12 ms·

What life is like after police ransack your house, then the charges are dropped

246 points by llamataboot 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago
See also https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-f... , and in particular the graph: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-28-at-3.06.30-PM.png https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/...
- llamataboot 11y ago
  That graph is always shocking to me. Not only in terms of the terrible irony in having the police steal more than the people they are protecting us from but because asset forfeiture has quintupled in just 10 years.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    For me it clarifies the nature of "protection" rackets in general.
  - watty 11y ago
    While it's shocking, is it really all "stolen"? The linked case is absolutely appalling but doesn't this graph include forfeiture of real drug money as well? For example, here's a quick $90M bust: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-million-cash-cartel-laundered-money-article-1.1961449 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-milli...
    - tedks 11y ago
      Without a trial, it isn't "real" drug money. It's accused drug money. In the United States, we nominally presume innocence until guilt is proven. Since civil forfeiture uses kangaroo courts, there is no proof and so it isn't "real" drug money.
      - watty 11y ago
        I don't understand. If a cop pulls over a drug dealer and happens to find drugs and $1M, isn't that still counted in the graph as forfeiture? Let's assume the drug dealer is convicted.
        talmand 11y ago
        In that case it's likely justified. But then you can link the forfeiture to an actual person being tried in a court of law. Many, many, many of these cases are things like "State Court vs $12,348.45". In those cases there's no defense and the owner of the property has to interject as a third party to attempt to get their property back. In many cases it'll cost more to retrieve the property than the value of the property in the first place. Also, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back. I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
        true_religion 11y ago
        The problem with civil forfeiture isn't actual criminals, it is what happens to everyone who is profiled as a potential criminal. Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction. The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It's partly a gimmick, it includes huge fines related to the Madoff case and huge fines paid by Toyota (neither of which are particularly gross examples of law enforcement excess). http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2015-11-civil-asset-forfeiture-report http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/20...
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      > A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers reported today represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, the institute says. "Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward,"
  - JimboOmega 11y ago
    People always talk about the cost of the war on drugs. The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)
kbenson 11y ago
> Shattuck says her marriage and birth certificates haven't been returned, and since the Task Force does not itemize seized documents in its paperwork, it has no record of taking them in the first place. Maybe this provides a clue for how to curb civil forfeiture in a way that skirts the arguments for it. Make all government agencies that seize property responsible for very clearly logging and indicating where it was found, the condition it was in (photographically and by description), and to store it appropriately so it will not be damaged or deteriorate beyond what would be considered normal. If there's a cost to seizing property, and it's not a situation of "grab everything and throw it into a box until later when we can have a fire-sale", then that might help this type of egregious abuse. That's not to say there aren't other abuses of it where this wouldn't help much (cash seizure, for example), or that we don't need comprehensive, well thought out reform in this area, but it might be a simple, uncontroversial measure that could immediately help in some cases.
- rootusrootus 11y ago
  I'd rather a simpler solution. You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding. And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    And don't forget that it must be returned upon an acquittal in those proceedings.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding. Well, this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any. Civil forfeiture is also how they confiscate contraband, or anything that is itself illegal to own. I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc. I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be. > And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain. This is common sense, but is wrapped up on the idea of using CF to help fund police departments because the public doesn't want to. Personally, I would like to see the money go towards treatment and counseling for people with problems with drugs, addiction, criminal records and mental illnesses, and community building and outreach programs.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jimrandomh 11y ago
This is a common way of bypassing the courts. US police departments have gradually ratcheted up the amount of punishment they can inflict on people without court consent, with a combination of civil forfeiture, pre-trial detainment and destruction of property. They get away with it because the courts have neither the will nor the resources to push back effectively. The practical result has been a loss of faith in the US criminal justice system, which is a threat to the innocent, not a defender of it.
BEEdwards 11y ago
"They got an anonymous tip" Why did they even need that, the couple called them up told them they planned to sell mary jane and the hours they planned to do it, "Come on down, check it out", yet the police still needed to contrive an anonymous tip for some reason.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Which is one of the reasons the charges were dismissed.
- unabridged 11y ago
  The problem is they only talked to the cops. They should have talked to the people with the real power, the prosecutors. Rich people hire a lawyer who knows the prosecutors, and have them get assurances (possibly in writing) before doing anything close to illegal.
