10,000

sixpackshaker said:

*10,000

Click to expand...

come on now, I haven't even made 10,000 total posts

You do occasionally double up.

Also people quote you. Not sure if that counts.

stienman said:

I wonder if a minimum would help. No civil seizure for amounts totaling less than $200,000. Honestly if a criminal enterprise isn't generating hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's not worth much law enforcement time, and those people with that much in assets would likely have at least the knowledge and ability to fight back.

Seizure of smaller amounts could still occur, but only through criminal court proceedings, not civil, and the burden of proof would be on the police that the smaller seizures are valid.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't have stopped them from going after the Motel Caswell. The government tried to seize the motel because a limited number of drug arrests had been made there over the last 15 years. There was never any connection to the business itself and the owner had taken steps to work with the police to keep crime in the area down. Fortunately, a judge put a stop to the seizure, but only after a 4 year legal battle. (via BBJ)

Now I know how @Thread Necromancer must feel.

This (admittedly inflammatory) video has been making the rounds lately.

I know there's that whole "State Sovereignty" thing, but it seems like this is the sort of thing that would get automatically caught and swatted rather than needing a hue and cry to get noticed. I mean, when someone suddenly shows up to work with a lot of new, expensive things, questions get asked. If a city/county/whatever suddenly starts throwing around a lot of cash, you'd think it would raise the eyebrows of people further up the chain.

--Patrick

"Bag a fag." How quaint.

HCGLNS said:

"Bag a fag." How quaint.

Click to expand...

What did I miss?

Bottom end of the article where police used a city ordinance that declared public displays of homosexuality to be a nuisance allowing officer's to seize the property of men who looked at them funny.

Huh. I learn more and more about my fellow forumites every day.

I can't recall the last time I've told someone that I'd drop the charges on them if they signed over their cash and belongings.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN WITH ME.

This might, MIGHT be some DA-level shit, but I have not heard of anything of it's like happening around me. Now, admittedly, I am not the most OBSERVANT individual out there (cue some astute Halforumer producing a half-dozen example of civil forfeiture following police activity in Chatham County, GA).

I'm not going to sit here and say it doesn't happen, because obviously it does. But I dare any one of you to point your fingers at me and suggest that I would impugn my honor with something like that.

Officer_Charon said:

Huh. I learn more and more about my fellow forumites every day.

I can't recall the last time I've told someone that I'd drop the charges on them if they signed over their cash and belongings.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN WITH ME.

This might, MIGHT be some DA-level shit, but I have not heard of anything of it's like happening around me. Now, admittedly, I am not the most OBSERVANT individual out there (cue some astute Halforumer producing a half-dozen example of civil forfeiture following police activity in Chatham County, GA).

I'm not going to sit here and say it doesn't happen, because obviously it does. But I dare any one of you to point your fingers at me and suggest that I would impugn my honor with something like that.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would. I can't speak for Necronic, but I assume he only posted your name because he was curious what your take on it was. Also, this thread is a year old.

... So it is..... I need to stop late-night Halforuming.

Officer_Charon said:

... So it is..... I need to stop late-night Halforuming.

Click to expand...

Heh, I think these threads might be a little too personal for you man. You're raising to bait you normally wouldn't.

Krisken said:

Heh, I think these threads might be a little too personal for you man. You're raising to bait you normally wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Well, it's impossible for him to take it otherwise when the title calls him out by name. Even Charlie hasn't done that.

Isn't this like the first thing they teach you when you become an officer or (in my case) YC?

"Don't take stuff from the offenders, and don't play favorites. You will get burned in the end."

Police response times in this forum are freaking terrible

Necronic said:

Police response times in this forum are freaking terrible

Click to expand...

Oh my god I laughed so hard.

Espy said:

Oh my god I laughed so hard.

Click to expand...

Likewise. I'm still laughing. That was really fucking funny.

I suspect that OC might not be allowed to respond, due to department regs or such.

jwhouk said:

I suspect that OC might not be allowed to respond, due to department regs or such.

