7 ms·

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

danbolt 6y ago
I'm not an American, but Sheriffs are typically locally elected, correct? I'm curious how that can depend from county to county.
- pageandrew 6y ago
  Sheriffs are locally elected.
bilbo0s 6y ago
Well, probably less and less common since the advent of Civil Forfeiture. So, progress I guess? /s
- giantg2 6y ago
  Haha
- classified 6y ago
  I think greasing the wheels is so normal that everybody implicitly expects it anyway, while open highway robbery just feels a bit heavy-handed.
SrslyJosh 6y ago
Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.
- eznzt 6y ago
  Source?
  - geofft 6y ago
    From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-more-in-assets-than-burglars-steal-in-2014/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor... In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year, according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-and-recovered-in-the-us-by-type-and-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-a....
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).
        geofft 6y ago
        It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist. (I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process. Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as defensible in my mind as excusing vigilantes who happen to be mostly accurate.)
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Calling it theft is a very far stretch. I know there are stories of police abusing this & taking cash of people in random traffic stops: That's theft. But a huge portion of asset seizures are forfeits from drug crimes. The DEA along takes about $500 million a year in this way, and state, country & municipal departments take even more.
  - samatman 6y ago
    No, it isn't. You are misinformed about the tawdry reality of asset seizure in the United States. If the police take assets from you, you might think you get them back unless you're convicted of a crime. Far from it: you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back, and good luck with that. That this exists at all is a scandal and a moral hazard. Seizure should be strictly temporary until a conviction is obtained, and the burden of proof that assets are illegally obtained should be on the state, rather than the opposite, and the value of all seized goods should go into a Federal general fund, rather than retained by the local jurisdiction. Until this is the case, and good luck with that reform, it is simply state-sanctioned theft. Nothing else.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      A flaw in the legal process to easy & rapidly return assets to those found innocent does not make all seizures theft. Neither does the moral hazard of having assets retained by local jurisdictions. An abuse of a law simply does not make all uses of that law abuse.
      - anfilt 6y ago
        Of course not every instances of civil asset forfeiture is illegitmate. Problem is it is often abused, and how it works is basically guilty till proven innocent which is abhorrent. A lot of times you cant prove a negative.
      - function_seven 6y ago
        > A flaw in the legal process to easy & rapidly return assets to those found innocent does not make all seizures theft. How does it not? This is not just "a flaw", it's the way it's designed. If you're traveling with $5k in cash, a trooper somewhere on I-35 can seize it with the rationale that (1) I-35 is a notorious drug trafficking corridor, (2) your car is from out of state, (3) there's no legitimate reason to cross state lines with that amount of cash, other than illicit activity, and (4) "you appeared nervous" They seize the cash, let you continue on your way, and never file any charges at all. When you ask for it back, they say, "Nah, you have to prove your innocence first". Oh, and that would be a civil case, so you have to pony up for a lawyer and sue for it. No guarantee that you'll recover attorney's fees, so even if you win, you lose. If they do charge you with a crime, you can be acquitted of the crime and still they keep the property. (It's "civil" forfeiture, your acquittal isn't enough to get your money back) Okay, so no, it doesn't make all seizures theft, but it also has no reason to exist as a policy if you can seize assets of charged individuals anyway. There should, 100%, never be an asset seizure without a related criminal charge. I'm usually not one for absolutes, but I am in this regard.
sandworm101 6y ago
At the local level? It is commonplace. Look into how many local police agencies have vehicles or other equipment donated by local citizens. Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. There is very little oversight at the local level.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. Reminder that in many US jurisdictions judges are also elected and may need campaign funding.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Right but you are limited to the donations you can make. That excludes super pacs though.
pmoriarty 6y ago
At that level of the government? Not so long ago the US President was impeached for bribery.
snapetom 6y ago
I'm surprised that you're surprised. You ask this as if the US is immune to corruption. Maybe the US isn't as blatant as Russia, but you're dealing with humans. Call my cynical, but this is going to happen.
floatingatoll 6y ago
I’ve known (without proof) about this occurring in Santa Clara for at least fifteen years thanks to one of my doctors complaining about the corrupt permitting process, so I’m just happy to see that the DA finally doing something about it (with proof). I assume the DA has some political reason that it finally matters to end this, or else they would have ended it ages ago. If you’re curious to learn more about this kind of corruption, California has another bribe at the state level: the “11-99 Foundation” offers a license plate frame for a $2500 donation that, when placed on your car, mysteriously reduces your chances of receiving speeding and carpool tickets to near-zero — even from CHP. This is apparently legal, since traffic stops are discretionary, and no protections exist to detect or prevent discretionary bias prior to the stop. (Non-caucasians, 11-99 is not rumored to protect against racism, and may well inspire it under the guise of “heard a report of a stolen car”.) I think it’s incredibly evil that this is tolerated and I don’t give them anything.
- carapace 6y ago
  I was wondering if anyone would mention the “11-99 Foundation” license plates. https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/ https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/
- tekkk 6y ago
  Wow. That is outrageous. And it's public knowledge yet nobody has done anything about it? There clearly should be an outside organization which sole purpose should be to investigate police crimes and somehow establish moral code that is adhered to.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The last time people felt that way, the police responded by creating police unions that used contract law to protect police from outside investigations into their abuses.
- dntrkv 6y ago
  Alternative explanation: people are buying a $2500 license plate frame and only think it reduces their chances of getting a ticket.

danbolt 6y ago

I'm not an American, but Sheriffs are typically locally elected, correct? I'm curious how that can depend from county to county.

pageandrew 6y ago
Sheriffs are locally elected.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Well, probably less and less common since the advent of Civil Forfeiture. So, progress I guess? /s

giantg2 6y ago
Haha
classified 6y ago
I think greasing the wheels is so normal that everybody implicitly expects it anyway, while open highway robbery just feels a bit heavy-handed.