aporetics 11y ago
For all the reasonable concerns about government overreach & abuse of power, (and without getting into the principles underwriting their power, i.e., that they work for us) government incompetence it just as compelling to me as a reason for strong checks and legal constraints. One agency saddled up for war while another gave its blessing? Eyeroll.
dsjoerg 11y ago
One way to do something about this: https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...
johnrob 11y ago
As far as I can tell, law enforcement is not penalized for executing a search warrant that doesn't pan out. Same goes for the courts that approve them, often ignoring a lack of true probable cause and/or being misled by the agents who write these warrants. This is a very bad incentive for all involved that creates innocent victims and hoards of wasted time.
- rtkwe 11y ago
  I wouldn't really call this a warrant that didn't pan out. They were breaking the law and if they hadn't been working with the local government all this time the Shattuck's would probably be in jail.
zrail 11y ago
Civil forfeiture is terrifying. I haven't even done anything wrong and I'm terrified that someone might accuse me, and then the police come in and take and/or smash all of my stuff and/or confiscate my bank accounts and investments.
- talmand 11y ago
  What do you mean your terrified that someone might accuse you? It doesn't even take that much. Get pulled over for no real reason on the interstate with a few hundred bucks in the car and it's "drug money".
  - talmand 11y ago
    Here's a mature community that didn't needlessly point out my "your" vs "you're" flub.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
There is so much about this case that is so fucked up I don't even know where to begin, but I believe there is one simple reform we could all agree on: Police have an obligation to fully return, restore, and compensate citizens who have been inconvenienced, had their assets seized, and their property damaged, by the investigation and cleared of wrongdoing by the PD, had charges dropped, or found not guilty by a jury of their peers. No more asset forfeiture to line cops' pockets, no more Baghdad raids for families that pose no immediate risk to anyone, no more citizens and families financially ruined to pay for the costs of the PDs mistakes. When my brother was in middle school someone stole his phone. The right kid was arrested and the cops took the phone into evidence. My brother is 19 now. We could never get the phone back.
1QAm1 11y ago
Try dealing with any of these "mandatory XYZ" crimes. In Colorado, for instance, when couples fight and the police are called, someone goes to jail, a mandatory order of protection is issued, you lose the ability to collect anything that you own in person (you must go through "mutual friends"), and if you live with your girlfriend/wife/fiance, you've also just lost the right to go to your own house. So, having a fight that triggers a call to the police (even a verbal one, or slamming a door) will result in the XY going to jail for the night, paying for it, losing their house and most of their belongings, losing their job, being arrested (which is never expunged, even if innocent), and being homeless while you get a new job, house, clothes, etc. Even if you're acquitted (I was completely acquitted of the lowest charge possible, which is a 3rd degree misdemeanor), it's not like your things magically show up, you still went to jail and lost your job, and the state doesn't care at all. The records should be expunged, the money that I paid to stay in jail ($35) should be refunded, and I should be given a police escort to force her to relinquish my things (thousands of dollars of things, photos, etc). The system in CO is just a race to call the cops. Whoever goes first, wins. Slamming a door will immediately tag you as a "Domestic Abuser" and any guns (and ammo) must be kept at a friend's for the duration of the trial (which takes 6 months). I won, and it certainly doesn't feel like "winning". :(
- theseatoms 11y ago
  Jesus. That's incredibly disturbing. I'll remember to keep the cops on speed-dial if I ever move there.
- monksy 11y ago
  Welcome to the Duluth model of domestic abuse cases.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  In TX, I called the cops on my (insane, belligerent, beating down my front door) ex and all she had to do was lie to get me arrested. The police are dumber than rocks and I had to wage a credible threat to prosecute my lying ex for perjury and false statements to police to get my case dropped.
ommunist 11y ago
Aren't protocols of seized items signed by witnesses? Or US Police is just a bunch of gangsters?
- marme 11y ago
  they are basically gangsters at this point and they know it. They are protected by law from any recourse, worst that can happen is the victim sues the city or county and tax payer foot the bill. The actual police officer or even department cant be punished in anyway and they know this, with how strong unions are they cant even be fired.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  You must live in a more civilized locale. Most USA police in fact are fairly decent human beings. The system is set up to encourage them to act as gangsters, which many of them do. It was set up that way by a different group of gangsters. Does this not make much sense? That's intentional; voters don't understand it either.
cubano 11y ago
I can tell you whats it like for personal experience. It beyond sucks, and should be something police truly fear doing due to lawsuit exposure. I was arrested on a completely bogus felony "destruction of evidence" charge about a decade ago while driving my car though a "bad part" of town (think how discriminatory that is at face value, btw) by a totally crooked cop who eventually was thrown off the force for illegal activities. I was arrested and would have been held for months in jail if I didn't have the resources to bond out, which cost somewhere around $400 to do. I lost a really great job a few days later as my small town publishes all arrests in the newspaper and my boss or his boss saw my name in it I'm sure. The first thing I told my PD was "under no circumstances was I going to take a plea in this case!" and explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past. I could tell he understood my resolve. In the end, the cop was thrown off the force and one day I showed up to court ready to battle and he told "great news...you've been null-processed and its over." I didn't know to feel ecstatic or furious over what had happened. I still don't.