Click to expand...

No, it took him a year to respond.

Ravenpoe said:

No, it took him a year to respond.

Click to expand...

What is this forum, Virtual Detroit?

GasBandit said:

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with him more. Lookin' at you BC.

Jeez

Still in the public eye:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/u...which-assets-to-seize.html?smid=re-share&_r=0
(Felt this was the better place rather than the "Never satisfy gas beating etc" thread)

--Patrick

Still don't understand why this is a thing.

Terrik said:

Still don't understand why this is a thing.

Click to expand...

Because governments will take whatever the people don't actively stop them from taking, and feel justified in doing so.

GasBandit said:

Because governments will take whatever the people don't actively stop them from taking, and feel justified in doing so.

Click to expand...

What bugs me more is the police officers that are actively encouraging it. Is that the kind of country they want to live in? Is it the "I'm part of the power structure so it won't harm me" mentality showing up here, or what?

It's really hilariously awful that we have separate megathreads for the Police physically beating and then also outright stealing.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

It's really hilariously awful that we have separate megathreads for the Police physically beating and then also outright stealing.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. I have no real desire to be antagonistic towards police, police departments or law enforcement in general. Actually, I generally support them. However abuse of power by an entity like this which carries the ability to ruin your life or outright end it is a scary thing. Thankfully, in the grand scheme of things, this kind of stuff is happening on a limited scale---but it is happening. And it shouldn't.

And also, let me be clear: I support police officers, lowercase, collective noun. Fuck the Police, uppercase, the entity.


and I am also a fan of The Police, both words of the proper noun capitalized.

Civil Forfeiture should not be a thing. I'm pretty sure this is part of what the founding fathers were thinking of when they said "unreasonable search AND SEIZURE." As in, the government just taking your shit.

I don't care how many "drug dealers it helps take down." This is explicitly the kind of shit we started throwing tea in harbors over. Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent etc etc.

Anyone who participates in the practice should be drawn and quartered on the national mall.

It's not often that I say this, (I think this might be the first time ever) but good for Eric Holder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

The gravy train is starting to come to a halt.

Yay! Arizona passed a law making it illegal for State and local authorities to seize money from people without due process.
Boo, it doesn't affect federal agencies like the DEA.

--Patrick

I don't know if they'll ever change that with the DEA.

But one state is a start.

According to the DEA, while it's not illegal to be black and have money, it's illegal for money to be in the hands of someone who is black. You see, it's not the person who's guilty, but the money.

http://www.abqjournal.com/580107/news/dea-agents-seize-16000-from-aspiring-music-video-producer.html

Civil forfeiture is such a vile practice.

About 100 motorcycles from the crime scene were seized through civil forfeiture law and will likely be auctioned off by the county, regardless of whether their owners are bailed or convicted.

Click to expand...

Anyone willing to buy a second hand Bandidos bike?

If I could I'd buy it and find out whose it was, then give it back to him. Can you imagine having that resource in your back pocket?

"Oh? You want to keep letting your dog shit in my yard? Let me call my friend, T-Bone and we'll see what happens next."

This one has been making the rounds lately, too: IRS Seizes $107,000 From Man’s Bank Account

The federal agents...showed McLellan paperwork that included deposits to the store’s account at Lumbee Guaranty Bank. The statements showed two deposits made within a 24-hour period totaling $11,400. The statements, they said, indicated he had a history of consistent cash deposits of less than $10,000, which is illegal. Then, the agents told the small business owner [that] The Internal Revenue Service had seized all of the money in L&M’s bank account: $107,702.66.

Click to expand...

Months after seizing McLellan’s money, the federal government offered him 50 percent of his money back if he agreed to a settlement deal by March 30.

Click to expand...

Well, that's mighty generous of them. Fortunately this story had a somewhat happy ending, where the case was dismissed...just three days after the above story was published.

Hrmm.....

--Patrick

Totally a coincidence, I'm sure.