SrslyJosh 6y ago

Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.

eznzt 6y ago
Source?
- geofft 6y ago
  From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-more-in-assets-than-burglars-steal-in-2014/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor... In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year, according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-and-recovered-in-the-us-by-type-and-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-a....
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).
      - geofft 6y ago
        It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist. (I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process. Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as defensible in my mind as excusing vigilantes who happen to be mostly accurate.)
ineedasername 6y ago
Calling it theft is a very far stretch. I know there are stories of police abusing this & taking cash of people in random traffic stops: That's theft. But a huge portion of asset seizures are forfeits from drug crimes. The DEA along takes about $500 million a year in this way, and state, country & municipal departments take even more.
- samatman 6y ago
  No, it isn't. You are misinformed about the tawdry reality of asset seizure in the United States. If the police take assets from you, you might think you get them back unless you're convicted of a crime. Far from it: you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back, and good luck with that. That this exists at all is a scandal and a moral hazard. Seizure should be strictly temporary until a conviction is obtained, and the burden of proof that assets are illegally obtained should be on the state, rather than the opposite, and the value of all seized goods should go into a Federal general fund, rather than retained by the local jurisdiction. Until this is the case, and good luck with that reform, it is simply state-sanctioned theft. Nothing else.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    A flaw in the legal process to easy & rapidly return assets to those found innocent does not make all seizures theft. Neither does the moral hazard of having assets retained by local jurisdictions. An abuse of a law simply does not make all uses of that law abuse.
    - anfilt 6y ago
      Of course not every instances of civil asset forfeiture is illegitmate. Problem is it is often abused, and how it works is basically guilty till proven innocent which is abhorrent. A lot of times you cant prove a negative.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      > A flaw in the legal process to easy & rapidly return assets to those found innocent does not make all seizures theft. How does it not? This is not just "a flaw", it's the way it's designed. If you're traveling with $5k in cash, a trooper somewhere on I-35 can seize it with the rationale that (1) I-35 is a notorious drug trafficking corridor, (2) your car is from out of state, (3) there's no legitimate reason to cross state lines with that amount of cash, other than illicit activity, and (4) "you appeared nervous" They seize the cash, let you continue on your way, and never file any charges at all. When you ask for it back, they say, "Nah, you have to prove your innocence first". Oh, and that would be a civil case, so you have to pony up for a lawyer and sue for it. No guarantee that you'll recover attorney's fees, so even if you win, you lose. If they do charge you with a crime, you can be acquitted of the crime and still they keep the property. (It's "civil" forfeiture, your acquittal isn't enough to get your money back) Okay, so no, it doesn't make all seizures theft, but it also has no reason to exist as a policy if you can seize assets of charged individuals anyway. There should, 100%, never be an asset seizure without a related criminal charge. I'm usually not one for absolutes, but I am in this regard.

sandworm101 6y ago

At the local level? It is commonplace. Look into how many local police agencies have vehicles or other equipment donated by local citizens. Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. There is very little oversight at the local level.

throw0101a 6y ago
> Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. Reminder that in many US jurisdictions judges are also elected and may need campaign funding.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Right but you are limited to the donations you can make. That excludes super pacs though.

pmoriarty 6y ago

At that level of the government? Not so long ago the US President was impeached for bribery.

snapetom 6y ago

I'm surprised that you're surprised. You ask this as if the US is immune to corruption. Maybe the US isn't as blatant as Russia, but you're dealing with humans. Call my cynical, but this is going to happen.

floatingatoll 6y ago

I’ve known (without proof) about this occurring in Santa Clara for at least fifteen years thanks to one of my doctors complaining about the corrupt permitting process, so I’m just happy to see that the DA finally doing something about it (with proof). I assume the DA has some political reason that it finally matters to end this, or else they would have ended it ages ago. If you’re curious to learn more about this kind of corruption, California has another bribe at the state level: the “11-99 Foundation” offers a license plate frame for a $2500 donation that, when placed on your car, mysteriously reduces your chances of receiving speeding and carpool tickets to near-zero — even from CHP. This is apparently legal, since traffic stops are discretionary, and no protections exist to detect or prevent discretionary bias prior to the stop. (Non-caucasians, 11-99 is not rumored to protect against racism, and may well inspire it under the guise of “heard a report of a stolen car”.) I think it’s incredibly evil that this is tolerated and I don’t give them anything.

carapace 6y ago
I was wondering if anyone would mention the “11-99 Foundation” license plates. https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/ https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/
tekkk 6y ago
Wow. That is outrageous. And it's public knowledge yet nobody has done anything about it? There clearly should be an outside organization which sole purpose should be to investigate police crimes and somehow establish moral code that is adhered to.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The last time people felt that way, the police responded by creating police unions that used contract law to protect police from outside investigations into their abuses.
dntrkv 6y ago
Alternative explanation: people are buying a $2500 license plate frame and only think it reduces their chances of getting a ticket.