- a_small_island 11y ago
  >explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past. What were you convicted of before this incident? Were they related in any way?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    WTF?! There's a reason this kind of shit is excluded from court proceedings.
  - cubano 11y ago
    Really? What difference does that make? Oh it's ok for a totally crooked cop to charge me with a completely bogus felony, cost me 100's if not 1000's of dollars, and destroy my job because I had proir weed and MDMA charges from a decade earlier? Well ok I guess if that's how you feel about things.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      There are kinds of corruption and abuse. I believe that he's looking to gauge which kind happened here. For example, if you have past convictions for drug possession and the corruption in this case was that the officer saw you, knew your history, just assumed you were guilty and refused to back down when he realized that you were clean. Alternately, you were driving along and (From your account name, I'm going to assume that you're brown) he sees a brown guy driving through a "bad area" and decides to make a bust, regardless of your guilt or innocence. Both are misconduct. Both are wrong but I believe that the other poster was just trying to get a mental image.
refurb 11y ago
Technically, Shattuck's dispensary should not have been approved by the town planning commission, because the law does not provide for selling marijuana in dispensaries This is a great lesson for everyone. I grew up assuming that people in charge of regulations and laws would know them. They could tell you what's legal and what's not. After interactions with different gov't agencies and law enforcement, I've come to realize that's not true at all. I would be shocked if even 10% of the people in charge of enforcing laws have even read the laws themselves. Don't be surprised if a police officer arrests you for something completely legal or if a gov't agency tells you can/can't do something even though the opposite is true. It's pretty disheartening when the people chosen to enforce a law aren't even informed enough to do it correctly. It's not that hard to get up to speed.
- talmand 11y ago
  It's the theory that if you write enough laws then everybody is a criminal. Then the authorities can just pick and choose who they wish to prosecute. This an example of that, so many laws on the books that the people in charge of them have no idea what the laws on the books are. There have been stories recently of police arresting someone for a legal act because the officer thought it was illegal. If I remember correctly a lawsuit was started in one of these cases and it determined the officer's ignorance of the law was not a suitable reason for the lawsuit. Or something to that point.
  - STRML 11y ago
    What's even worse is that it's not a problem for those enforcing the law, it's a problem for you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse as an average citizen, but if an enforcer makes a mistake and dishevels an honest person's life? Much more often than not, the victim just has to take it and move on, and there are no consequences for the mistake.
  - jseliger 11y ago
    It's the theory that if you write enough laws then everybody is a criminal That's already true, as pointed out in Three Felonies a Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/.... Everyone is already a criminal if someone wants to look carefully enough.
c3534l 11y ago
I think there should be limits on the police's ability to take people's stuff. Maybe add something to the constitution that something along the lines of: > ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That way, the police can't just seize your stuff without considering the damages that inflicts on a person.
protomyth 11y ago
The only thing I can see as a viable target of asset forfeiture is illegal items (e.g. the drugs themselves). Any other asset that the government wants to seize needs to follow a criminal conviction and a separate trial on the asset itself. This funding our police through stealing (see Philadelphia) is beyond wrong. I also believe that no money from fines should go to the police department. It should end up in the state's (not the city, etc.) general fund. That will end the incentive to be a bunch of buccaneers.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  It would actually be better if it ended up in a segregated budget category that could not be used to fund policing or courts, and which could not be conditionally reduced based on the amount of funding provided via forfeiture. If you stick it in the general fund, it is just one spending bill away from ending up in police coffers anyway.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Yeah, probably, but I figure moving it up to the state general fund from the city / county is a good start.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  The issue is that if cash or other valuable items are seized, they can be used to fund a legal defense. This is, at times, undesirable: if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers). CF in general is a troublesome idea; a better system would be the court overseeing and holding in escrow any funds or items that are seized by the police and disbursing it as necessary once the trial is over or a plea is reached.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers). That is provably not the person arrested money, just as a car thief shouldn't keep the car. Drug money is tougher, and the government should have to prove it came from criminal activity. Allowing the government to seize money just because it could have been from illegal activity is bull.
gumby 11y ago
>They worked to ensure every last detail was in full compliance with the law as they understood it They were lucky. Aereo did the same, specifically falling court rulings and the law and their efforts were successfully held in court to be clear demonstration of an attempt to break the law! What a world.
stegosaurus 11y ago
Most of these cases strike me as being quite worrying with regard to 'just following orders'. A police officer must, must have discretion. The individual, the team, that steps into a home must be able to decide whether taking items is the best course of action and be free to do so without coercion. Otherwise, you have robots acting on instructions from higher ups. That's not a reasonable model for society.

