21 ms·

Town Seized Building, Offered to Return It If Owners Bought Two Cars for Police

419 points by leephillips 4y ago

yalogin 4y ago
The first time I learned about such a thing I was floored. I couldn’t fathom how that could be legal and how this didn’t get struck down as illegal by the courts. I am real curious to know if this went to courts and corraborted there.
mikebonnell 4y ago
Civil asset forfeiture laws are just begging to be abused. While I understand the original intent, there needs to be greater consequences to those abusing it. edit I'm not sure of the best way to improve or change this, so would love to hear from others on the best way to make that change possible.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  It's a good thought exercise for the "trust the experts" crowd. Reading the text of the constitution, a document designed to be understood by the people it would apply to, makes this a clear and obvious violation yet our appointed legal experts apparently don't see anything wrong.
  - thaway2839 4y ago
    The constitution is contradictory. It isn't a perfect document written on a stone tablet by god. And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. So the idea that you can just read one clause in the constitution and therefore clearly know what is allowed and isn't (also, even the interpretation of that clause is not as easy as you are portraying here) is absolutely false.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. In any case when a legal system clashes with the wording of the constitution it is that legal system that is wrong. That's what "highest law in the land" means. That is the entire purpose of having a constitution. Experts love to hide behind "it's complicated!" but in this case they have nowhere to hide.
      - eightysixfour 4y ago
        What part of the constitution do you think it clashes with?
        willcipriano 4y ago
        > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Pull over a guy, take the paper cash out of his wallet without charging him with a crime. No amount of wordplay can make that constitutional in a reasonable persons mind.
        pc86 4y ago
        I do think CAF as it's currently implemented is unconstitutional, but this clause doesn't make CAF as an idea unconstitutional. The entire point (originally) was to secure assets that you have probable cause to believe are funding or proceeds from crime. So you find someone with a trash bag full of pills and $300k in cash in their trunk after a legal search, you need a process to handle that money.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        That process has existed since before America has, find probable cause someone is committing a crime, detain the suspect (you can get a warrant first but this is more common), get a warrant (can be done over the phone in a couple of minutes), put the cash away somewhere safe until the trial is over. If they are guilty of that crime and that cash was involved, great! If not you have to return it. What we are talking about here is just taking the cash, sending you on your way and spending it, sidestepping your legal rights like access to a court provided attorney or a jury trial. It probably doesn't do much to prevent crime even, the fentanyl runners would much prefer you just take the cash they have on them and let them go.
- Raed667 4y ago
  A great video on the subject: Civil Forfeiture: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
- tux1968 4y ago
  It just shouldn't exist. A judge can impose such penalties upon conviction, but there shouldn't be a way for police to seize assets like this themselves.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture makes a little bit of sense where it was first used: dealing with the cargo of smuggler's ships. It was almost impossible to prosecute a ship owner who lived across the ocean in Europe, so simply seizing a ship and its smuggled goods was a viable alternative. Unfortunately it's expanded to all sorts of ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional seizures in the last few decades.
    - gwd 4y ago
      > It was almost impossible to prosecute a ship owner who lived across the ocean in Europe, so simply seizing a ship and its smuggled goods was a viable alternative. Such seizures should have the same procedural limitations as arrest of an individual does. Individual procedural limitations: - Police can arrest you and throw you in jail if they have reason to suspect you committed a crime. - Within a certain number of days of being thrown in jail, they have to either produce concrete charges against you, or let you go - While the trial is going on, you can apply for bail to get your freedom. - You can't finally be thrown in prison until you've been convicted by a jury of peers. You could apply parallel standards in this situation: - Police / coast guard could seize a ship if they have reason to believe it's smuggled goods - Within a certain number of days, they have to either produce concrete charges against the owner, or let them have your stuff back. - While the trial is going on, the owner should be able to apply for "bail" to get their stuff back. A judge can determine if it's worth the risk or not, just as they do for prison cases - The stuff can't be finally taken away until the owner has been convicted by a jury of peers. Adding in something like, "All seized goods are distributed to the poor" or something rather than "All seized goods go to the department which seized them" would go a long way towards ending this sort of abuse.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
- leephillips 4y ago
  The only legal way to stop abuse of authority is if those with a higher level of authority put the abusers in handcuffs. So in this case the state prosecutors need to go after the town officials. If the abuse is at the state level then the FBI needs to come in and start arresting people. Otherwise, why would they stop?
