3 ms·

> To clarify a few things, at least on the county level: > I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county Which county is that, and is your co

> To clarify a few things, at least on the county level: > I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county Which county is that, and is your county representative of all counties in the US? > the affidavits officers submit read something like: "I stopped Bob after an informant purchased a large amount of heroin from Bob, Bob had syringes, heroin, weed, a scale for weighing drugs etc... on his person, and a rolled up wade of bills". The money is then seized as proceeds of criminal activity. If that's usually the case, why wasn't Bob arrested? In your scenario, he had illegal drugs in his possession, so an arrest seems more appropriate than a simple seizure. I think most the criticism of "stop and seize" stems from the the cases where a seizure was made without an arrest, perhaps under a dubious theory like "cash == drug money". > IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO CONTEST A CIVIL FORFEITURE > saying the forfeited property is not proceeds of a crime. They then have to appear in court, before a judge, and demonstrate this fact. The bar is not high, but I have never once seen this happen. Lets say Bill, who is unbanked, wants to buy a car. He saved the money for it in cash under his mattress, and now has $3000. He's transporting it, and a cop pulls him over, thinks "CASH == DRUG MONEY" and seizes it. How exactly does Bill go about demonstrating to the court that his money was not proceeds of a crime, are they just going to take him at his word? What if he employed irregularly or informally or doesn't meticulously keep his receipts? What if he physically can't make it to court? What if he's just not smart enough to make an articulate argument and is too poor to hire a lawyer?

Fezzik 11y ago
> Which county is that, and is your county representative of all counties in the US? Multnomah County, Oregon (I cited to our state statute though... most that I have seen are very similar). Seizure law is either State or Federal. > If that's usually the case, why wasn't Bob arrested? In your scenario, he had illegal drugs in his possession, so an arrest seems more appropriate than a simple seizure. Bob usually is arrested. Bob often pleas out, rats out his friends and is not charged, or occasionally is arrested and not charged because the DAs office is overworked as it is. The civil forfeiture is entirely separate from the criminal proceedings. I agree though: for example, the young man that was on the train a while back who had a large amount of money on his person should not have had it seized. That was absurdly bogus. But, as far as I can tell, that was an anomaly. > Lets say Bill, who is unbanked, wants to buy a car. He saved the money for it in cash under his mattress, and now has $3000. He's transporting it, and a cop pulls him over, thinks "CASH == DRUG MONEY" and seizes it. First, Bill would have to have drugs on him, at least in the State of Oregon, and most states. That is what constitutes "prohibited conduct" under the seizure statutes. Also, having a bank account does not matter. This is a civil case, so Bill would just appear in court and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money is not from drugs. He could say "I have a job, this is my savings" or "my grandmother gave me $3,000 to buy a car." No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple. Also, if the seizing officer did not have probable cause to believe the funds were proceeds of prohibitive conduct to begin with the judge would return the monies. Caveat - I think I sound super pro-seizure here, but with all the bad stuff the government does it bugs me when something like this gets blown out of proportion. I guess you can argue that keeping proceeds of drug dealing is alright - usually it is cocaine, heroin, and meth - but this all feels very tin-foil-hatty from the perspective of someone who reviews civil forfeitures every day. I could also be jaded by living where I do - our court system and police seem to be behave themselves well compared to the rest of the country. addition: there are other portions of the statutes that allow for seizure of profits from other conduct, like if you subject someone to indentured servitude, but these portions of the statute are seldom, if ever, used to seize funds or property. I am honestly not sure why.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  I believe I have read stories of people in Tennessee on known drug routes, and a member of the Libertarian party at an airport, being detained for hours being questioned about their possession of large amounts of cash. The man in TN didn't get it back. The man from the LP did, eventually. I simply don't believe, based on what I've read in the past, that the presence of drugs is a prerequisite for peoples' money to be stolen by police.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > Also, having a bank account does not matter. Bill, being unbanked, does not have the benefit of bank paper trails to prove where his money came from if challenged. It's also the reason that he to keeps, transports, and transacts with cash. Being a banked white person, almost all of my money has a paper trail closely associated with it. If I ever have a wad of cash, I can point to records showing where I got it. So, being banked or unbanked matters here, since it speaks to the existence of 3rd party evidence that can be use to back up claims about the source of the money. > No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple. What if he can't show up in court for whatever reason? He loses his sized cash, right? Someone made a good point upthread: these seizures end up reversing the traditional burden of proof: they money is assumed to be "guilty" until proven "innocent" (even if that burden of proof is really low). If someone has their money seized, the burden of proof should be on the state to connect them to a crime and charge them to justify the seizure, if it can't do that, the state should hand-deliver the money back to the person it was seized from.

