3 ms·

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed. Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, and we have no way of knowing how much more was lost to extra-legal demands that didn't pass through C.A.F. proceedings. ------------- We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort to un-make that monster.

ncmncm 5y ago
We've officially authorized law enforcement to be a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves. This is not to say they weren't already. So un-making the fact will be much harder. Without authorization, the cop would have stolen the money anyway. The law just makes victims more resigned to it -- if the money goes regardless, the cop might just as well get it. Maybe they'll even take less, that way?
q1w2 5y ago
> it began with an extra-legal demand That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no investigation" This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing the money personally. This likely still would have been considered a seizure under asset forfeiture. I agree that it should be entirely legal to carry around hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it looks very suspicious for someone who's been previously convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around hundreds of thousands in small bills. Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in court prove the money was not gained through illegal means. The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial). It's important to remember that every state is different - as is the Fed gov't. In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost every state.
- hapless 5y ago
  "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final disposition of the stolen money is secondary.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    > "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not. If the officer pocketed it, then it's illegal. If the gov't did it using the law of asset forfeiture, then it's literally LEGAL. You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral".
    - lolwut09883 5y ago
      Yeah, fuck that guy for expecting the laws to line up with not stealing peoples shit with a badge. Doesn’t he know what isn’t illegal is just fine for America and the people who chose to be there?
    - thatcat 5y ago
      >to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation >then it's literally LEGAL Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. No, it doesn't say that. It says that the funds were seized with the explicitly stated intent to pursue forfeiture, and also a drug and money laundering investigation was threatened, with surrendering the funds (presumably, meaning not fighting CAF) given as an alternative to the investigation being pursued. This isn't “CAF is an extra-legal process” this is the very-legal criminal process being used as a stick to threaten with to undermine the integrity of the equally-legal civil asset forfeiture process, because federal rules allow local law enforcement agencies to keep a share of federal-law seizures the local agency participated in (while most state forfeiture laws dedicate funds to the State general fund and not to the seizing agency), exacerbated by the use of cross-sworn local officers in airports, the chokepoint nature of airports on travel, etc.
lupire 5y ago
> Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, a No it's not. Civil AND Criminal forfeiture is, including Bernie Madoff's stolen $billions.
wonder_er 5y ago
> We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves I think this should read: > We've deputized thousands of squabbling gangs of thieves, and given them the "special powers" of law enforcement This CAF stuff is an expected and reasonable byproduct of that starting condition. "How do we fix law enforcement then?" You don't. Disband it. It's a recent creation, obviously a "failed experiment" (from the perspective of 'does LE promote a fair and safe society'). LE _isn't_ a failed experiment from the perspective of rent-seeking LE, but, well, dictatorships work out great for the dictators.

ncmncm 5y ago

We've officially authorized law enforcement to be a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves. This is not to say they weren't already. So un-making the fact will be much harder. Without authorization, the cop would have stolen the money anyway. The law just makes victims more resigned to it -- if the money goes regardless, the cop might just as well get it. Maybe they'll even take less, that way?

q1w2 5y ago

> it began with an extra-legal demand That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no investigation" This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing the money personally. This likely still would have been considered a seizure under asset forfeiture. I agree that it should be entirely legal to carry around hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it looks very suspicious for someone who's been previously convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around hundreds of thousands in small bills. Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in court prove the money was not gained through illegal means. The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial). It's important to remember that every state is different - as is the Fed gov't. In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost every state.

hapless 5y ago
"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final disposition of the stolen money is secondary.
- q1w2 5y ago
  > "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not. If the officer pocketed it, then it's illegal. If the gov't did it using the law of asset forfeiture, then it's literally LEGAL. You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral".
  - lolwut09883 5y ago
    Yeah, fuck that guy for expecting the laws to line up with not stealing peoples shit with a badge. Doesn’t he know what isn’t illegal is just fine for America and the people who chose to be there?
  - thatcat 5y ago
    >to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation >then it's literally LEGAL Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. No, it doesn't say that. It says that the funds were seized with the explicitly stated intent to pursue forfeiture, and also a drug and money laundering investigation was threatened, with surrendering the funds (presumably, meaning not fighting CAF) given as an alternative to the investigation being pursued. This isn't “CAF is an extra-legal process” this is the very-legal criminal process being used as a stick to threaten with to undermine the integrity of the equally-legal civil asset forfeiture process, because federal rules allow local law enforcement agencies to keep a share of federal-law seizures the local agency participated in (while most state forfeiture laws dedicate funds to the State general fund and not to the seizing agency), exacerbated by the use of cross-sworn local officers in airports, the chokepoint nature of airports on travel, etc.

lupire 5y ago

> Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, a No it's not. Civil AND Criminal forfeiture is, including Bernie Madoff's stolen $billions.

wonder_er 5y ago

> We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves I think this should read: > We've deputized thousands of squabbling gangs of thieves, and given them the "special powers" of law enforcement This CAF stuff is an expected and reasonable byproduct of that starting condition. "How do we fix law enforcement then?" You don't. Disband it. It's a recent creation, obviously a "failed experiment" (from the perspective of 'does LE promote a fair and safe society'). LE _isn't_ a failed experiment from the perspective of rent-seeking LE, but, well, dictatorships work out great for the dictators.