11 ms·

In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. And if innocent, they amount to a loan so the entity who did the seizure should pay

In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. And if innocent, they amount to a loan so the entity who did the seizure should pay interest along with the restitution. (Sadly in reality even when innocent, it's hard to get the assets back without a legal battle.) EDIT: typos.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
adolph 5y ago
Escrow doesn't seem to address what happens if the seizure is needed to fund its release.
- xxpor 5y ago
  If it's a large enough amount, surely lawyers would work on contingency? Obviously that'd still miss a lot (the majority) of cases, but still.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    "If it's a large enough amount, surely lawyers would work on contingency? Obviously that'd still miss a lot (the majority) of cases, but still." Let's not create more cases where little guys get bullied around by the legal system because they can't afford to defend themselves. It's already the case that they can (and do) coerce people into pleading guilty for a BS indictment because they can't afford lawyers.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Frankly, there should be no situation where the government should be allowed to use its resources against an individual without that individual having access to representation. It's a right in the criminal realm and it's a damn shame that the government is using that (and charging inanimate objects) to get around those protections. People think they have rights, until the system decides you're an outsider and tramples all over you to the applause of the society (the in group).
  - AmVess 5y ago
    You won't find a lawyer willing to take on a case of this nature. LEO use this as a tactic to deprive defendant's ability to fund their own defense.
dleslie 5y ago
In an ideal world, police would amass evidence of wrong doing _before_ seizing property.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Sure, but there's a season why these forfeiture laws, as terrible as they have turned out to be, came into being. The claim was that criminals with large assets who realized they were under investigation would do something to "squirrel away" their wealth, putting it out of reach if they were caught. The justification for the law(s) was to preemptively grab stuff to avoid this possibility.
  - svachalek 5y ago
    I can live with seizing assets before conviction, even though it makes me uncomfortable in principle, but mass seizure of assets with a "guilty until proven innocent" policy is just beyond the pale. It's the next step now that we've accepted that we're all wiretapped, all the time. This needs to stop or the Bill of Rights means nothing.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > criminals with large assets who realized they were under investigation would do something to "squirrel away" their wealth In cases of drivers with cash, this problem is solved by the police arresting the individual and holding the cash.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    The source of these laws were actually pretty pragmatic. The point was to help enforce custom duties on people that would never step foot in the country. Instead of trying to chase someone down in, for example, France, that didn't pay their customs duties (not really practical in the 19th century), they seized the ship and the contents of it.
kiba 5y ago
In an ideal world, seizures wouldn't happen and people would be prosecuted instead of the money. Moreover, government types like the FBI would be super squeaky clean types who cross every i with a dot. They would also work to prosecute less people every year, no more than needed. The best part is no part.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Both of you are saying the same thing. The difference is criminal vs civil forfeiture. Criminal already works as an escrow system (sort of, the feds might not have been able to find what they want to seize before the conviction). Civil doesn't in that it doesn't require a conviction.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Civil has its own benefits though.. That famous "Civil asset forfeitures overshadow the value of all thefts" infographic from a few years back was only the case because the Feds took all of Bernie Madoff's funds via civil asset forfeiture and then gave those billions of dollars back to his victims. Had they waited for the criminal cases to play out, it would've been years before they saw their money.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > Had they waited for the criminal cases to play out, it would've been years before they saw their money. They could have sued directly in civil court without waiting for the criminal cases to play out. If the Feds have enough evidence to justify foregoing, you know, actual trials and immediately redistribute the assets to the victims then any court cases should be trivial formalities and quickly resolved. On the other hand, if it actually does take years to determine guilt then maybe the Feds shouldn't be so quick to apply the sentence before the trial.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      There is a significant distinction between the government declaring that money (/other goods) is another party's property and returning possession to the rightful owner (ie equity), and the government declaring that something was earned through an illegal activity and thereby transferring it to themselves (ie taking).