"Yesterday, two landmark reforms took effect in Montana and New Mexico [...] Both states now require a criminal conviction for civil forfeiture, while New Mexico went even further and banned the practice outright."

Well, it's a start.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

"Yesterday, two landmark reforms took effect in Montana and New Mexico [...] Both states now require a criminal conviction for civil forfeiture, while New Mexico went even further and banned the practice outright."

Click to expand...

Law preventing property seizures cutting into police budgets

New Mexico law enforcement agencies say a new state law that prevents authorities from seizing assets from people unless they are convicted of a crime will devastate their budgets.

Click to expand...

Boo-
-fucking*-
-Hoo.

EDIT: Read the story to Kati, her comment? "If the Republicans want to cut back on crime in their state, they might want to fork over some money to their local constabulary. This might mean having to institute/raise taxes. I know that's a dirty word there, but that is what they're for."

--Patrick
*I don't swear often. By choice. I felt this time it was appropriate.

This is entirely the police's fault: for years they have used projected civil forfeiture proceeds to adjust their budgets and now that they can't afford the latest training and gear. If they want to keep their toys, they'll need to get a tax levy like everyone else... oh who am I kidding, they're just gonna shift more guys to traffic enforcement instead.

This isn't going to stop until the police lose their ability to issue fines (that they get a cut of) completely. Then again, it's almost a sure bet that they'll just shift back to shakedowns again. Wasn't it a former NYPD chief that lamented that he'd be a millionaire if it wasn't for guys like Frank Serpico exposing their grift?

Police getting a cut of the fines they write is a horrible thing only around in countries known for their corrupt administration, police states, and the USA. Much as I'd like more cops around here giving out fines for little crap occasionally (the amount of dangerous driving on Belgian roads is beyond help), it's a horrible faux solution.

Bubble181 said:

Police getting a cut of the fines they write is a horrible thing only around in countries known for their corrupt administration, police states, and the USA. Much as I'd like more cops around here giving out fines for little crap occasionally (the amount of dangerous driving on Belgian roads is beyond help), it's a horrible faux solution.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't even that they can write fines. The issue is they get a cut of it. This incentivizes them to write as many fines as they can for profit. I have no problem with the police writing fines for drunk driving or just generally improper vehicle behavior, but those fines should be going towards road and bridge maintenance.

If The Dukes of Hazzard taught me anything, it was how to jump a creak. Wait, I mean it was that the fines go to the county, and the corrupt sheriff gets 50% of 50%.

Also, that the Confederate flag stands for moonshine and bootlegging. And thus, NASCAR.

It's common practice in every state. So common, in fact, that many countries post travel warnings to vacationing citizens headed for the US, basically warning them of the practice. Anything over $100 is grounds for civil asset forfeiture in most areas. John Stossel - Policing For Profit


Obviously, the legal costs to recover the funds are generally higher than the amount seized, making it a pointless effort in futility.

https://boingboing.net/2015/12/27/doj-shuts-down-asset-forfeitur.html?fk_bb

DoJ shuts down asset forfeiture program after Congress slashes its budget
...
States have been trying to curb this practice, changing state law so that law enforcement agencies wouldn't get to keep the stuff their seized. But the DoJ wouldn't play along, meaning that cops could still keep stuff by confiscating it under federal, not state law.

Attempts to get the DoJ to play along have proved fruitless. After all, the DoJ got to split the take with local law-enforcement.. So in last week's budget bill, Congress took $1.2 billion away from the DoJ, money that they used to administer the program. Without that subsidy, the program became a money-loser. It is dead.
...

Click to expand...

Slashing the federal budget, ending government theft, what's not to like?

Holy shit Congress did something right? Is this accidental?

Dave said:

Holy shit Congress did something right? Is this accidental?

Click to expand...

Broken clocks and blind pigs, etc.