  - code_duck 4y ago
    Local authorities work with Feds to do this, however. Civil asset forfeiture has been banned in various localities, but is still legal federally - so non-federal police arrange to have a Federal officer (DEA etc) on hand to take care of that part, and then a certain percentage is kept by the federal government and the rest given to the local authorities. So first it would need to be banned federally.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- belltaco 4y ago
  The immediate first thing that should be done is that police departments should have no way of benefiting from the seized cash or assets because it creates a perverse incentive across the board for everyone in the police department to overlook transgressions. It should be held by the county/state and the interest accrued till a judge decides. If it's forfeited, it should go into the county or state public benefits program that only benefits the poorest of the poor, seniors and homeless people.
  - lrem 4y ago
    The obvious thing to happen next cycle from instituting such rules: the benefits program's dedicated budget gets adjusted down by the expected value of forfeitures.
    - MarkSweep 4y ago
      Maybe instead any money collected civil asset forfeiture should be required to be sent to the Federal Reserve where it is destroyed. That should prevent any of these sorts of perverse incentives.
      - account42 4y ago
        For money that could work. For other assets (e.g. art, anything that has an environmental cost to create it) society may benefit from them being preserved. I guess you could still auction them off and burn the money.
        lrem 4y ago
        And that's how you get auctions where all the bidders are personal friends of the judical officer.
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    There is actually proof that this works. Using Felony Probation and Parole in a particular state as an example, at one point it went to the department that ran Probation/Parole. So the Probation/Parole Officers were encouraged to aggressively pursue getting the fees for probation/parole. Then it was changed to go to the states general fund (so the department stopped getting it effectively). MAGICALLY the officers only got encouraged to care about restitution payments and started being very blaise about failure to pay fines and fees.
- _uy6i 4y ago
  Seems a simple way would be that people who have assets seized should get the greater of a) $20k OR b) 3x the value of items seized AND c) attorneys fees At least this allows 1) people to litigate smaller seizures 2) creates disincentives for the more abusive cases
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    I appreciate that you're offering a solution. I think the proposal would put the burden on tax-payers.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      As it should be if the public wants the assets sized. Someone should have to pay for the collateral policy damage. It seems that the burden should to those who voted for the policy opposed the innocent victims.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jackcviers3 4y ago
  How do you understand the original intent? > Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. --[1] They don't need to prove or even charge you to take property from you. It's robbery. The law needs to require a warrant issued by a judge to sieze the property. The property siezed needs to be stored as evidence, kept separate from other budget items in law enforcement organizations so that it cannot be used to cover expenditures (through auction or otherwise), be under the same sort of provisions as indefinitely holding individuals without charges, be returned in total when charges are not brought to trial or when a trial results in an acquittal, and the material should be subject to destruction after a guilty verdict and appeals are exhausted. Basically, the siezing organization shouldn't be able to use the material proceeds as part of the organizations' operating budgets at any time unless the material is voluntarily submitted by the convicted parties in lieu of levied fines after a conviction. It is evidence, not a funding source. I'm not saying that the government should not be able to take illegitimately gained property from convicted criminals; but that the incentive to do so for material gains by the government without conviction is rife with the potential for abuse as things currently stand. [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse#:~:text=Civil%20forfeiture%20allows%20police%20to,away%20permanently%20by%20the%20government https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po....
- QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
  Local governments simply cannot be trusted to dole out any punishment that they benefit from financially. We need to fund our courts from taxes, and require punitive fines to be payed by destroying the money instead of by the prosecutor pocketing it.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  The original intent was to stop drug dealers without having enough to convict. It is difficult for dealers to deal if they lose their car or boat or money. And apparently it is "obvious"the items came from ill gotten gains.
Group_B 4y ago
Legalizing marijuana federally cannot come soon enough.