246 points by llamataboot 11y ago

See also https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-f... , and in particular the graph: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-28-at-3.06.30-PM.png https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/03/...

llamataboot 11y ago
That graph is always shocking to me. Not only in terms of the terrible irony in having the police steal more than the people they are protecting us from but because asset forfeiture has quintupled in just 10 years.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  For me it clarifies the nature of "protection" rackets in general.
- watty 11y ago
  While it's shocking, is it really all "stolen"? The linked case is absolutely appalling but doesn't this graph include forfeiture of real drug money as well? For example, here's a quick $90M bust: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-million-cash-cartel-laundered-money-article-1.1961449 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-milli...
  - tedks 11y ago
    Without a trial, it isn't "real" drug money. It's accused drug money. In the United States, we nominally presume innocence until guilt is proven. Since civil forfeiture uses kangaroo courts, there is no proof and so it isn't "real" drug money.
    - watty 11y ago
      I don't understand. If a cop pulls over a drug dealer and happens to find drugs and $1M, isn't that still counted in the graph as forfeiture? Let's assume the drug dealer is convicted.
      - talmand 11y ago
        In that case it's likely justified. But then you can link the forfeiture to an actual person being tried in a court of law. Many, many, many of these cases are things like "State Court vs $12,348.45". In those cases there's no defense and the owner of the property has to interject as a third party to attempt to get their property back. In many cases it'll cost more to retrieve the property than the value of the property in the first place. Also, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back. I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
        true_religion 11y ago
        The problem with civil forfeiture isn't actual criminals, it is what happens to everyone who is profiled as a potential criminal. Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction. The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's partly a gimmick, it includes huge fines related to the Madoff case and huge fines paid by Toyota (neither of which are particularly gross examples of law enforcement excess). http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2015-11-civil-asset-forfeiture-report http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/20...
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    > A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers reported today represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, the institute says. "Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward,"
- JimboOmega 11y ago
  People always talk about the cost of the war on drugs. The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)