I just find it more surprising that they don't just increase the amount of seizures to make up for the shortfall.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

I just find it more surprising that they don't just increase the amount of seizures to make up for the shortfall.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

The article mentioned that many states have more restrictive seizure rules than the fed, so in those states, cops push seizures through the federal system. This is because the fed would give 80% of the money back to the state. Slashing the federal seizure budget means that they can't afford to give money back to the state, so there's no reason to push seizures through the fed program any longer. Increasing fed seizures would just mean more work for state cops with no payoff.

An agency I once worked for confiscated $10 million in one drug bust. I guess all that cash will just sit in an evidence lockup from now on.

... and we're about to find out exactly which precincts have proper funding and which do not, not to mention the market value of all that excess military equipment they can no longer afford to main and use. Expect to see a huge uptick in grift as older officers no longer have a huge pool of money to mismanage all the way into their bank accounts and they start getting involved in organized crime (again).

You'd probably see less of that if you guys actually paid your civil servants enough to live in the cities they work in (not excusing them, I find it disgusting).

It shocks me that I make more money (even after exchange) than most NYC police and I don't live in NYC.

Frank said:

It shocks me that I make more money (even after exchange) than most NYC police and I don't live in NYC.

Click to expand...

That is crazy.

AshburnerX said:

... and we're about to find out exactly which precincts have proper funding and which do not, not to mention the market value of all that excess military equipment they can no longer afford to main and use. Expect to see a huge uptick in grift as older officers no longer have a huge pool of money to mismanage all the way into their bank accounts and they start getting involved in organized crime (again).

Click to expand...

There are better ways of dealing with corrupt or greedy police officers and politicians than "just give them enough of our money so they don't need to take bribes". Pay them enough for an, often dangerous, hard job, of course; supply them with materiel they need, clearly. Giving them left-overs from the army and access to an all-you-can-take buffet of criminals' property and so on is bonkers.

Bubble181 said:

There are better ways of dealing with corrupt or greedy police officers and politicians than "just give them enough of our money so they don't need to take bribes". Pay them enough for an, often dangerous, hard job, of course; supply them with materiel they need, clearly. Giving them left-overs from the army and access to an all-you-can-take buffet of criminals' property and so on is bonkers.

Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I think it's bad they are losing all that funding. No, it's good because now we won't have full teams of fucking storm troopers marching down the streets to tear gas their neighbors all the fucking time because they just can't afford to. My point was that now we're going to see which departments have appropriate management and which ones had ones skimming off the top of that civil forfeiture money... but really, there is no "fair" amount of money we could pay these people to keep them out of grift. It's a crime of access and opportunity, cops get involved because it's easy and easy to get away with. Maybe it'll be a bit easier to track with body cameras but I'm exactly hopeful.

I didn't and don't think you think so. It's not because I continue on from something you said, that I disagree with it.

There is a fair amount of money we can pay to keep good cops out of grift: a living wage. Abuse of power, be it police, military, clergy, village notable, parent, or whatever, by someone in power and authority, "because they can get away with it" is one of the best ways to get me mad in a hurry. I don't care what bad excuses they come up with, a police officer accepting a bribe is almost at the same level of "betraying trust placed" as a priest abusing a choirboy. No sympathy at all.

(plenty of sympathy for good cops having to deal with bad situations and overworked underpaid people making mistakes and all that.)

The North Carolina Supreme Court has issues as ruling in Kirby v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation. The issue was over "The Map Act" which allowed the government to designate private land for future highway use and block any development of that land. The court found that "[t]hese restraints, coupled with their indefinite nature, constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ elemental property rights by eminent domain." The insidious aspect of this law, if it had stood, was to allow the government to devalue the land before purchase. This is not speculation since "the DOT's counsel conceded that one of the express purposes of the Act was to keep the eventual acquisition price of the designated properties low." (inversecondemnation)

I'd like to know how that act stood in the first place.
Doesn't matter whether you intend to take it now or later, taking is still taking.

--Patrick

It's just government regulated "dibs!"

Going into law in Virginia July 1:
http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/idc16.pdf

SB 457. Asset forfeiture; burden of proof. The law changesthe Commonwealth’s burden of
proof from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence in determining that property is subject to forfeiture in civil asset forfeiture cases

Not perfect, but better.