Fezzik 11y ago

> Which county is that, and is your county representative of all counties in the US? Multnomah County, Oregon (I cited to our state statute though... most that I have seen are very similar). Seizure law is either State or Federal. > If that's usually the case, why wasn't Bob arrested? In your scenario, he had illegal drugs in his possession, so an arrest seems more appropriate than a simple seizure. Bob usually is arrested. Bob often pleas out, rats out his friends and is not charged, or occasionally is arrested and not charged because the DAs office is overworked as it is. The civil forfeiture is entirely separate from the criminal proceedings. I agree though: for example, the young man that was on the train a while back who had a large amount of money on his person should not have had it seized. That was absurdly bogus. But, as far as I can tell, that was an anomaly. > Lets say Bill, who is unbanked, wants to buy a car. He saved the money for it in cash under his mattress, and now has $3000. He's transporting it, and a cop pulls him over, thinks "CASH == DRUG MONEY" and seizes it. First, Bill would have to have drugs on him, at least in the State of Oregon, and most states. That is what constitutes "prohibited conduct" under the seizure statutes. Also, having a bank account does not matter. This is a civil case, so Bill would just appear in court and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money is not from drugs. He could say "I have a job, this is my savings" or "my grandmother gave me $3,000 to buy a car." No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple. Also, if the seizing officer did not have probable cause to believe the funds were proceeds of prohibitive conduct to begin with the judge would return the monies. Caveat - I think I sound super pro-seizure here, but with all the bad stuff the government does it bugs me when something like this gets blown out of proportion. I guess you can argue that keeping proceeds of drug dealing is alright - usually it is cocaine, heroin, and meth - but this all feels very tin-foil-hatty from the perspective of someone who reviews civil forfeitures every day. I could also be jaded by living where I do - our court system and police seem to be behave themselves well compared to the rest of the country. addition: there are other portions of the statutes that allow for seizure of profits from other conduct, like if you subject someone to indentured servitude, but these portions of the statute are seldom, if ever, used to seize funds or property. I am honestly not sure why.

unethical_ban 11y ago
I believe I have read stories of people in Tennessee on known drug routes, and a member of the Libertarian party at an airport, being detained for hours being questioned about their possession of large amounts of cash. The man in TN didn't get it back. The man from the LP did, eventually. I simply don't believe, based on what I've read in the past, that the presence of drugs is a prerequisite for peoples' money to be stolen by police.
gherkin0 11y ago
> Also, having a bank account does not matter. Bill, being unbanked, does not have the benefit of bank paper trails to prove where his money came from if challenged. It's also the reason that he to keeps, transports, and transacts with cash. Being a banked white person, almost all of my money has a paper trail closely associated with it. If I ever have a wad of cash, I can point to records showing where I got it. So, being banked or unbanked matters here, since it speaks to the existence of 3rd party evidence that can be use to back up claims about the source of the money. > No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple. What if he can't show up in court for whatever reason? He loses his sized cash, right? Someone made a good point upthread: these seizures end up reversing the traditional burden of proof: they money is assumed to be "guilty" until proven "innocent" (even if that burden of proof is really low). If someone has their money seized, the burden of proof should be on the state to connect them to a crime and charge them to justify the seizure, if it can't do that, the state should hand-deliver the money back to the person it was seized from.