3 ms·

There is. A kid left the frat and drowned in a river (it was a frat room not a dorm room). Drugs were suspected. I'm not sure why. They executed a warrant and t

by solson 16y ago

There is. A kid left the frat and drowned in a river (it was a frat room not a dorm room). Drugs were suspected. I'm not sure why. They executed a warrant and took the money. BTW the autopsy found no drugs in the dead student's system. Anyway, you make this sound so simple, just send a note and go to court. Most people are extremely intimidated by this stuff and they just want it to end. Especially when you've already been violated and had your reputation impugned. The advice they were given was it wasn't worth it. Asset forfeiture is a serious problem. http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-ass... "In 80 percent of such cases, the owner is not charged. The standard of proof to be met by the authorities is the minimal "probable cause" standard. If the owner wishes to regain possession, he has the onus of proving in court that the property is "innocent"; his standard of proof is higher: a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases, property has been seized for acts someone other than the owner performed." http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ma-hy.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ma-hy.html edit: I doubt they are doing this randomly, but they seem to be opportunistic and they do target certain types of people - youth, poor, minorities. The right to seize valuable assets is corrupting in nature. I think you'd see it drop dramatically if the government wasn't allowed to keep the assets as a fund raising mechanism.

tptacek 16y ago
Again: that 80% stat? I'm certain it's true, but it's meaningless. The stat you want is, how often are challenges to seizures denied. Because --- and I'm not saying this is what happened with your nephew --- it is very likely the reason that 80% of those seizures don't match up with a conviction is that the people whose assets are seized are in fact criminals. Recognizing that doesn't mean I think civil asset forfeiture is problem-free or that Radley Balko doesn't have an argument with his stories on this issue. But you can't just cite that stat as if it opened and shut the case. I agree that one sensible step to take would be to foreclose on the use of the assets as local funding mechanisms. I agree entirely with that. Finally: I think your nephew was given bad advice.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  I don't think it matters much whether many challenges are successful. When it takes years and costs more in unrecoverable legal fees (it's a civil court case, not merely a request) than most seized property is actually worth, very few victims are going to bother. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1209/p02s06-usju.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1209/p02s06-usju.h...
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I don't know how bad it is at the state level, but according to the US Code, at the federal level it shouldn't take years; there's a rigid statutory timeline on hearings, measured in increments of 30 days.
rbanffy 16y ago
> In some cases, property has been seized for acts someone other than the owner performed. My first father in law (that sounds weird) had a SUV stolen. On the same afternoon, it was involved in two robberies - one supermarket, one bank - and one murder (one of the robbers was shot by his colleagues). It took him a while to get the car back. Note: it happened in Brazil.

by solson 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Again: that 80% stat? I'm certain it's true, but it's meaningless. The stat you want is, how often are challenges to seizures denied. Because --- and I'm not saying this is what happened with your nephew --- it is very likely the reason that 80% of those seizures don't match up with a conviction is that the people whose assets are seized are in fact criminals. Recognizing that doesn't mean I think civil asset forfeiture is problem-free or that Radley Balko doesn't have an argument with his stories on this issue. But you can't just cite that stat as if it opened and shut the case. I agree that one sensible step to take would be to foreclose on the use of the assets as local funding mechanisms. I agree entirely with that. Finally: I think your nephew was given bad advice.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
I don't think it matters much whether many challenges are successful. When it takes years and costs more in unrecoverable legal fees (it's a civil court case, not merely a request) than most seized property is actually worth, very few victims are going to bother. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1209/p02s06-usju.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1209/p02s06-usju.h...
- tptacek 16y ago
  I don't know how bad it is at the state level, but according to the US Code, at the federal level it shouldn't take years; there's a rigid statutory timeline on hearings, measured in increments of 30 days.

rbanffy 16y ago

> In some cases, property has been seized for acts someone other than the owner performed. My first father in law (that sounds weird) had a SUV stolen. On the same afternoon, it was involved in two robberies - one supermarket, one bank - and one murder (one of the robbers was shot by his colleagues). It took him a while to get the car back. Note: it happened in Brazil.