kbenson 11y ago

> Shattuck says her marriage and birth certificates haven't been returned, and since the Task Force does not itemize seized documents in its paperwork, it has no record of taking them in the first place. Maybe this provides a clue for how to curb civil forfeiture in a way that skirts the arguments for it. Make all government agencies that seize property responsible for very clearly logging and indicating where it was found, the condition it was in (photographically and by description), and to store it appropriately so it will not be damaged or deteriorate beyond what would be considered normal. If there's a cost to seizing property, and it's not a situation of "grab everything and throw it into a box until later when we can have a fire-sale", then that might help this type of egregious abuse. That's not to say there aren't other abuses of it where this wouldn't help much (cash seizure, for example), or that we don't need comprehensive, well thought out reform in this area, but it might be a simple, uncontroversial measure that could immediately help in some cases.

rootusrootus 11y ago
I'd rather a simpler solution. You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding. And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  And don't forget that it must be returned upon an acquittal in those proceedings.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding. Well, this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any. Civil forfeiture is also how they confiscate contraband, or anything that is itself illegal to own. I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc. I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be. > And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain. This is common sense, but is wrapped up on the idea of using CF to help fund police departments because the public doesn't want to. Personally, I would like to see the money go towards treatment and counseling for people with problems with drugs, addiction, criminal records and mental illnesses, and community building and outreach programs.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jimrandomh 11y ago

This is a common way of bypassing the courts. US police departments have gradually ratcheted up the amount of punishment they can inflict on people without court consent, with a combination of civil forfeiture, pre-trial detainment and destruction of property. They get away with it because the courts have neither the will nor the resources to push back effectively. The practical result has been a loss of faith in the US criminal justice system, which is a threat to the innocent, not a defender of it.

BEEdwards 11y ago

"They got an anonymous tip" Why did they even need that, the couple called them up told them they planned to sell mary jane and the hours they planned to do it, "Come on down, check it out", yet the police still needed to contrive an anonymous tip for some reason.

nxzero 11y ago
Which is one of the reasons the charges were dismissed.
unabridged 11y ago
The problem is they only talked to the cops. They should have talked to the people with the real power, the prosecutors. Rich people hire a lawyer who knows the prosecutors, and have them get assurances (possibly in writing) before doing anything close to illegal.

aporetics 11y ago

For all the reasonable concerns about government overreach & abuse of power, (and without getting into the principles underwriting their power, i.e., that they work for us) government incompetence it just as compelling to me as a reason for strong checks and legal constraints. One agency saddled up for war while another gave its blessing? Eyeroll.

dsjoerg 11y ago

One way to do something about this: https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...

johnrob 11y ago

As far as I can tell, law enforcement is not penalized for executing a search warrant that doesn't pan out. Same goes for the courts that approve them, often ignoring a lack of true probable cause and/or being misled by the agents who write these warrants. This is a very bad incentive for all involved that creates innocent victims and hoards of wasted time.

rtkwe 11y ago
I wouldn't really call this a warrant that didn't pan out. They were breaking the law and if they hadn't been working with the local government all this time the Shattuck's would probably be in jail.

zrail 11y ago

Civil forfeiture is terrifying. I haven't even done anything wrong and I'm terrified that someone might accuse me, and then the police come in and take and/or smash all of my stuff and/or confiscate my bank accounts and investments.

talmand 11y ago
What do you mean your terrified that someone might accuse you? It doesn't even take that much. Get pulled over for no real reason on the interstate with a few hundred bucks in the car and it's "drug money".
- talmand 11y ago
  Here's a mature community that didn't needlessly point out my "your" vs "you're" flub.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

There is so much about this case that is so fucked up I don't even know where to begin, but I believe there is one simple reform we could all agree on: Police have an obligation to fully return, restore, and compensate citizens who have been inconvenienced, had their assets seized, and their property damaged, by the investigation and cleared of wrongdoing by the PD, had charges dropped, or found not guilty by a jury of their peers. No more asset forfeiture to line cops' pockets, no more Baghdad raids for families that pose no immediate risk to anyone, no more citizens and families financially ruined to pay for the costs of the PDs mistakes. When my brother was in middle school someone stole his phone. The right kid was arrested and the cops took the phone into evidence. My brother is 19 now. We could never get the phone back.