I'm all for rule changes that bring laws closer to making sense.
When a police department or legislature is revealed as being corrupt, you don't see folks come in and sell off the courthouse furnishings and department vehicles for being associated with a crime.

--Patrick

That seems good. I don't have a problem with civil forfeiture as long as the burden of proof rests with taking the asset.

Interesting case in the Red River area in Texas:

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has laid claim to up to 90,000 acres of private property in Texas. The boundary between Oklahoma and Texas in this region was defined in 1923 by the Supreme Court using the position of the Red River, with Texas territory ending at the average water level on the Southern bank and Oklahoma territory beginning at the medial line of the river. The "thin strip of sand" between the two boundaries was considered federal land. The BLM contends that even though the river has changed position since 1923, the Texas boundary did not move with it. They appear to believe that the Oklahoma boarder is set by the current position of the river. Seven landowners have brought suit against the government claiming that there is no precedent for this interpretation of the boundary (which the BLM did not adopt until 2008.) (Law360, TribTalk)

Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?

Dave said:

Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I did not, because Imgur's been hee-hawing about "BLM? What's wrong with the bureau of land management" jokes for the past week.

Dave said:

Rivers change all the time. This is bullshit. I hope the land owners win based on this slight information.

And did anyone else have to stop and think for a second about why the Black Lives Matter interest group had anything to do with this?

Click to expand...

No with the Bundy stand offs, I think Bureau of Land Management when there is rioting.

Blech.

BLECH.

"Favors"

--Patrick

I mean is anyone actually surprised that Trump is pro civil forfeiture?

Necronic said:

I mean is anyone actually surprised that Trump is pro civil forfeiture?

Click to expand...

I doubt Trump even knows what civil forfeiture is.

It ain't his stuff. That's all he cares about.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14830278/civil-forfeiture-supreme-court

Right now, the police can legally take your stuff even if you haven’t committed a crime — through what’s widely known as “civil asset forfeiture.”
On Monday, the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear he is very skeptical that this practice is constitutional. While he ultimately denied a petition that would bring a case about civil forfeiture to the Court, he did so on a technicality — adding that modern civil forfeiture practices are very questionable.

Click to expand...

Interesting ruling from the Supreme Court striking down Colorado's practice of keeping court costs and fines taken from defendants who have their guilty verdicts overturned:

“Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. (New York Times)

Seems like pretty clearly the right call.

How the fuck do you vote against that?

I'm asking you, Clarence Thomas.

Frank said:

How the fuck do you vote against that?

I'm asking you, Clarence Thomas.

Click to expand...

I think he's secretly in contact with Scalia's ghost or some shit.

AshburnerX said:

I think he's secretly in contact with Scalia's ghost or some shit.

Click to expand...

Or else he's being manipulated by a so-called medium with her own agendum who's stringing him along, like he's the subject of some 20's-era comedy hijinks.

--Patrick

AshburnerX said:

I think he's secretly in contact with Scalia's ghost or some shit.

Click to expand...

Ya but Alito voted for the overturning (was on the "correct" side according to all of us) as well, and he's generally been portrayed as mini-Scalia, so that isn't it either.

That original law is just insanity.

Frank said:

How the fuck do you vote against that?

I'm asking you, Clarence Thomas.

Click to expand...

Something, something, small government!

Good news from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

Yes, keep it up, let's see more people wake up to the idea.

--Patrick

It's Baaaaaaaaaacccckkkk!!!!!

Time: Jeff Sessions Wants Cops to Seize More Money From Suspected Criminals
Canadian Reporting on it: US restoring asset seizures - with safeguards

F'n hell. I think the "safeguards" are a load of crap. This whole thing is a load of crap. Seize evidence at time of arrest. It's evidence until conviction. If the charges are dropped (or never filed within 48 hours, or whatever the requirement is), anything not by definition illegal (ie: drugs are still confiscated) is returned. FULL STOP.

