4 ms·

I think I'm more bothered by the misaligned incentives in this situation. Since the police department gets to keep the proceeds of the asset forfeitures, they w

I think I'm more bothered by the misaligned incentives in this situation. Since the police department gets to keep the proceeds of the asset forfeitures, they will take as many cars as they can. Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. And the arresting officer shouldn't make the decision because it might lead to an abuse of power. An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff. I'm not personally in favor of asset forfeiture but I do understand that enough people probably are that the law isn't likely to get repealed.

endymi0n 6y ago
This. If you allow capitalism to absorb the government itself, what you get is for-profit persecution. If crime generates income, be it through asset forfeiture, private prisons or a law system where you can win by just making the case big enough the other side can't pay defending the case, you align the incentives towards finding crime where there is none. It's no surprise the US has the highest prison population per capita in all the developed world and nobody trusts cops. The US is an interesting experiment in what you get if you try to run a government on market forces, but I prefer to live in a country where police don't have to earn their own income, but are civil servants, tenured for life. That may lead to inefficiencies, fine, but at least the incentives are aligned towards helping out and preventing crime instead of generating more of it. I haven't had a single instance I can remember where I was ever scared by police.
- jliptzin 6y ago
  What country are you in?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    According to a recent post, they are in Germany.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  I have a number of European friends and they can't even wrap their heads around the USA's policing and crime issues. It's literally a foreign concept to them. Their attitude seems to be, "You're so rich. How could you get this so wrong?" I'd say you get it better than most, just add a big scoop of institutional racism and you're there. In the spirit of HN, I'm not trying to push a political opinion, but just to explain that to the BLM protesters, this is their reality.
Forge36 6y ago
Maybe the law could be applied to criminal offenses only? (I believe Drunk driving is a civil offense).
- boring_twenties 6y ago
  Drunk driving is for sure a criminal offense in every US state I know.
  - kgermino 6y ago
    I believe first offense is a crime in every state except Wisconsin.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  That wouldn't do much because the same authoritarian jerks (both the politicians and those who support them) who are why we have these laws have also ensured that damn near every civil infraction has a criminal counterpart that the officer can use at their discretion. The police would simply just have to check a different box on a form to get around it.
justin66 6y ago
> An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff. If only one of our three branches of government were designed to handle such a task...
- pvaldes 6y ago
  I don't know how it works in US, but In Spain I can confirm that fines can be appealed and each "trafic fine proposal" by police is sent and verified/rejected by an external team of civil servants expert in driving-related laws. At least the petty crimes and infractions (I assume that the really bad cases go directly to a judge) I suppose that most countries in Europe have implemented a similar system.
  - justin66 6y ago
    I was making a bit of a joke. The judiciary in the United States is the "uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff," and it's quite a violation of the operating principles of our government that civil asset forfeiture bypasses the judiciary in many places and is allowed to proceed under the law without a court hearing.
DarthGhandi 6y ago
> asset forfeitures, they will take as many cars as they can. Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. Try public defenders and legal aid services instead. Seems like a fair balance to strike.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That's a very nice twist, and would go a long way to solving this problem.
- darksaints 6y ago
  That's one of the best political ideas I've ever read. They provide our society's best known defense against the abuses of police power, and they are unconscionably underfunded.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I like the idea but it's probably a conflict of interest. As a defense attorney, am I going to fight as hard to invalidate a warrant and get property returned to my client if I know otherwise the money will go to my office? Maybe, maybe not, but we aren't supposed to put ourselves in that position to begin with.
  - Anechoic 6y ago
    The bar wouldn't be sufficient motivation to prevent this?
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Police civillian review board should make that list.
ubermonkey 6y ago
>Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. No. A good fix is not one that continues to allow assets to be seized from people not convicted of any crime that were not used in the commission of, or directly related to the proceeds of, that crime.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  In this particular case, the "asset" (the car) was definitely used to commit a "crime" (drunk driving). Your suggestion, as it stands, looks like it wouldn't have prevented the forfeiture of this particular car. A simpler rule could be to not seize assets from people who aren't convicted (or accused of) any crime. Note that someone who lends their car for a bank robbery could still be charged with a crime if we can suspect they knew about the robbery.
  - coldcode 6y ago
    It's only a crime if you are convicted. No matter the circumstances being accused of something is not a crime. Seizing some property upon accusation and then returning it intact and unchanged if not convicted or no charges filed might be fine, but selling the car would not.
    - loup-vaillant 6y ago
      The article doesn't expand on it, but someone who was clocked at 118mph then refuses to take the breathalyzer… We can reasonably assume he was convicted of something. Most probably DIW, but there's also speeding and reckless driving. The real problem here is that the car they seized didn't belong to him.
      - quag 6y ago
        The article says that the DUI prosecution has been indefinitely delayed due to COVID. The case has not been heard, and there has not been a conviction, acquittal Or had the charges withdrawn.
34679 6y ago
Missouri tried that and the state police just call in the Feds to seize property, who then sell it and kick back some to the state police.
- gruez 6y ago
  Is it not possible to divert the money once it gets into state police's hands? You'd think that if the police wasn't operating as some sort of rogue autonomous entity that the state legislators would be able to do that.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    Cutting police budget is a big pot of worms that most mayors don't want to get into. Police might strike or just barely do their jobs, you'll definitely get labelled soft on crime during the next election, etc.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Good on Missouri. One problem down, one to go.
wlesieutre 6y ago
> An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff Perhaps we could convene a panel of other citizens and have the police present enough evidence of guilt to allow it
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
Police departments as a whole should be fully funded through taxes, and any money from fines and civil asset forfeiture should go either into the state's general fund, or towards indigent legal defense and recidivism reduction. Localities need to fund their own governments directly instead of waiting to win the drug deal lottery.