jdsully 5y ago
In an ideal world the government wouldn’t seize assets until there’s a conviction.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
In this specific case, in an ideal world they should not be allowed to seize anything at all. Indeed, from the article it sounds like they seized what they found then tried to justify it a posteriori and for this guy it seems that was only "god sniffed narcotics on bills". To me this really reads as: "You have a safe deposit box, and we found cash in it, so you're a criminal and we have seized that cash.". That's ridiculous.
jandrese 5y ago
I've always seen this as a tacit acknowledgement of how the justice system actually works. The cops know that if you have the money for a good lawyer you have a much better chance of avoiding punishment regardless of the facts of the case. If you need to increase your conviction rate the best way is to go after people who are going to have to use a public defender even though in terms of actual damage to society the rich offenders are far worse criminals.
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  Yes. Because the objective is no more keeping your community safe but objective is to flood the jails and convince voters that "we are tough on crime".
eli 5y ago
And in no event should the seized money benefit the enforcement agency itself. What an absurd conflict of interest.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  This has been a huge problem at the state, county, and municipality level, for many years. John Oliver did a piece about it, a few years ago[0]. Some places actually create budgets, based on forfeiture. There's a town in Texas, that basically set themselves up as "highwaymen"[1] (Would have been ironic, if the town was named "Turpin"). Gives a whole new meaning to "Quota Night." I remember reading about a person around these parts, that was unable to get their property back, after they were cleared, because the police department had already sold it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I think New Mexico was actually the state with the reputation. So much so that I think they recently passed a law to help fix it.
- adventured 5y ago
  US systems of authority often specialize in conflicts of interest. I think it's obviously by design, both sides ride the gravy train (govt / private sector). The FDA gets ~46% ($2.7b of $5.9b for 2019) of its operational funding from the pharma industry. The telecom industry and FCC exchange employees routinely, as do Wall Street and the Treasury & Fed. The specialization makes sense, however these prominent figures, so primed for conflict of interest, should clearly be barred from doing that for N time (5-10 years at least).
  - jjk166 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
AmVess 5y ago
Seizures shouldn't be a thing at all unless a conviction has been nailed down, and even then, proof must be made for every cent seized having been made through illicit means. No proof? No forfeiture. I understand why it was implemented, but it has been abused so widely and for so long that it must stop. It has stopped being a tool for law enforcement to being a tool to coerce defendants and the innocent alike.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > proof must be made for every cent seized having been made through illicit means. The counter-argument is that if that money was used to generate more funds legally, is that other money not tainted? Say you make $10 million selling drugs, and use that to invest in housing in an area, and the money doubled over a few years. If you sell all those houses and now have $20 million in the bank, how much of that is funds available because of illicit behavior? $0, $10 million, or $20 million? I agree the current system is stupid, and often abusive, but I don't think it's necessarily a simple problem.
  - kenniskrag 5y ago
    Banks are regulated and want a proof of the origin of the money. In Europe even car dealers or jewellery shop want it. Because otherwise it would be money laundering. Of course it is hard to provide a proof if you have the money in your pocket.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      That doesn't actually affect the problem at all. If the money is laundered, it's still illicit. The question is if you invest illicit money to make more money, how much is illicit? Some people (and the U.S. government) would say all of it, and probably take anything else as well because they don't like to spend time to make sure they're only taking illicit funds (and it's not in their best interest to do so). So, say you have $10 million after laundering it through a business, and that's used to invest in housing, and that doubles, and later the government identifies all of that original $10 million as illicit because they've identified your laundering method. They are going to attempt to take everything gained, the whole $20 million, under the theory that it was all proceeds of your illicit behavior. The problem is, what if you already had $1 million dollars free and clear from a settlement or something, and you used that as well, so $11 million was invested and $22 million resulted? Is the government going to take $20 million and leave you $2 million? Doubtful. Should they? That's an interesting question, and depending on how people view the laws involved, 4th amendment rights, and the purpose of the seizing of money, they might come down on different sides of that question.