If you read comments below articles on various sites, there is nobody that wants this, no matter how right or left-wing. This is apparently cops-only that want their funding, or something.


Any efforts to get this thing ENTIRELY thrown out via SCOTUS or something? This seems like a very open-and-shut good case for the constitutional literalists to get a win that the public LIKES.

Jeff Sessions is the worst thing trump has done to America.

blotsfan said:

Jeff Sessions is the worst thing trump has done to America.

Click to expand...

I dunno, there is a lot of competition.

It won't stop until there is a law at the federal level banning it.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

It won't stop until there is a law at the federal level banning it.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

The latest DOJ announcement lets police overrule state laws banning the practice.

I think we have teh Donald's plan for paying off his debts to the Russian banks.

You knew this was going to happen, and you still voted to confirm him, asshole.

DarkAudit said:

You knew this was going to happen, and you still voted to confirm him, asshole.

Click to expand...

I'm not doubting your statement, I'm just curious where Sessions had said he was going to do this prior to getting confirmed. Was it part of the confirmation hearings? There's a lot of "noise" out there right now, so if you can throw me a link, that'd be awesome.

Eriol said:

I'm not doubting your statement, I'm just curious where Sessions had said he was going to do this prior to getting confirmed. Was it part of the confirmation hearings? There's a lot of "noise" out there right now, so if you can throw me a link, that'd be awesome.

Click to expand...

Here's one at random from a fairly large pool: Jeff Sessions Loves Asset Forfeiture. Will Congress Grill Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

If you want more, what I did was use Google News, with search dates of 1/1/2015-3/1/2016 and the search term "Jeff Sessions Asset Forfeiture".

Denbrought said:

Here's one at random from a fairly large pool: Jeff Sessions Loves Asset Forfeiture. Will Congress Grill Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

If you want more, what I did was use Google News, with search dates of 1/1/2015-3/1/2016 and the search term "Jeff Sessions Asset Forfeiture".

Click to expand...

Good enough for me. Thanks man.

Then ya, @DarkAudit I'm totally with you on this. WTF was Rand Paul thinking voting for the guy?

Eriol said:

Good enough for me. Thanks man.

Then ya, @DarkAudit I'm totally with you on this. WTF was Rand Paul thinking voting for the guy?

Click to expand...

It's the same tactic John McCain uses. Spout off to the press about the administration, but then vote straight party line anyway.

DarkAudit said:

It's the same tactic John McCain uses. Spout off to the press about the administration, but then vote straight party line anyway.

Click to expand...

In other words, run out and bark a lot but still come back to the same teat where you've always suckled.

--Patrick

You don't even need to be accused of a crime for them to take your stuff now. Police planned to sell crime victim's car at auction instead of returning it.

DarkAudit said:

You don't even need to be accused of a crime for them to take your stuff now. Police planned to sell crime victim's car at auction instead of returning it.

Click to expand...

They even violated their own written policies on this one. Yikes.

Eriol said:

They even violated their own written policies on this one. Yikes.

Click to expand...

It was a Crown Vic. Maybe they wanted it for themselves.

It's Philadelphia. The only place more corrupt in the US that I can think of would be Chicago. It doesn't surprise me at all that they violated their own already-unacceptable policies. Why any sane person lives there, I'll never understand.

GasBandit said:

It's Philadelphia. The only place more corrupt in the US that I can think of would be Chicago. It doesn't surprise me at all that they violated their own already-unacceptable policies. Why any sane person lives there, I'll never understand.

Click to expand...

...except for the fact that it's actually Colorado.

Tress said:

...except for the fact that it's actually Colorado.

Click to expand...

Ah, I thought the link was about the same story as the tweet.

GasBandit said:

Ah, I thought the link was about the same story as the tweet.

Click to expand...

You should read the linked story. It's even more amazingly stupid than the tweet.

Tress said:

You should read the linked story. It's even more amazingly stupid than the tweet.

Click to expand...

Sadly, having experienced Colorado bureaucracy, I don't find that beyond credulity either. There's a lot of authority figures who think a WHOLE lot of themselves.