- justin66 4y ago
  Nothing about federal marijuana legalization would have prevented the local police from performing civil asset forfeiture.
  - lastofthemojito 4y ago
    You're right, but I think the mentality around marijuana legality is colored by the fact that marijuana remains illegal federally, marijuana legality is so new in many places, and marijuana isn't fully unrestricted even when "legalized". This page has a bunch of tables regarding the legality of recreational marijuana in Michigan: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2022/05/19/a-guide-to-michigans-recreational-marijuana-laws-what-you-should-know/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2022/05/19/a-gu... So while I don't think they should have done what they did, I'm not shocked that cops walked into a building full of marijuana plants and thought "we have to bust these guys". I think if marijuana became completely legal and unrestricted nationwide, cops would probably get it - "welp, I guess this is legal now".
    - Group_B 4y ago
      Yeah I guarantee there will be way less of this bullshit once it’s 100% legal.
      - justin66 4y ago
        Civil asset forfeiture is just theft, and the police who engage in this behavior are happy to steal from all sorts of people engaged in all sorts of perfectly legal activities. It has literally nothing to do with marijuana.
jmuguy 4y ago
Maybe a dumb question, but how do the police seize a building? Assuming this just means they barred, under threat of arrest, the owners from using the property?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  It would mean they had ownership of the building transferred to them.
- butlerm 4y ago
  When the police do anything it is ultimately an exercise of raw force. They come, evict you, and change the locks. The only question is do they have legal justification for their actions that will stand up in court? Warrants, judicial sanction, etc. in advance is highly advisable. This is why we are taking your property, go hire an attorney if you disagree.
kodah 4y ago
The government just passed a computer fraud act where they differentiate between good faith use of the term "security researcher" and bad faith. I think we can do the same with civil asset forfeiture, making the penalties immense. There's always the route of undoing civil asset forfeiture entirely, because it makes zero sense to anyone that encounters it or to our justice system. This is also a good time to point out: when states and the federal government disagree, without mandate for state agencies to follow state law (weed is legal in Michigan) this is the result. The citizens are who pay the price for disagreement, and that mechanic especially needs to change. Edit: Fair, they passed "guidance". I'd encourage anything at this point. Doing nothing is for the birds.
- fennecfoxen 4y ago
  No they didn't. The justice department announced their interpretation of that policy and how they'd use discretion. You want meaningful reform on anything within 500 miles of this topic from the legislature? Good luck.
  - kodah 4y ago
    They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. Something would be better than the current approach, which is feeling more cartel-esque by the year. Nihilist and fatalist approaches like yours make the outcome certain. If I show up, speak like a big boy, and provide evidence someone might listen. This is the difference.
    - walls 4y ago
      > They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. That's how it works already. That's also why they can do it to whoever they like.
      - kodah 4y ago
        Right, leaving discretion without oversight is a massive gap. I am advocating that something be done. What are you advocating?
zivkovicp 4y ago
I would imagine it is worth registering a holding company that would ultimately own the property, and then another LLC that is responsible for renting and maintenance... and then just rent it to yourself. I don't know if this would make it more difficult for a seizure to occur but it seems that it would since the physical person is no longer the "owner" or even responsible for operating. If the assets are worth any significant amount, it's worth protecting them and yourself from the law... as crazy as it sounds.
- prepend 4y ago
  In this case it wouldn’t matter as the city would just seize it from the llc. They never charged anyone with a crime so they could just not charge the owners of the llc.
esics6A 4y ago
Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn't even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal system: "Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Police under the US Constitution have to go before a judge and court and make an Oath under perjury of law describing the items to be seized. There has to be a justification and supported by affirmation meaning evidence and supporting facts. In the case of the building that was seized it was operating a perfectly legal business under state law. It had the necessary licenses and permits. There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it's a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  I know that courts just interpret the constitution to mean what they want, but they really outdid themselves on this one. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  - oceanghost 4y ago
    We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.
    - avs733 4y ago
      lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.
