5 ms·

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

by SrslyJosh 6y ago

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.)
        ascagnel_ 6y ago
        At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”: - Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial. - For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home. - Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.
      - outworlder 6y ago
        Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k. Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking. This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted. That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter. All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hou...
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.

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.)
      - ascagnel_ 6y ago
        At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”: - Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial. - For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home. - Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.
    - outworlder 6y ago
      Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k. Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking. This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted. That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter. All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hou...

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.