9 ms·

This reads like The Onion. I can't believe they're serious. >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given

• konradb 10y ago
  > If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money Exactly, why is it not incumbent upon them to prove that you have gained that money through illegitimate means?
  • harryh 10y ago
    If the police catch a person running away from a recently robbed bank holding a bag of money do you think they should have to convict the person before taking back the money? If there is reason to believe that someone is in possession of property that doesn't belong to them it seems perfectly reasonable for the police to confiscate said property.
    • incongruity 10y ago
      In that case, wouldn't it be evidence? I genuinely don't know all the details of how this works, but I do find it disturbing that the police turn around and spend the forfeited cash. Should they be allowed to do that with the sack of money from the bank, in your example?
      • harryh 10y ago
        Sure, if it's clear who the property is owned by it goes back to the rightful owner. But in cases where that is unclear or nonsensical (like money obtained by selling illegal drugs) it goes to the state. Where else would it go?
        • CamperBob2 10y ago
          It goes to the state after due process. That's not what's being described here.
          • harryh 10y ago
            There is due process for civil asset forfeiture.
            • zentiggr 10y ago
              That is the discussion going on - that what _could_ be due process is being manipulated for the various departments' purposes.
            • CamperBob2 10y ago
              There's a process, but it's not "due" to anything but avarice and corruption.
              • harryh 10y ago
                It's actually due to the well established legal procedures of our country.
                • CamperBob2 10y ago
                  I'm no Con Law scholar, but where exactly do you find a basis for United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency in either the writings or expressed intentions of our founders?
        • incongruity 10y ago
          Where else would it go? A disinterested third party - not the police department that had the power to confiscate it. The state or a specific public good - i.e.: housing/food banks etc. could work.
          • 10y ago
    • tremon 10y ago
      If the police catch a person running away from a recently robbed bank holding a bag of money do you think they should have to convict the person before taking back the money? Yes. The money may be held in escrow pending the trial, but appropration by police is unjust -- and should be illegal if the person is not charged and arrested.
      • harryh 10y ago
        So if it's clear that a person is in possession of illegally obtained property, but it's a mystery exactly how they got it so law enforcement can't indict them for a crime, they should just get to keep it?
        • murjinsee 10y ago
          If how the individual came into possession of the property is a mystery, how is it clear the property was illegally obtained? I would be hard-pressed to prove that many of my assets truly belong to me. Edit: all of this is off-topic, as the bank can be proven the owner and the police would not keep the money.
        • JetSpiegel 10y ago
          If it's "clear" the money result from illegal activity, they will be charged with a crime. Surely you are not advocating replacing the courts with truthiness and gut feelings?
          • harryh 10y ago
            No, I'm just saying that the legal standard for proving that property (usually money) was obtained illegally is lower than the legal standard for convicting someone for a crime and throwing them in jail. Asset forfeiture is, and always has been, subject to judicial oversight.
            • 15charlimit 10y ago
              The entire point of this story (and others like it) is precisely that there is NO judicial oversight over this kind of police theft.
    • 20after4 10y ago
      This isn't perfectly reasonable though. Presumably the bank gets their money back when the cops catch a bank robber. But the police keep the money that they confiscate through asset forfeiture. They had no right to it in the first place so what gives them the right to keep the confiscated money? It's robbery.
    • barsonme 10y ago
      I don't think the argument is "police shouldn't confiscate [stolen] property from somebody they're detaining because of suspicion the individual has committed a crime", it's "police should not take property unrelated to the crime and, in the event the individual is cleared of any wrongdoing, return _all_ property", the latter of which isn't happening. If it turns out the guy running away from the bank just likes jogging with a bag of money the police should return his money and whatever else _immediately_ after the person is released.
      • djrogers 10y ago
        > police should not take property unrelated to the crime How about "police should not take property where no crime is known to have been committed"
    • facetube 10y ago
      How do you propose to detect when the reason is fabricated? Legal systems need to be able to detect insider attacks on themselves.
      • harryh 10y ago
        This is why someone who has assets confiscated can make a claim (with a very low burden of proof) to get them back. People here are making it sound like that doing this is incredibly difficult or expensive but it's really not.
        • facetube 10y ago
          Depriving someone of their property – even temporarily – and forcing them to spend otherwise profitable time making a claim to get it back is a form of damage. What you're proposing would allow agents of the government to damage people as frequently as they wanted, with impunity.
          • harryh 10y ago
            You realize you can be arrested and held in jail before a trial right? That's exactly same thing as confiscating assets pending a trial.
            • geggam 10y ago
              only for a short period of time before getting to address a judge
              • harryh 10y ago
                That's actually not true at all. You can be held in jail for months pending completion of a trial depending on your ability to make bail and the seriousness of the crime in question.
            • facetube 10y ago
              You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victim of the property seizure rather than the accuser, which makes it different IMO.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    Because this being a civil case, the legal standard is "balance of probabilities". In other words, if they can give a convincing explanation of how your money is likely to be tied to some criminal activity, so long as it's "more likely to be true than not true", they win - unless you offer a convincing rebuttal to make it less likely.
    • morgante 10y ago
      Here's the part which I don't understand: if it's a civil case, why do they get to seize the property before proving anything? If I open a civil proceeding against you, I can try to prove that you owe me $5k and if I prove that to the appropriate standard you can be compelled to provide me with $5k. I can't hack your bank account, withdraw $5k, and then open a civil proceeding to retroactively legitimize my robbery. The whole system is a massive violation of due process, no matter what legalese you try to use to justify it. If you're allowed to take people's property and then retroactively sue them if they complain, what is even the point of having the Fifth Amendment?
• stackus 10y ago
  You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. So there's no "innocent until proven guilty" for inanimate objects. Despicable, and akin to highway robbery in my opinion.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. No one and nothing is charged with a crime in civil asset forfeiture.
    • khedoros 10y ago
      But you do end up with amusing case names like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...). The currency is defined as the defendant in the case.
      • mcbits 10y ago
        I feel like I'm living in the Matrix when I see things like this. There are people out there - lawyers and judges, who must be fairly smart to finish law school - who think "United States v. $124,700" makes perfect sense.
        • emn13 10y ago
          Hey, if a corporation is a person...
        • sgnelson 10y ago
          I was told when I first started graduate school that it's not about how smart one is, but rather it's about perseverance, the ability to jump through bureaucratic hoops, bite your tongue and do what you're told. I have come to believe this since I've met some incredibly brilliant PhD's, but I've also met some incredibly dumb PhD's.
• oh_sigh 10y ago
  Pay stubs? Employer testimony?
• xenadu02 10y ago
  The original intent of civil forfeiture was to handle cases where the property's owner is unknown. In admiralty law or cases of abandoned property, the government sues the property but it's just a shorthand way of saying "whoever actually owns this". The legal theory (which is a total crock and obvious constitutional violation) is that you aren't the real owner, you stole the property so the state can take it away from you. That's what creates the presumption of guilt where you have to prove you're the owner of the property, same as if you dropped it on the street by accident and the cops found it. Anytime one of these cases gets close enough to SCOTUS for a decision on the overall constitutionality the police/DA drop the case. Most of them seem to know its a scam and don't want to risk an adverse ruling. There have been a few hints that SCOTUS is ready to rule the current scope and scale makes civil forfeiture unconstitutional but who knows.