3 ms·

> 80-85% of seized assets go uncontested: ... I.e. nobody even files a claim to get back their thousands of dollars in cash. From what I've read, that's often

> 80-85% of seized assets go uncontested: ... I.e. nobody even files a claim to get back their thousands of dollars in cash. From what I've read, that's often because contesting it costs more than it's worth. You need lawyers, etc. For $5K, for example, it's not worth it. > I think it's improbable that more than a small minority of those assets are legitimate (especially in the $10,000 in the glove box scenarios). I don't know. However, it seems like your reasoning is based on certain scenarios, such as $10K in the glovebox; I don't think that's valid unless we know how common those scenarios are. We need some data. Also, while I may not have a reason to carry $10K, there could be many people who live very different lives than me who have perfectly legal reasons to do so. Maybe small retail stores take their money to the bank, or people without access to banking services, or goodness knows who and why ...

rayiner 10y ago
> From what I've read, that's often because contesting it costs more than it's worth. You need lawyers, etc. For $5K, for example, it's not worth it. That's not true. To contest the forfeiture, you have to file an administrative claim, which is basically a sworn statement identifying your interest in the property. If the government still wants to go through with it, it needs to file a civil case in court, where they bear the burden of proof. If they do that, then you may retain a lawyer, but it's a more streamline process than an ordinary civil case so you don't really need one. The 80-85% statistic isn't about people who are unsuccessful in getting their property back; it's people who don't even take the first step of filing that sworn statement.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Interesting. The news reports seem to consistently tell the story I repeated above, but I've read only a few. Is this something you have direct experience with as an attorney? Your version is a little more heartening, but I also know the rules of the criminal legal system and its practice often are much different. For example, most people have little understanding of their rights and few resources to assert them.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I don't have any direct experience with asset forfeiture, no. But you should read the news reports with some skepticism. Note before going further: I strongly support innocence projects, public defenders, etc. But if you read the news you might think most convictions are faulty, or most people are coerced into pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit. But if you ask someone who works at an innocence project or as a public defender, most will tell you: the overwhelming majority of people who are convicted or accused are actually guilty. I saw this directly as a judge's clerk: tons of sentencing appeals where the conviction was based on literally a pile of hard evidence. So yeah, people want to get rid of civil asset forfeiture (I do too!). So they tell you about the hard-working guy who saved $10,000 in cash and had it seized on the way to the dealership. They don't tell you about the 12 drug dealers who had $10,000 seized from their glove compartment the same day.

rayiner 10y ago

> From what I've read, that's often because contesting it costs more than it's worth. You need lawyers, etc. For $5K, for example, it's not worth it. That's not true. To contest the forfeiture, you have to file an administrative claim, which is basically a sworn statement identifying your interest in the property. If the government still wants to go through with it, it needs to file a civil case in court, where they bear the burden of proof. If they do that, then you may retain a lawyer, but it's a more streamline process than an ordinary civil case so you don't really need one. The 80-85% statistic isn't about people who are unsuccessful in getting their property back; it's people who don't even take the first step of filing that sworn statement.

hackuser 10y ago
Interesting. The news reports seem to consistently tell the story I repeated above, but I've read only a few. Is this something you have direct experience with as an attorney? Your version is a little more heartening, but I also know the rules of the criminal legal system and its practice often are much different. For example, most people have little understanding of their rights and few resources to assert them.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I don't have any direct experience with asset forfeiture, no. But you should read the news reports with some skepticism. Note before going further: I strongly support innocence projects, public defenders, etc. But if you read the news you might think most convictions are faulty, or most people are coerced into pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit. But if you ask someone who works at an innocence project or as a public defender, most will tell you: the overwhelming majority of people who are convicted or accused are actually guilty. I saw this directly as a judge's clerk: tons of sentencing appeals where the conviction was based on literally a pile of hard evidence. So yeah, people want to get rid of civil asset forfeiture (I do too!). So they tell you about the hard-working guy who saved $10,000 in cash and had it seized on the way to the dealership. They don't tell you about the 12 drug dealers who had $10,000 seized from their glove compartment the same day.