endymi0n 6y ago

This. If you allow capitalism to absorb the government itself, what you get is for-profit persecution. If crime generates income, be it through asset forfeiture, private prisons or a law system where you can win by just making the case big enough the other side can't pay defending the case, you align the incentives towards finding crime where there is none. It's no surprise the US has the highest prison population per capita in all the developed world and nobody trusts cops. The US is an interesting experiment in what you get if you try to run a government on market forces, but I prefer to live in a country where police don't have to earn their own income, but are civil servants, tenured for life. That may lead to inefficiencies, fine, but at least the incentives are aligned towards helping out and preventing crime instead of generating more of it. I haven't had a single instance I can remember where I was ever scared by police.

jliptzin 6y ago
What country are you in?
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  According to a recent post, they are in Germany.
dougmwne 6y ago
I have a number of European friends and they can't even wrap their heads around the USA's policing and crime issues. It's literally a foreign concept to them. Their attitude seems to be, "You're so rich. How could you get this so wrong?" I'd say you get it better than most, just add a big scoop of institutional racism and you're there. In the spirit of HN, I'm not trying to push a political opinion, but just to explain that to the BLM protesters, this is their reality.

Forge36 6y ago

Maybe the law could be applied to criminal offenses only? (I believe Drunk driving is a civil offense).

boring_twenties 6y ago
Drunk driving is for sure a criminal offense in every US state I know.
- kgermino 6y ago
  I believe first offense is a crime in every state except Wisconsin.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
That wouldn't do much because the same authoritarian jerks (both the politicians and those who support them) who are why we have these laws have also ensured that damn near every civil infraction has a criminal counterpart that the officer can use at their discretion. The police would simply just have to check a different box on a form to get around it.

justin66 6y ago

> An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff. If only one of our three branches of government were designed to handle such a task...

pvaldes 6y ago
I don't know how it works in US, but In Spain I can confirm that fines can be appealed and each "trafic fine proposal" by police is sent and verified/rejected by an external team of civil servants expert in driving-related laws. At least the petty crimes and infractions (I assume that the really bad cases go directly to a judge) I suppose that most countries in Europe have implemented a similar system.
- justin66 6y ago
  I was making a bit of a joke. The judiciary in the United States is the "uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff," and it's quite a violation of the operating principles of our government that civil asset forfeiture bypasses the judiciary in many places and is allowed to proceed under the law without a court hearing.

DarthGhandi 6y ago

> asset forfeitures, they will take as many cars as they can. Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. Try public defenders and legal aid services instead. Seems like a fair balance to strike.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
That's a very nice twist, and would go a long way to solving this problem.
darksaints 6y ago
That's one of the best political ideas I've ever read. They provide our society's best known defense against the abuses of police power, and they are unconscionably underfunded.
torstenvl 6y ago
I like the idea but it's probably a conflict of interest. As a defense attorney, am I going to fight as hard to invalidate a warrant and get property returned to my client if I know otherwise the money will go to my office? Maybe, maybe not, but we aren't supposed to put ourselves in that position to begin with.
- Anechoic 6y ago
  The bar wouldn't be sufficient motivation to prevent this?
dredmorbius 6y ago
Police civillian review board should make that list.

ubermonkey 6y ago

>Maybe a good fix would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. No. A good fix is not one that continues to allow assets to be seized from people not convicted of any crime that were not used in the commission of, or directly related to the proceeds of, that crime.

loup-vaillant 6y ago
In this particular case, the "asset" (the car) was definitely used to commit a "crime" (drunk driving). Your suggestion, as it stands, looks like it wouldn't have prevented the forfeiture of this particular car. A simpler rule could be to not seize assets from people who aren't convicted (or accused of) any crime. Note that someone who lends their car for a bank robbery could still be charged with a crime if we can suspect they knew about the robbery.
- coldcode 6y ago
  It's only a crime if you are convicted. No matter the circumstances being accused of something is not a crime. Seizing some property upon accusation and then returning it intact and unchanged if not convicted or no charges filed might be fine, but selling the car would not.
  - loup-vaillant 6y ago
    The article doesn't expand on it, but someone who was clocked at 118mph then refuses to take the breathalyzer… We can reasonably assume he was convicted of something. Most probably DIW, but there's also speeding and reckless driving. The real problem here is that the car they seized didn't belong to him.
    - quag 6y ago
      The article says that the DUI prosecution has been indefinitely delayed due to COVID. The case has not been heard, and there has not been a conviction, acquittal Or had the charges withdrawn.

34679 6y ago

Missouri tried that and the state police just call in the Feds to seize property, who then sell it and kick back some to the state police.

gruez 6y ago
Is it not possible to divert the money once it gets into state police's hands? You'd think that if the police wasn't operating as some sort of rogue autonomous entity that the state legislators would be able to do that.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Cutting police budget is a big pot of worms that most mayors don't want to get into. Police might strike or just barely do their jobs, you'll definitely get labelled soft on crime during the next election, etc.
jjoonathan 6y ago
Good on Missouri. One problem down, one to go.

wlesieutre 6y ago

> An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's stuff Perhaps we could convene a panel of other citizens and have the police present enough evidence of guilt to allow it

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

Police departments as a whole should be fully funded through taxes, and any money from fines and civil asset forfeiture should go either into the state's general fund, or towards indigent legal defense and recidivism reduction. Localities need to fund their own governments directly instead of waiting to win the drug deal lottery.