1QAm1 11y ago

Try dealing with any of these "mandatory XYZ" crimes. In Colorado, for instance, when couples fight and the police are called, someone goes to jail, a mandatory order of protection is issued, you lose the ability to collect anything that you own in person (you must go through "mutual friends"), and if you live with your girlfriend/wife/fiance, you've also just lost the right to go to your own house. So, having a fight that triggers a call to the police (even a verbal one, or slamming a door) will result in the XY going to jail for the night, paying for it, losing their house and most of their belongings, losing their job, being arrested (which is never expunged, even if innocent), and being homeless while you get a new job, house, clothes, etc. Even if you're acquitted (I was completely acquitted of the lowest charge possible, which is a 3rd degree misdemeanor), it's not like your things magically show up, you still went to jail and lost your job, and the state doesn't care at all. The records should be expunged, the money that I paid to stay in jail ($35) should be refunded, and I should be given a police escort to force her to relinquish my things (thousands of dollars of things, photos, etc). The system in CO is just a race to call the cops. Whoever goes first, wins. Slamming a door will immediately tag you as a "Domestic Abuser" and any guns (and ammo) must be kept at a friend's for the duration of the trial (which takes 6 months). I won, and it certainly doesn't feel like "winning". :(

theseatoms 11y ago
Jesus. That's incredibly disturbing. I'll remember to keep the cops on speed-dial if I ever move there.
monksy 11y ago
Welcome to the Duluth model of domestic abuse cases.
spacemanmatt 11y ago
In TX, I called the cops on my (insane, belligerent, beating down my front door) ex and all she had to do was lie to get me arrested. The police are dumber than rocks and I had to wage a credible threat to prosecute my lying ex for perjury and false statements to police to get my case dropped.

ommunist 11y ago

Aren't protocols of seized items signed by witnesses? Or US Police is just a bunch of gangsters?

marme 11y ago
they are basically gangsters at this point and they know it. They are protected by law from any recourse, worst that can happen is the victim sues the city or county and tax payer foot the bill. The actual police officer or even department cant be punished in anyway and they know this, with how strong unions are they cant even be fired.
jessaustin 11y ago
You must live in a more civilized locale. Most USA police in fact are fairly decent human beings. The system is set up to encourage them to act as gangsters, which many of them do. It was set up that way by a different group of gangsters. Does this not make much sense? That's intentional; voters don't understand it either.

cubano 11y ago

I can tell you whats it like for personal experience. It beyond sucks, and should be something police truly fear doing due to lawsuit exposure. I was arrested on a completely bogus felony "destruction of evidence" charge about a decade ago while driving my car though a "bad part" of town (think how discriminatory that is at face value, btw) by a totally crooked cop who eventually was thrown off the force for illegal activities. I was arrested and would have been held for months in jail if I didn't have the resources to bond out, which cost somewhere around $400 to do. I lost a really great job a few days later as my small town publishes all arrests in the newspaper and my boss or his boss saw my name in it I'm sure. The first thing I told my PD was "under no circumstances was I going to take a plea in this case!" and explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past. I could tell he understood my resolve. In the end, the cop was thrown off the force and one day I showed up to court ready to battle and he told "great news...you've been null-processed and its over." I didn't know to feel ecstatic or furious over what had happened. I still don't.

a_small_island 11y ago
>explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past. What were you convicted of before this incident? Were they related in any way?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  WTF?! There's a reason this kind of shit is excluded from court proceedings.
- cubano 11y ago
  Really? What difference does that make? Oh it's ok for a totally crooked cop to charge me with a completely bogus felony, cost me 100's if not 1000's of dollars, and destroy my job because I had proir weed and MDMA charges from a decade earlier? Well ok I guess if that's how you feel about things.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    There are kinds of corruption and abuse. I believe that he's looking to gauge which kind happened here. For example, if you have past convictions for drug possession and the corruption in this case was that the officer saw you, knew your history, just assumed you were guilty and refused to back down when he realized that you were clean. Alternately, you were driving along and (From your account name, I'm going to assume that you're brown) he sees a brown guy driving through a "bad area" and decides to make a bust, regardless of your guilt or innocence. Both are misconduct. Both are wrong but I believe that the other poster was just trying to get a mental image.