RIMR 5y ago
And that interest should be something draconian, like what payday lenders charge. If your money gets tied up for years, it ought to come back doubled.
- bityard 5y ago
  Who should pay for that? Taxpayers?
  - thelittlenag 5y ago
    Yes. Its "our" justice system. The liabilities and costs go along with the benefits.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    So long as the police line their coffers with forfeitures, they should pay whatever associated costs. If this isn't profitable enough for them, too bad.
    - harperlee 5y ago
      You are attacking the problem on the wrong side. They should have never been able to profit from that.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Why not attack on both sides? I absolutely agree that they should never have been able to profit from that. But, while we work on removing their ability to profit from it, why not also make it less profitable when they abuse it?
        harperlee 5y ago
        Fair point! Makes absolute sense for me.
      - klyrs 5y ago
ifdefdebug 5y ago
No need to seek an ideal world for shit like that not to happen. Just moving from USA to EU will do.
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
A lot of this eventually reflects American society itself. I am generalizing here but Americans in general are pretty insensitive to anyone who is claimed to be a criminal. I have seen people argue that rights of someone like George Floyd do not matter as in past he had committed some crime. There is a huge support for taking away rights of people who are convicted of crimes irrespective of those crimes. When we talk about the bad conditions in our jails, people are quick to say "who cares how those evil folks are treated"? The law enforcement understands this and uses it to profit from this public support.
- javajosh 5y ago
  Yes, but you don't have to be convicted. An arrest, with or without charge, is a black mark to many, many people. (This attitude is at its worst when considering prison conditions. No-one is dehumanized more than a prison inmate in this country.)
  - adventured 5y ago
    Sure, consider the human rights abuse that is the online mug shots industry in the US for example. There's no sympathy for those people, the assumption is guilt. The superficial tough on crime types revel in the notion that those people get publicly humiliated (and it fulfills the deranged lust for snooping, nosing into other people's business). Mug shots don't tell the story of whether someone is innocent or guilty and yet your photo might end up on the Internet regardless.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > the human rights abuse that is the online mug shots industry The way we treat people with a mug shot is horrendous. But mug shots per se serve a vital purpose: they are a public record of persons the state is holding. That makes “disappearing” them later on harder.
      - adventured 5y ago
bambax 5y ago
> In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. What?? In an ideal world a proof should be produced before anything is seized!
- zepto 5y ago
  Hard to gather evidence if you first have to prove the crime.
  - myfavoritedog 5y ago
    Hard to have a 4th amendment if the government can invade your privacy and fish for crimes without evidence.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    You don't have to prove the crime, you have to show probable cause. Our society would function perfectly fine without government-sanctioned theft ^W^W^W civil asset forfeiture.
    - zepto 5y ago
      The person I was replying to mentioned proof, not probable cause. I agree with you, forfeiture is obviously wrong.
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        The person you were replying to mentioned proof as a prerequisite to receive seized assets from escrow, not as a prerequisite for seizing those assets and placing them in escrow.
        zepto 5y ago
        No, that’s simply false. You don’t have to go far upthread to see it. Here’s what they said: > In an ideal world a proof should be produced before anything is seized!
jfrunyon 5y ago
Nothing should be seized until a proper court has adjudicated such action. "The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... [and] particularly describing the ... things to be seized."
deathanatos 5y ago
> In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. No: that deprives the person of their property, and their right to due process. (Not to mention the violations of the 4th covered in the article.) One should not need to prove one's own innocence to get their own stuff back. I'll allow, under probable cause or a warrant, temporary seizures, but even that must have due process. The seizures in the article did not generally have either. (I do sort of agree that, in the case the seizure was of an innocent person's belongings, that it be returned with interest. But that does not forgive/condone the human rights violations in TFA.)
FpUser 5y ago
>"entity who did the seizure should pay interest along with the restitution" And punitive damages, maybe then they'll have at least couple of brain cells dedicated to checking if they actually have any case against someone's money.
dnautics 5y ago
forget interest. Treble damages.
- dnautics 5y ago
  apparently RICO provides for civil cause of action. Would love to see an adventurous civil rights lawyer sue law enforcement under the civil provisions of RICO.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

