8 ms·

I've read a few stories now about property being seized by the police and returned damaged or not at all. What legal options does one have in that situation? E

I've read a few stories now about property being seized by the police and returned damaged or not at all. What legal options does one have in that situation? EDIT: from the comments: > Yes he has recourse, if the police didn't find anything illegal in their search then ALL damages must be paid for. Fair enough. What if they had found something?

rwmj 16y ago
Indeed. He needs to very carefully document every bit of damage (photos of everything, paper evidence of the age of equipment if possible, etc), and claim in detail for everything, and his time and legal costs.
praptak 16y ago
> Fair enough. What if they had found something? In most civilized countries being guilty does not give the police the right to destroy your property anymore than it is necessary to do their duties.
solson 16y ago
In the US if the authorities use civil forfeiture they can keep your property even when you aren't even charged with a crime and there is little you can do to get it back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture It is generally used in organized crime and drug cases but has expanded greatly in recent years. It is now routinely used to seize cars in DUI cases. They can and do legally keep the property without even charging the driver with DUI or any other crime. http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/ http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/ I don't know about the UK but I am surprised any property was returned.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Alarmist. Civil asset forfeiture is not carte blanche for local and state governments to take property. There is an elaborate due process system surrounding it. The often-cited statistics about how few forfeiture cases are accompanied by criminal convictions are obviously and clearly biased: much crime goes unpunished, and if you are in fact running drugs (the nexus of the vast and overwhelming majority of forfeiture cases), you're probably not going to go to court to get your Escalade back. Details: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000983----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0... In one sense (I'm not married to this argument), declaring all asset forfeiture to be an unconstitutional tyannical abhorrence --- call this the "Radley Balko Line Of Attack" --- plays into the hands of those who would abuse it. There is virtually no chance that the fundamental process of asset forfeiture will be reworked. Both liberals and conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats all support it. Unsurprisingly, because in most cases, you really do want seized those things the government seizes. A far better way to foil people who would abuse civil forfeiture would be to educate people about the processes made available to people to recover property. One simple point rarely brought up by Reason Magazine: a simple written request filed within something like 90 days of the forfeiture is all it takes to force the government to defend their seizure in court.
  - pokjhnboi 16y ago
    Seizing 80 year olds houses because they grandson was caught with weed or seizing the home of a pair of doctors who were giving weed to cancer patients. Then strangely not applying the same law when the mayor/governer's kids are caught with a joint.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      What's your point? How many cops get speeding tickets? Did you know that technically, it's just as illegal for them to casually run red lights in their squad cars as it is for you to? Shall we do away with red lights? My point isn't that asset forfeiture is invariably defensible. It is obviously abused. My point is that it's being built up into a bogeyman. This perspective, perversely, robs people of their ability to defend themselves against it.
      - pokjhnboi 16y ago
        My point is that once local politics - remember it isn't cops that seize property it's DAs - kicks in then laws which are only for use against terrorists/makejor drugs dealers/organised crime can be used against ordinary people. And given the population sizes of terrorists/drug dealers/etc compared to ordinary people - they are almsot always used against ordinary people
        tptacek 16y ago
        Cite evidence for that last sentence. It is an extraordinary claim: that law enforcement is in fact a massive criminal conspiracy used to defraud ordinary people of their lawful property.
        pokjhnboi 16y ago
        In the UK 'Regulatory Investigative Powers' RIP was introduced to catch terrorists and international drug dealers. It allows government to get pretty much unlimited snooping ability on phones, web visits, cell phone location etc. Within a year the majority of RIP requests were from local city councils famously investigating cases of dog crap and people giving a false address to get kids into better schools.

rwmj 16y ago

Indeed. He needs to very carefully document every bit of damage (photos of everything, paper evidence of the age of equipment if possible, etc), and claim in detail for everything, and his time and legal costs.

praptak 16y ago

> Fair enough. What if they had found something? In most civilized countries being guilty does not give the police the right to destroy your property anymore than it is necessary to do their duties.

solson 16y ago

In the US if the authorities use civil forfeiture they can keep your property even when you aren't even charged with a crime and there is little you can do to get it back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture It is generally used in organized crime and drug cases but has expanded greatly in recent years. It is now routinely used to seize cars in DUI cases. They can and do legally keep the property without even charging the driver with DUI or any other crime. http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/ http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/ I don't know about the UK but I am surprised any property was returned.

tptacek 16y ago
Alarmist. Civil asset forfeiture is not carte blanche for local and state governments to take property. There is an elaborate due process system surrounding it. The often-cited statistics about how few forfeiture cases are accompanied by criminal convictions are obviously and clearly biased: much crime goes unpunished, and if you are in fact running drugs (the nexus of the vast and overwhelming majority of forfeiture cases), you're probably not going to go to court to get your Escalade back. Details: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000983----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0... In one sense (I'm not married to this argument), declaring all asset forfeiture to be an unconstitutional tyannical abhorrence --- call this the "Radley Balko Line Of Attack" --- plays into the hands of those who would abuse it. There is virtually no chance that the fundamental process of asset forfeiture will be reworked. Both liberals and conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats all support it. Unsurprisingly, because in most cases, you really do want seized those things the government seizes. A far better way to foil people who would abuse civil forfeiture would be to educate people about the processes made available to people to recover property. One simple point rarely brought up by Reason Magazine: a simple written request filed within something like 90 days of the forfeiture is all it takes to force the government to defend their seizure in court.
- pokjhnboi 16y ago
  Seizing 80 year olds houses because they grandson was caught with weed or seizing the home of a pair of doctors who were giving weed to cancer patients. Then strangely not applying the same law when the mayor/governer's kids are caught with a joint.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    What's your point? How many cops get speeding tickets? Did you know that technically, it's just as illegal for them to casually run red lights in their squad cars as it is for you to? Shall we do away with red lights? My point isn't that asset forfeiture is invariably defensible. It is obviously abused. My point is that it's being built up into a bogeyman. This perspective, perversely, robs people of their ability to defend themselves against it.
    - pokjhnboi 16y ago
      My point is that once local politics - remember it isn't cops that seize property it's DAs - kicks in then laws which are only for use against terrorists/makejor drugs dealers/organised crime can be used against ordinary people. And given the population sizes of terrorists/drug dealers/etc compared to ordinary people - they are almsot always used against ordinary people
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Cite evidence for that last sentence. It is an extraordinary claim: that law enforcement is in fact a massive criminal conspiracy used to defraud ordinary people of their lawful property.
        pokjhnboi 16y ago
        In the UK 'Regulatory Investigative Powers' RIP was introduced to catch terrorists and international drug dealers. It allows government to get pretty much unlimited snooping ability on phones, web visits, cell phone location etc. Within a year the majority of RIP requests were from local city councils famously investigating cases of dog crap and people giving a false address to get kids into better schools.