4 ms·

"The second count is a Fourth Amendment claim: the seizure of Michael’s camera without probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime, or a war

by talmand 10y ago

"The second count is a Fourth Amendment claim: the seizure of Michael’s camera without probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime, or a warrant for its seizure. The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." You would think the ACLU knows that this is not true at all. Police regularly confiscate property on a daily basis with no cause. They have laws that allow them to do this. It's usually cash but they have been known to take whatever isn't nailed down. Some police departments apparently plan their budgets around it.

sk5t 10y ago
It's a real stretch to argue that taking a camera has any connection to do with asset forfeiture, horrible and unconstitutional as both are.
- talmand 10y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. I'm just saying that it is likely their local laws would allow them to do so under the pretense of some unknown reason. It happens all the time. Personally I'm hoping something like the ACLU takes it to the Supreme Court to get the nonsense stopped.
John23832 10y ago
I think the ACLU has done their due diligence...
- talmand 10y ago
  Apparently not, because it happens every day.
mstade 10y ago
It looks like you were being down voted, but what you're saying isn't false. Here's a WaPo article backing you up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... > Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008. And also: > A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.
- John23832 10y ago
  Civil Forfeiture has definitely not been ruled legal (or illegal). It's actually one of the issue that the ACLU is actively fighting against. To give it credence in one of their articles would hurt a fight that they're still fighting. I understand both of you. So, you could say that it is practiced, sure. However you cannot say that they are wrong, their approach and wording in their article is very much correct. As I said in another comment, they did their due diligence.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - talmand 10y ago
    But their wording is quite wrong, "The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." The police can and do grab people's property and confiscate it on a whim. Well, I suppose it's not on a whim since there's a purpose behind it. If the ACLU wants to say the police should not be able to do it because of the fourth amendment, then I would agree. You cannot say something can't be done when it's currently being done as part of policy. Civil forfeiture doesn't have to be ruled legal. If it is the law it is legal until the law is struck down by the courts. But I understand your point the ACLU wouldn't want to admit to that, but that doesn't excuse obviously incorrect wording of their legal claims in this case.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
zeveb 10y ago
This is a neat example of what one's mother tried to teach one when asked, 'mom, can I have a cookie?' and she responded, 'yes, you can, but you may not!' The facts clearly demonstrate that the police can in fact confiscate property on a whim. They may not, under the Constitution. But who cares about the Constitution? It's just a scrap of paper standing in the wave of our Brave New World.
- talmand 10y ago
  In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not. Sometimes it just takes time for the topic to come before the Court to be addressed.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not. That assumes that the Supreme Court will judge according to the Constitution, which I think isn't borne out by case history. It was the Supreme Court which said a black man couldn't be a citizen; that wheat grown in one state and fed to cattle in the same state is involved in interstate commerce; that the death penalty referred to in the Constitution is unconstitutional; that taking property for private gain is a public taking; and on, and on, and on.
    - talmand 10y ago
      I agree the Court can often be wrong in the long run, but that's the way our system works at the moment.

by talmand 10y ago

sk5t 10y ago

It's a real stretch to argue that taking a camera has any connection to do with asset forfeiture, horrible and unconstitutional as both are.

talmand 10y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. I'm just saying that it is likely their local laws would allow them to do so under the pretense of some unknown reason. It happens all the time. Personally I'm hoping something like the ACLU takes it to the Supreme Court to get the nonsense stopped.

John23832 10y ago

I think the ACLU has done their due diligence...

talmand 10y ago
Apparently not, because it happens every day.

mstade 10y ago

It looks like you were being down voted, but what you're saying isn't false. Here's a WaPo article backing you up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... > Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008. And also: > A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

John23832 10y ago
Civil Forfeiture has definitely not been ruled legal (or illegal). It's actually one of the issue that the ACLU is actively fighting against. To give it credence in one of their articles would hurt a fight that they're still fighting. I understand both of you. So, you could say that it is practiced, sure. However you cannot say that they are wrong, their approach and wording in their article is very much correct. As I said in another comment, they did their due diligence.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- talmand 10y ago
  But their wording is quite wrong, "The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." The police can and do grab people's property and confiscate it on a whim. Well, I suppose it's not on a whim since there's a purpose behind it. If the ACLU wants to say the police should not be able to do it because of the fourth amendment, then I would agree. You cannot say something can't be done when it's currently being done as part of policy. Civil forfeiture doesn't have to be ruled legal. If it is the law it is legal until the law is struck down by the courts. But I understand your point the ACLU wouldn't want to admit to that, but that doesn't excuse obviously incorrect wording of their legal claims in this case.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

zeveb 10y ago

This is a neat example of what one's mother tried to teach one when asked, 'mom, can I have a cookie?' and she responded, 'yes, you can, but you may not!' The facts clearly demonstrate that the police can in fact confiscate property on a whim. They may not, under the Constitution. But who cares about the Constitution? It's just a scrap of paper standing in the wave of our Brave New World.

talmand 10y ago
In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not. Sometimes it just takes time for the topic to come before the Court to be addressed.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not. That assumes that the Supreme Court will judge according to the Constitution, which I think isn't borne out by case history. It was the Supreme Court which said a black man couldn't be a citizen; that wheat grown in one state and fed to cattle in the same state is involved in interstate commerce; that the death penalty referred to in the Constitution is unconstitutional; that taking property for private gain is a public taking; and on, and on, and on.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I agree the Court can often be wrong in the long run, but that's the way our system works at the moment.