SeanLuke 4y ago
- lbriner 4y ago
  Possibly except that they returned the building the day after the article was published.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > being promoted by Reason, which has a poor reputation for bias in reporting They're a LIBERTARIAN magazine, it says "free minds and free markets" right on the mast head. They're 100% up front about their view of the world. What do you really expect? This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    > This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists Which you can expect to see in the comments whenever it’s posted on HN as well.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      See my other response here[1], but just pointing to the ideology of the publication as a form of criticism is substance-less and lazy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists. No, it's like suspecting that an article might be distorted to serve socialist ideological interests when Jacobin is the only source. Which is, of course, what any sane person would do, even if they share the outlet’s ideological orientation.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      It just isn't a very interesting critique in and of itself. If the OP was pointing out how their ideological outlook influenced the facts presented in the story, or how they left some complicating factor out, then it would be useful. However C.J. Ciaramella, the author of the piece has a long history and good track record of reporting on police misconduct, and civil rights abuses. Moreover the article is covering reporting originally done by WXYZ Detroit, so it not even originally from Reason, they just picked it up for their audience. My overarching point is that unless you can point to the ideology of the publication negatively influencing the reporting it's just lazy and useless criticism.
ezconnect 4y ago
Too bad China can't sanction you for such an abusive practice.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  What's the connection? This comment went right over my head.
  - Vladimof 4y ago
    The US sanction other countries for bad stuff they are doing... he wants China to join the sanctioning party so that they can help Americans?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  We're getting very close to the flip, when the US will start complaining that China's sanctions on it are inhumane and unfair.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  Get most non-US corporations to ban American customers with little or no heads up, across all their SaaS, domains, bank accounts and when they complain here on HN, tell them "you don't have it that bad, it's war" etc.
FredPret 4y ago
What an absolute joke. And I see this is in Detroit - are they trying to chase investment away?
- vnchr 4y ago
  There's been a lot of outside money invested into legal marijuana businesses in Detroit, particularly along 8 mile road (brand recognition). It's an otherwise poor area, so I could see local police trying to get a taste from these new profitable businesses. They're not going after typical local businesses with tight margins and a neighborhood customer base.
  - FredPret 4y ago
    They’re attacking the best thing that’s happened to their town in decades. All the best to them
sethd 4y ago
This forfeiture notice is crazy: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4614019-Chappell-Notice-of-Intent-to-Forfeit.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4614019-Chappell-Not... or 3) Prove you are an innocent owner. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
- rascul 4y ago
  > So much for innocent until proven guilty. That's only for people and organizations with expensive legal teams.
- javajosh 4y ago
  >So much for innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure how long it has been this way, but "innocent until proven guilty" isn't true in most of the country. If you are arrested, you will spend at least a day in jail if you can make bail. If not, you will spend weeks or months in jail prior to your first hearing. Often, that hearing will just be to setup another hearing, months down the line. So, you could be in jail a very long time without ever having a hearing at all, and without the state proving your guilt. Even if you are rich and innocent and lucky, then you will spend a day in jail, and spend thousands on bail and lawyers, and if found innocent you will still have all of it on your record, lost all of that money, a day of your life, the abuse of the police officer and jailors, and there are many situations where answering "yes" to "have you ever been arrested" will disqualify you. So, yeah, innocent until proven guilty is not a thing in the US. I fear that people might read this and think it's hyberbole, or that I'm part of some right-wing conspiracy theorist thing. It's not, I'm not. If you know a LEO, ask them. A LEO in the US is judge, jury and executioner, and they are quite happy for this to be the case. It means they get to do whatever they want. It is remarkable that Chauvin got convicted for murdering George Floyd on camera! That's why I think the BLM protests aren't quite right - should be CLM, civilians lives matter, because it's not about race, it's about giving low-to-average intelligence people absolute power over everyone around them.
  - nopeYouAreWrong 4y ago
    The question is never "have you been arrested." It is, always, "have you ever been convicted"
alephnan 4y ago
I spent a summer in Vietnam 12 years ago. Police showed to my uncle’s cellphone store. Said their daughter’s IPhone was broken and left a note to an address of a different cellphone shop. You’re expected to go to that shop, buy the phone in the name of his daughter. They probably won’t actually collect the phone. They will return it for cash. If you don’t comply, the police will invite your customers to go for a ride around the block.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colpabar 4y ago
Jesus, the headline made me think this was done by citizens. I hate civil asset forfeiture so god damn much. https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civ...