refurb 11y ago

Technically, Shattuck's dispensary should not have been approved by the town planning commission, because the law does not provide for selling marijuana in dispensaries This is a great lesson for everyone. I grew up assuming that people in charge of regulations and laws would know them. They could tell you what's legal and what's not. After interactions with different gov't agencies and law enforcement, I've come to realize that's not true at all. I would be shocked if even 10% of the people in charge of enforcing laws have even read the laws themselves. Don't be surprised if a police officer arrests you for something completely legal or if a gov't agency tells you can/can't do something even though the opposite is true. It's pretty disheartening when the people chosen to enforce a law aren't even informed enough to do it correctly. It's not that hard to get up to speed.

talmand 11y ago
It's the theory that if you write enough laws then everybody is a criminal. Then the authorities can just pick and choose who they wish to prosecute. This an example of that, so many laws on the books that the people in charge of them have no idea what the laws on the books are. There have been stories recently of police arresting someone for a legal act because the officer thought it was illegal. If I remember correctly a lawsuit was started in one of these cases and it determined the officer's ignorance of the law was not a suitable reason for the lawsuit. Or something to that point.
- STRML 11y ago
  What's even worse is that it's not a problem for those enforcing the law, it's a problem for you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse as an average citizen, but if an enforcer makes a mistake and dishevels an honest person's life? Much more often than not, the victim just has to take it and move on, and there are no consequences for the mistake.
- jseliger 11y ago
  It's the theory that if you write enough laws then everybody is a criminal That's already true, as pointed out in Three Felonies a Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/.... Everyone is already a criminal if someone wants to look carefully enough.

c3534l 11y ago

I think there should be limits on the police's ability to take people's stuff. Maybe add something to the constitution that something along the lines of: > ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That way, the police can't just seize your stuff without considering the damages that inflicts on a person.

protomyth 11y ago

The only thing I can see as a viable target of asset forfeiture is illegal items (e.g. the drugs themselves). Any other asset that the government wants to seize needs to follow a criminal conviction and a separate trial on the asset itself. This funding our police through stealing (see Philadelphia) is beyond wrong. I also believe that no money from fines should go to the police department. It should end up in the state's (not the city, etc.) general fund. That will end the incentive to be a bunch of buccaneers.

logfromblammo 11y ago
It would actually be better if it ended up in a segregated budget category that could not be used to fund policing or courts, and which could not be conditionally reduced based on the amount of funding provided via forfeiture. If you stick it in the general fund, it is just one spending bill away from ending up in police coffers anyway.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Yeah, probably, but I figure moving it up to the state general fund from the city / county is a good start.
ascagnel_ 11y ago
The issue is that if cash or other valuable items are seized, they can be used to fund a legal defense. This is, at times, undesirable: if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers). CF in general is a troublesome idea; a better system would be the court overseeing and holding in escrow any funds or items that are seized by the police and disbursing it as necessary once the trial is over or a plea is reached.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers). That is provably not the person arrested money, just as a car thief shouldn't keep the car. Drug money is tougher, and the government should have to prove it came from criminal activity. Allowing the government to seize money just because it could have been from illegal activity is bull.

gumby 11y ago

>They worked to ensure every last detail was in full compliance with the law as they understood it They were lucky. Aereo did the same, specifically falling court rulings and the law and their efforts were successfully held in court to be clear demonstration of an attempt to break the law! What a world.

stegosaurus 11y ago

Most of these cases strike me as being quite worrying with regard to 'just following orders'. A police officer must, must have discretion. The individual, the team, that steps into a home must be able to decide whether taking items is the best course of action and be free to do so without coercion. Otherwise, you have robots acting on instructions from higher ups. That's not a reasonable model for society.