3 ms·

>Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the greatest constitutional crises of the modern era United States. Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) goes back to 17th century Br

>Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the greatest constitutional crises of the modern era United States. Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) goes back to 17th century Britain[0], and such laws were first enacted and ruled constitutional from the very beginnings of the United States. You won't get any argument from me that CAF is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but the idea that it's somehow a recent development doesn't comport with reality. >It's existence is evidence that the federal government plans to continue furthering its encroachment on civil liberties and I truly hope that the people can find a way to get rid of it. While the Federal government certainly engages in CAF, they took action[1] in 2015 to reduce (woefully inadequately, but action nonetheless) the incentive of state and local law "enforcement" to engage in CAF. As such, while I agree in general (CAF is antithetical to liberty, is routinely abused and should almost never be used), your characterization of the history and main offenders/benefactors is flat wrong. It's states and localities that engage in this sort of abuse much more frequently (and much more capriciously) than the Federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/120799/holder-ends-most-equitable-sharing-civil-asset-forfeiture-program https://newrepublic.com/article/120799/holder-ends-most-equi...

arcticbull 6y ago
I would argue the fact it was deemed legal in 17th century Britain and incorporated into the US early on doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s a modern issue in a way that it wasn’t, or that it’s not a constitutional issue. Lots of things were legal and constitutional back then that would be a constitutional crisis now. It’s a modern issue because of what’s changed. Now small police forces in on the cut shake people down in rural America like highway robber barons. The institution of asset forfeiture is funky and stale IMO but, that notwithstanding, the modern constitutional crisis is that this literal highway robbery likely violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I would argue the fact it was deemed legal in 17th century Britain and incorporated into the US early on doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s a modern issue in a way that it wasn’t, or that it’s not a constitutional issue. I never said it wasn't (or couldn't be) a constitutional issue. And I disagree that the origins of CAF have no bearing on its current incarnation. I bring up the history of CAF, not as some sort of endorsement of it, or to excuse its excesses or the harm it causes in our world today. Rather, I look to history because it's generally an excellent guide to understanding who we are today and how we came to be that way. The old saw, "the past is prologue" is an old saw because it's both intuitively obvious and recommends one (of several) pathway to understanding current circumstances. As Eugen Weber observed[0]: "...This is what history is about. Where we come from, what lies behind the way we live and act and think. How our institutions, our religions, our laws were made." Understanding the thought processes and mindsets that caused those who came before us to meet certain circumstances with CAF, as well as (as you correctly point out WRT the 14th Amendment) how changes in those thought processes and mindsets have (or should have) affected how we perceive and address the issues surrounding CAF today -- and most other things for that matter. [0] https://youtu.be/XCyO8meahME?t=430 https://youtu.be/XCyO8meahME?t=430 Edit: Clarified language.
01100011 6y ago
I think the difference now is that the war on drugs turned a large percentage of the population into criminals and an even larger percentage of the population into suspects. It is useful to understand the origins of CAF and I appreciate your comment. I don't think it significantly changes the discussion, but it does enhance and inform it. Most people aren't even aware of CAF. I think the ones that are, are either folks who have been stung by it or civil libertarians. The civil libertarians appreciate how serious the problem is, but I also think they may have a slightly inflated sense of the preponderance due to the news outlets they follow. In any case, I hope we fix it soon.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I think the difference now is that the war on drugs turned a large percentage of the population into criminals and an even larger percentage of the population into suspects. And more's the pity. It's just one more good reason, on top of the many other serious harms (economic, social and personal rights) to the United States, to end the disastrous "war on some drugs."
jsmith45 6y ago
Civil Asset Forfeiture stems from older in rem cases, which were intended as a remedy when the owner of some object is unknown, or potentially not subject to the country's jurisdiction, and thus prosecuting the owner is not feasible. I'm fine with use of in rem based seizures in the following cases: 1. The object in question is unlawful, or creating a problem, and nobody claims ownership of the object in question. (E.G. police find a stash house full of contraband, and the actual owners don't want to claim it for obvious reasons.) Please note that I would allow for in rem to be used when the owner is obvious if said owner claims "not mine". This of course would not prevent separate prosecution of the obvious person if the state feels they can prove ownership. 2. The owner is known (claimed), but is not subject to US jurisdiction, and is unwilling to subject themselves to US jurisdiction. (e.g. somebody from overseas owns a boat to be seized for non-payment of fees, or somebody from overseas is found to be unlawfully flying a drone in the United Sites and the drone is to be seized and auctioned because we cannot do anything to the actual owner.) Notice how neither of these are even remotely like the common scenario in civil asset forfeiture.