Police: We sent her a letter telling her that her car could be picked up. She didn't do it so we charged fees until the only way to recoup those fees was to sell it.
News Reporter: Why was the letter dated on the day that we contacted you and not the date you said it was sent?
Police: Uh...reasons.

It's not just that stupid. Even if they had sent that letter when tbey said they did, they gave her at most 3 days to respond before adding the car to their auction.

And what the fuck are they even doing impounding the car? Shit, they ought to be returning the car to her door.

Gruebeard said:

what the fuck are they even doing impounding the car? Shit, they ought to be returning the car to her door.

Click to expand...

They thought maybe it was a victim of Studebaker Syndrome. You know, like Patty Hearse.

--Patrick

DarkAudit said:

Federal court finds Albuquerque asset forfeiture law unconstitutional violation of due process, innocent until proven guilty.

Click to expand...

“In what is surely unrelated news, citations for civil infractions are expected to more than triple*”

—Patrick
*This doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the article, but I’d be curious to see if anyone will keep track just to see if anything like this actually happens.

DarkAudit said:

Federal court finds Albuquerque asset forfeiture law unconstitutional violation of due process, innocent until proven guilty.

Click to expand...

But i thought they whre already only keping it after thhey proved the money was guilty...

@Li3n said:

But i thought they whre already only keping it after thhey proved the money was guilty...

Click to expand...

No, they were keeping it after the defendant failed to prove it was innocent. There’s a difference. A BIG one.

—Patrick

PatrThom said:

No, they were keeping it after the defendant failed to prove it was innocent. There’s a difference. A BIG one.

—Patrick

Click to expand...

That's not supposed to be true though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency#Dissenting_opinion

But any way, the idea of suing property is is stupid, and that's what i was getting at...

@Li3n said:

the idea of suing property is is stupid, and that's what i was getting at...

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly, but they may need to be careful, because if they enter a precedent that property may not be held guilty/innocent as regards any crime, then they will also no longer be able to make the claim that guns are intrinsically “evil...”

—Patrick

PatrThom said:

I agree wholeheartedly, but they may need to be careful, because if they enter a precedent that property may not be held guilty/innocent as regards any crime, then they will also no longer be able to make the claim that guns are intrinsically “evil...”

—Patrick

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone tried to sue guns yet... so i think we're fine.

@Li3n said:

I don't think anyone tried to sue guns yet... so i think we're fine.

Click to expand...

Given the number of "odd" things that have been before courts, I don't think it's ridiculous to think that may happen.

evilmike said:

Good news from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

In a unanimous, 73-page opinion, the court found that although authorities have the right to seize property used in illegal enterprises, they must prove that the owner not only was aware of the illegal activity but also had agreed to it. The court also found that property seizures may breach the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines if the seizure is “grossly disproportional” to the underlying offense.​

(Philly.com)​

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has now UNANIMOUSLY affirmed that 8th Amendment protections are not limited solely to federal actions, they also apply to States under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
State (and also presumably city) governments which indiscriminately vacuum up assets wholesale may now be opening themselves up to the possibility of being sued under the 8th Amendment if their seizure is shown to be "unreasonable."

--Patrick

UNANIMOUS. I feel like that should be pointed out.

Krisken said:

UNANIMOUS. I feel like that should be pointed out.

Click to expand...

Also nice of Roberts to assign this opinion to RBG, since it's likely to be a very important/lasting case to have in your legacy.

On the not so bright side, Thomas' (per his concurrence) would've limited this protection to U.S. citizens. Weirdo gonna weird, as usual.

Krisken said:

UNANIMOUS. I feel like that should be pointed out.

Click to expand...

Done.

--Patrick

Denbrought said:

Also nice of Roberts to assign this opinion to RBG, since it's likely to be a very important/lasting case to have in your legacy.

On the not so bright side, Thomas' (per his concurrence) would've limited this protection to U.S. citizens. Weirdo gonna weird, as usual.