- leephillips 4y ago
  “The Town” sounds like “citizens”?
  - colpabar 4y ago
    yes, citizens live in towns
mdrzn 4y ago
Man, civil forfeiture in the United States is really something else. This seems like a nightmare. Related video by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight regarding Civil Forfeiture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
As someone that has had to deal with the Wayne county legal system on a consistent basis at work, this doesn’t at all surprise me.
ta988 4y ago
Is there a map of civil forfeiture intense areas so we can all avoid living and starting businesses in those areas?
- bityard 4y ago
  It's legal in all 50 states, good luck. :)
  - ta988 4y ago
    Just not as intense everywhere
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
I'd bet a lot of money that someone related to, friends with, or owed a big favor by, one of the officials that would have had to sign off on this is deeply involved in the local weed industry. Between the insane capital required and level of asinine compliance stuff and box checking you need to do to get into the legal weed industry more or less precludes those people from being "easy targets". Your local dirt mover is going far less likely to be able show up in court with a "and that's exactly where each dollar bill came from" accounting than your local weed grower.
FYYFFF 4y ago
Very little about the War on Drugs was/is legal let alone moral. But just like "Torture" was gifted a pass during the Bush years, we ignored the reality of the "War on Drugs" in order to pacify the most frightened and ignorant among us... Oh and enrich the makers of fear, weapons and armory.
tlb 4y ago
Not excusing the extortion here, but if you run a high-profit gray-area business, it can be a good idea to butter up the local cops. There are many ways to do so legally, from equipment donations to contributing to the sheriff’s reelection campaign. For 0.1% of profits you can get them on your side in some situations that might come up: - you get burgled - federal law enforcement takes an interest in your industry and asks “who should we look at in your jurisdiction?” - you need a flexible interpretation of local zoning or fire codes to run your operation, especially if cranky neighbors might complain about noise or smell. Start with small contributions proactively before they make trouble.
- bityard 4y ago
  Yes, you have to work your way UP to two police cars.
- klyrs 4y ago
  You're normalizing corruption here. Specifically, recommending bribery. That can land you in more hot water than whatever "gray-area" business you're running.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Not if you make sure all of the bribes are legal, or else lobbying wouldn't be an entire industry. edit: In Illinois, at least, for it to be bribery there needs to be proof of an explicit quid quo pro e.g. a recording of you saying "If you give me X, I will do Y." Note that "I'm going to give you X," "What a coincidence, I'm going to do Y" does not count.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      You're describing flaws in the legal system that lead to corruption.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Also, holding a Concealed Carry license automatically gets the cops to like you. Show it when you're stopped (and tell them that you're not carrying unless you are)...
ccleve 4y ago
I've long had an idea for solving the civil asset forfeiture problem. It's simply this: any asset seized must go to the general fund, not into a law enforcement fund. If a local police department seizes cash or a car, that asset goes to the state. If federal law enforcement does the same, it goes to the treasury, not the FBI or ATF or the Justice Department. This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals. We also need due-process reforms, but this would be a good start. Government departments should never profit from criminal activity.
- fractallyte 4y ago
  Or, another idea, for when you're out of luck, furious, and have nothing to lose: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals. What about spite?
  - bonestamp2 4y ago
    I had the same thought. Some police have punished citizens for petty reasons and that door is still wide open in this solution. It's still better than what we have now, but it's not perfect. Perhaps an additional measure could be that a jury of the people should decide if the property is returned to the person or if it goes to the state/treasury. Most people seem to think civil forfeiture is problematic.