arcticbull 6y ago

I would argue the fact it was deemed legal in 17th century Britain and incorporated into the US early on doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s a modern issue in a way that it wasn’t, or that it’s not a constitutional issue. Lots of things were legal and constitutional back then that would be a constitutional crisis now. It’s a modern issue because of what’s changed. Now small police forces in on the cut shake people down in rural America like highway robber barons. The institution of asset forfeiture is funky and stale IMO but, that notwithstanding, the modern constitutional crisis is that this literal highway robbery likely violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

nobody9999 6y ago
>I would argue the fact it was deemed legal in 17th century Britain and incorporated into the US early on doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s a modern issue in a way that it wasn’t, or that it’s not a constitutional issue. I never said it wasn't (or couldn't be) a constitutional issue. And I disagree that the origins of CAF have no bearing on its current incarnation. I bring up the history of CAF, not as some sort of endorsement of it, or to excuse its excesses or the harm it causes in our world today. Rather, I look to history because it's generally an excellent guide to understanding who we are today and how we came to be that way. The old saw, "the past is prologue" is an old saw because it's both intuitively obvious and recommends one (of several) pathway to understanding current circumstances. As Eugen Weber observed[0]: "...This is what history is about. Where we come from, what lies behind the way we live and act and think. How our institutions, our religions, our laws were made." Understanding the thought processes and mindsets that caused those who came before us to meet certain circumstances with CAF, as well as (as you correctly point out WRT the 14th Amendment) how changes in those thought processes and mindsets have (or should have) affected how we perceive and address the issues surrounding CAF today -- and most other things for that matter. [0] https://youtu.be/XCyO8meahME?t=430 https://youtu.be/XCyO8meahME?t=430 Edit: Clarified language.

01100011 6y ago

I think the difference now is that the war on drugs turned a large percentage of the population into criminals and an even larger percentage of the population into suspects. It is useful to understand the origins of CAF and I appreciate your comment. I don't think it significantly changes the discussion, but it does enhance and inform it. Most people aren't even aware of CAF. I think the ones that are, are either folks who have been stung by it or civil libertarians. The civil libertarians appreciate how serious the problem is, but I also think they may have a slightly inflated sense of the preponderance due to the news outlets they follow. In any case, I hope we fix it soon.

nobody9999 6y ago
>I think the difference now is that the war on drugs turned a large percentage of the population into criminals and an even larger percentage of the population into suspects. And more's the pity. It's just one more good reason, on top of the many other serious harms (economic, social and personal rights) to the United States, to end the disastrous "war on some drugs."

jsmith45 6y ago

Civil Asset Forfeiture stems from older in rem cases, which were intended as a remedy when the owner of some object is unknown, or potentially not subject to the country's jurisdiction, and thus prosecuting the owner is not feasible. I'm fine with use of in rem based seizures in the following cases: 1. The object in question is unlawful, or creating a problem, and nobody claims ownership of the object in question. (E.G. police find a stash house full of contraband, and the actual owners don't want to claim it for obvious reasons.) Please note that I would allow for in rem to be used when the owner is obvious if said owner claims "not mine". This of course would not prevent separate prosecution of the obvious person if the state feels they can prove ownership. 2. The owner is known (claimed), but is not subject to US jurisdiction, and is unwilling to subject themselves to US jurisdiction. (e.g. somebody from overseas owns a boat to be seized for non-payment of fees, or somebody from overseas is found to be unlawfully flying a drone in the United Sites and the drone is to be seized and auctioned because we cannot do anything to the actual owner.) Notice how neither of these are even remotely like the common scenario in civil asset forfeiture.