adolph 5y ago

Escrow doesn't seem to address what happens if the seizure is needed to fund its release.

xxpor 5y ago
If it's a large enough amount, surely lawyers would work on contingency? Obviously that'd still miss a lot (the majority) of cases, but still.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  "If it's a large enough amount, surely lawyers would work on contingency? Obviously that'd still miss a lot (the majority) of cases, but still." Let's not create more cases where little guys get bullied around by the legal system because they can't afford to defend themselves. It's already the case that they can (and do) coerce people into pleading guilty for a BS indictment because they can't afford lawyers.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Frankly, there should be no situation where the government should be allowed to use its resources against an individual without that individual having access to representation. It's a right in the criminal realm and it's a damn shame that the government is using that (and charging inanimate objects) to get around those protections. People think they have rights, until the system decides you're an outsider and tramples all over you to the applause of the society (the in group).
- AmVess 5y ago
  You won't find a lawyer willing to take on a case of this nature. LEO use this as a tactic to deprive defendant's ability to fund their own defense.

dleslie 5y ago

In an ideal world, police would amass evidence of wrong doing _before_ seizing property.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Sure, but there's a season why these forfeiture laws, as terrible as they have turned out to be, came into being. The claim was that criminals with large assets who realized they were under investigation would do something to "squirrel away" their wealth, putting it out of reach if they were caught. The justification for the law(s) was to preemptively grab stuff to avoid this possibility.
- svachalek 5y ago
  I can live with seizing assets before conviction, even though it makes me uncomfortable in principle, but mass seizure of assets with a "guilty until proven innocent" policy is just beyond the pale. It's the next step now that we've accepted that we're all wiretapped, all the time. This needs to stop or the Bill of Rights means nothing.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > criminals with large assets who realized they were under investigation would do something to "squirrel away" their wealth In cases of drivers with cash, this problem is solved by the police arresting the individual and holding the cash.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  The source of these laws were actually pretty pragmatic. The point was to help enforce custom duties on people that would never step foot in the country. Instead of trying to chase someone down in, for example, France, that didn't pay their customs duties (not really practical in the 19th century), they seized the ship and the contents of it.

kiba 5y ago

In an ideal world, seizures wouldn't happen and people would be prosecuted instead of the money. Moreover, government types like the FBI would be super squeaky clean types who cross every i with a dot. They would also work to prosecute less people every year, no more than needed. The best part is no part.

xxpor 5y ago
Both of you are saying the same thing. The difference is criminal vs civil forfeiture. Criminal already works as an escrow system (sort of, the feds might not have been able to find what they want to seize before the conviction). Civil doesn't in that it doesn't require a conviction.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Civil has its own benefits though.. That famous "Civil asset forfeitures overshadow the value of all thefts" infographic from a few years back was only the case because the Feds took all of Bernie Madoff's funds via civil asset forfeiture and then gave those billions of dollars back to his victims. Had they waited for the criminal cases to play out, it would've been years before they saw their money.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > Had they waited for the criminal cases to play out, it would've been years before they saw their money. They could have sued directly in civil court without waiting for the criminal cases to play out. If the Feds have enough evidence to justify foregoing, you know, actual trials and immediately redistribute the assets to the victims then any court cases should be trivial formalities and quickly resolved. On the other hand, if it actually does take years to determine guilt then maybe the Feds shouldn't be so quick to apply the sentence before the trial.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    There is a significant distinction between the government declaring that money (/other goods) is another party's property and returning possession to the rightful owner (ie equity), and the government declaring that something was earned through an illegal activity and thereby transferring it to themselves (ie taking).

jdsully 5y ago

In an ideal world the government wouldn’t seize assets until there’s a conviction.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

In this specific case, in an ideal world they should not be allowed to seize anything at all. Indeed, from the article it sounds like they seized what they found then tried to justify it a posteriori and for this guy it seems that was only "god sniffed narcotics on bills". To me this really reads as: "You have a safe deposit box, and we found cash in it, so you're a criminal and we have seized that cash.". That's ridiculous.

jandrese 5y ago

I've always seen this as a tacit acknowledgement of how the justice system actually works. The cops know that if you have the money for a good lawyer you have a much better chance of avoiding punishment regardless of the facts of the case. If you need to increase your conviction rate the best way is to go after people who are going to have to use a public defender even though in terms of actual damage to society the rich offenders are far worse criminals.

KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Yes. Because the objective is no more keeping your community safe but objective is to flood the jails and convince voters that "we are tough on crime".

eli 5y ago

And in no event should the seized money benefit the enforcement agency itself. What an absurd conflict of interest.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
This has been a huge problem at the state, county, and municipality level, for many years. John Oliver did a piece about it, a few years ago[0]. Some places actually create budgets, based on forfeiture. There's a town in Texas, that basically set themselves up as "highwaymen"[1] (Would have been ironic, if the town was named "Turpin"). Gives a whole new meaning to "Quota Night." I remember reading about a person around these parts, that was unable to get their property back, after they were cleared, because the police department had already sold it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture...
- giantg2 5y ago
  I think New Mexico was actually the state with the reputation. So much so that I think they recently passed a law to help fix it.
adventured 5y ago
US systems of authority often specialize in conflicts of interest. I think it's obviously by design, both sides ride the gravy train (govt / private sector). The FDA gets ~46% ($2.7b of $5.9b for 2019) of its operational funding from the pharma industry. The telecom industry and FCC exchange employees routinely, as do Wall Street and the Treasury & Fed. The specialization makes sense, however these prominent figures, so primed for conflict of interest, should clearly be barred from doing that for N time (5-10 years at least).
- jjk166 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

AmVess 5y ago

Seizures shouldn't be a thing at all unless a conviction has been nailed down, and even then, proof must be made for every cent seized having been made through illicit means. No proof? No forfeiture. I understand why it was implemented, but it has been abused so widely and for so long that it must stop. It has stopped being a tool for law enforcement to being a tool to coerce defendants and the innocent alike.

kbenson 5y ago
> proof must be made for every cent seized having been made through illicit means. The counter-argument is that if that money was used to generate more funds legally, is that other money not tainted? Say you make $10 million selling drugs, and use that to invest in housing in an area, and the money doubled over a few years. If you sell all those houses and now have $20 million in the bank, how much of that is funds available because of illicit behavior? $0, $10 million, or $20 million? I agree the current system is stupid, and often abusive, but I don't think it's necessarily a simple problem.
- kenniskrag 5y ago
  Banks are regulated and want a proof of the origin of the money. In Europe even car dealers or jewellery shop want it. Because otherwise it would be money laundering. Of course it is hard to provide a proof if you have the money in your pocket.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    That doesn't actually affect the problem at all. If the money is laundered, it's still illicit. The question is if you invest illicit money to make more money, how much is illicit? Some people (and the U.S. government) would say all of it, and probably take anything else as well because they don't like to spend time to make sure they're only taking illicit funds (and it's not in their best interest to do so). So, say you have $10 million after laundering it through a business, and that's used to invest in housing, and that doubles, and later the government identifies all of that original $10 million as illicit because they've identified your laundering method. They are going to attempt to take everything gained, the whole $20 million, under the theory that it was all proceeds of your illicit behavior. The problem is, what if you already had $1 million dollars free and clear from a settlement or something, and you used that as well, so $11 million was invested and $22 million resulted? Is the government going to take $20 million and leave you $2 million? Doubtful. Should they? That's an interesting question, and depending on how people view the laws involved, 4th amendment rights, and the purpose of the seizing of money, they might come down on different sides of that question.