Click to expand...

Did the weird alien on the court write something about that?

Oh please, Den, like you haven't considered Thomas might be an alien invader from outer space.

Krisken said:

Oh please, Den, like you haven't considered Thomas might be an alien invader from outer space.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. I was thinking you were talking about a different justice, since I was already specifically mentioning him.

His opinions on jurisprudence truly are out of this world.

Crossposted from @Krisken 's post in the political thread:



Nathan also links to this site which has recent grades for each state on their forfeiture policies.
Spoiler alert: If you live anywhere other than NM you might want to think twice before carrying large sums of cash on your person.

--Patrick

The real reason to not carry large amounts of cash isn't threat of robbers, but threat of police.

(Link to threadreader unfURL of entire thread here)

I always thought that CAF was something done mainly to confiscate large sums or big-ticket items, didn't realize it was also used to treat poor people like wandering ATM NPCs.

--Patrick

Good.

--Patrick

I can’t believe that this can happen. I also am somewhat shocked that someone would travel with that much cash, but that shouldn’t allow this to happen.

I’m glad he got his money back. I fear that his is a rare win.

At least somewhat related:


Cops destroy stolen goods rather than have to go through the difficulty of returning it to the owners, or account for anything valuable.

Yeah they got lucky. That got REAL lucky.
That power bank is obviously very durable.

--Patrick

REDACTED. @Krisken posted the same thing further up the page. It's just trending again. (Cops taking more of your stuff than burglars did.)

DarkAudit said:

REDACTED. @Krisken posted the same thing further up the page. It's just trending again. (Cops taking more of your stuff than burglars did.)

Click to expand...

The reminder doesn't hurt.

This is why it is trending again.

Boston Police Bought Spy Tech With a Pot of Money Hidden From the Public

They used the money from civil forfeiture to buy a "stingray" celltower spoofing device. This was largely hidden from the public because the city council has no control over how seized money is used, it is not considered part of the police budget, but they still get to spend it as they please.

In case you guys were wondering, the cops are still stealing more things from citizens than criminals are... unless you count wage theft

Sex Crime Victim Denied $69,000 Settlement Because Cops Seized Her Abuser's Cash Through Civil Forfeiture

A man abused a 5 year-old girl, who is now a teenager, and eventually pled guilty to multiple sex crimes. The victim won a civil lawsuit against him, but hasn't seen a dime of the money because police seized the money, and the government won't give it to her.

United States v. Place (1983) states: “Where law enforcement authorities have probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband or evidence of a crime, but have not secured a warrant, the Court has interpreted the [Fourth] Amendment to permit seizure of the property, pending issuance of a warrant to examine its contents, if the exigencies of the circumstances demand it..."

Click to expand...

Technically not "forfeiture" and no doubt framed as "We are doing this to preserve evidence that might be lost if the car's owner were allowed to continue to operate it," but wouldn't just putting some kind of sticker on the driver's-side window saying, "Hey, we think your vehicle may have witnessed a crime. Please contact us if you agree to participate in the investigation" [Emphasis mine] be the proper way to do this?

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Cops Are Starting To Tow Away Teslas To ‘Secure’ Recordings Captured By The Cars’ Cameras

Well, here’s a not-so-fun new twist in the search-and-seizure narrative. Car owners are being deprived of their vehicles just because cops think footage of a crime may have been captured by t…

www.techdirt.com

Technically not "forfeiture" and no doubt framed as "We are doing this to preserve evidence that might be lost if the car's owner were allowed to continue to operate it," but wouldn't just putting some kind of sticker on the driver's-side window saying, "Hey, we think your vehicle may have witnessed a crime. Please contact us if you agree to participate in the investigation" [Emphasis mine] be the proper way to do this?

--Patrick

Click to expand...

We live in a police state. The public will be given no consideration and the police will be given every consideration. The cop outside shoulda told you when he gave you a stop and frisk.

...sometimes it doesn't go badly? Four years is WAY too long, though.

--Patrick