RIMR 5y ago

And that interest should be something draconian, like what payday lenders charge. If your money gets tied up for years, it ought to come back doubled.

bityard 5y ago
Who should pay for that? Taxpayers?
- thelittlenag 5y ago
  Yes. Its "our" justice system. The liabilities and costs go along with the benefits.
- klyrs 5y ago
  So long as the police line their coffers with forfeitures, they should pay whatever associated costs. If this isn't profitable enough for them, too bad.
  - harperlee 5y ago
    You are attacking the problem on the wrong side. They should have never been able to profit from that.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Why not attack on both sides? I absolutely agree that they should never have been able to profit from that. But, while we work on removing their ability to profit from it, why not also make it less profitable when they abuse it?
      - harperlee 5y ago
        Fair point! Makes absolute sense for me.
    - klyrs 5y ago

ifdefdebug 5y ago

No need to seek an ideal world for shit like that not to happen. Just moving from USA to EU will do.

KorematsuFredt 5y ago

A lot of this eventually reflects American society itself. I am generalizing here but Americans in general are pretty insensitive to anyone who is claimed to be a criminal. I have seen people argue that rights of someone like George Floyd do not matter as in past he had committed some crime. There is a huge support for taking away rights of people who are convicted of crimes irrespective of those crimes. When we talk about the bad conditions in our jails, people are quick to say "who cares how those evil folks are treated"? The law enforcement understands this and uses it to profit from this public support.

javajosh 5y ago
Yes, but you don't have to be convicted. An arrest, with or without charge, is a black mark to many, many people. (This attitude is at its worst when considering prison conditions. No-one is dehumanized more than a prison inmate in this country.)
- adventured 5y ago
  Sure, consider the human rights abuse that is the online mug shots industry in the US for example. There's no sympathy for those people, the assumption is guilt. The superficial tough on crime types revel in the notion that those people get publicly humiliated (and it fulfills the deranged lust for snooping, nosing into other people's business). Mug shots don't tell the story of whether someone is innocent or guilty and yet your photo might end up on the Internet regardless.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > the human rights abuse that is the online mug shots industry The way we treat people with a mug shot is horrendous. But mug shots per se serve a vital purpose: they are a public record of persons the state is holding. That makes “disappearing” them later on harder.
    - adventured 5y ago

bambax 5y ago

> In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. What?? In an ideal world a proof should be produced before anything is seized!

zepto 5y ago
Hard to gather evidence if you first have to prove the crime.
- myfavoritedog 5y ago
  Hard to have a 4th amendment if the government can invade your privacy and fish for crimes without evidence.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  You don't have to prove the crime, you have to show probable cause. Our society would function perfectly fine without government-sanctioned theft ^W^W^W civil asset forfeiture.
  - zepto 5y ago
    The person I was replying to mentioned proof, not probable cause. I agree with you, forfeiture is obviously wrong.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      The person you were replying to mentioned proof as a prerequisite to receive seized assets from escrow, not as a prerequisite for seizing those assets and placing them in escrow.
      - zepto 5y ago
        No, that’s simply false. You don’t have to go far upthread to see it. Here’s what they said: > In an ideal world a proof should be produced before anything is seized!

jfrunyon 5y ago

Nothing should be seized until a proper court has adjudicated such action. "The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... [and] particularly describing the ... things to be seized."

deathanatos 5y ago

> In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light. No: that deprives the person of their property, and their right to due process. (Not to mention the violations of the 4th covered in the article.) One should not need to prove one's own innocence to get their own stuff back. I'll allow, under probable cause or a warrant, temporary seizures, but even that must have due process. The seizures in the article did not generally have either. (I do sort of agree that, in the case the seizure was of an innocent person's belongings, that it be returned with interest. But that does not forgive/condone the human rights violations in TFA.)

FpUser 5y ago

>"entity who did the seizure should pay interest along with the restitution" And punitive damages, maybe then they'll have at least couple of brain cells dedicated to checking if they actually have any case against someone's money.

dnautics 5y ago

forget interest. Treble damages.

dnautics 5y ago
apparently RICO provides for civil cause of action. Would love to see an adventurous civil rights lawyer sue law enforcement under the civil provisions of RICO.