- sowbug 4y ago
  Or go a step farther: any asset seized (including money) must be publicly destroyed. Set fire to the defendant's pile of cash in the town square, while everyone watches. This would remove the financial incentive for seizure and would preserve its punitive aspect, both general and specific deterrence. As a check against wanton destruction, the seizing entity should remain subject to a civil cause of action of conversion (in regular language, liable for taking stuff) in case the defendant (or now plaintiff) can prove that the seizure didn't follow due process, or that the underlying justification for seizure in the first place was unfounded. Obviously, this suggestion isn't fully baked. But it's worth considering why anyone should benefit from punitive measures such as asset seizure (or punitive damages in a civil lawsuit).
jimt1234 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 Sorry if I'm being repetitive ^^^, but seeing the impact of civil forfeiture first-hand really shook me. I still get angry, and it took place 30 years ago!
theptip 4y ago
I suppose “write your representatives”? This is an area with reforms actively being proposed, and it feels like banning this stuff is inside the Overton Window. Eg https://reason.com/2020/12/17/justin-amash-introduces-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-nationwide/ https://reason.com/2020/12/17/justin-amash-introduces-bill-t..., https://ivn.us/2017/09/13/amash-gabbard-lead-surprising-victory-against-civil-asset-forfeiture https://ivn.us/2017/09/13/amash-gabbard-lead-surprising-vict....
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  The police willing to commit this crime under color of law are so incurably corrupt that changing the law wouldn’t stop them. They will still take your stuff, they just won’t give you a receipt.
  - bagels 4y ago
    Police in California siezed an armored car after laws being passed that explicitly made this illegal. It being legal makes it easier for them, but they don't stop at what is legal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2022/02/03/sheriffs-team-up-with-the-feds-to-hold-up-armored-car-company-civil-forfeiture-makes-it-possible/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/institutef...
tehwebguy 4y ago
No police that have been a part of any instances of civil forfeiture can possibly be reformed to a point where they should be allowed to hold any position of power whatsoever. This email is a nice smoking gun but every instance of this is the same exact mafia style violence against civilians even if they don’t admit to it in writing each time.
darioush 4y ago
efitz 4y ago
“Nice building ya got here; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”
GamerUncle 4y ago
Marvin Heemeyer was right
uoaei 4y ago
This is called "extortion"
hitovst 4y ago
Reminds me of the ATF issuing Leathermans with "ATF Always Think Forfeiture" engraved on them. Any forfeiture, or any supposed necessary violation of individual rights, should require investigation, and should cost the organization behind it, regardless of outcome. This may seem difficult to work, but incentivizing the opposite is completely absurd, and makes corruption inevitable.
otikik 4y ago
Just another gang.

419 points by leephillips 4y ago

The first time I learned about such a thing I was floored. I couldn’t fathom how that could be legal and how this didn’t get struck down as illegal by the courts. I am real curious to know if this went to courts and corraborted there.

mikebonnell 4y ago

Civil asset forfeiture laws are just begging to be abused. While I understand the original intent, there needs to be greater consequences to those abusing it. edit I'm not sure of the best way to improve or change this, so would love to hear from others on the best way to make that change possible.

willcipriano 4y ago
It's a good thought exercise for the "trust the experts" crowd. Reading the text of the constitution, a document designed to be understood by the people it would apply to, makes this a clear and obvious violation yet our appointed legal experts apparently don't see anything wrong.
- thaway2839 4y ago
  The constitution is contradictory. It isn't a perfect document written on a stone tablet by god. And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. So the idea that you can just read one clause in the constitution and therefore clearly know what is allowed and isn't (also, even the interpretation of that clause is not as easy as you are portraying here) is absolutely false.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution. In any case when a legal system clashes with the wording of the constitution it is that legal system that is wrong. That's what "highest law in the land" means. That is the entire purpose of having a constitution. Experts love to hide behind "it's complicated!" but in this case they have nowhere to hide.
    - eightysixfour 4y ago
      What part of the constitution do you think it clashes with?
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Pull over a guy, take the paper cash out of his wallet without charging him with a crime. No amount of wordplay can make that constitutional in a reasonable persons mind.
        pc86 4y ago
        I do think CAF as it's currently implemented is unconstitutional, but this clause doesn't make CAF as an idea unconstitutional. The entire point (originally) was to secure assets that you have probable cause to believe are funding or proceeds from crime. So you find someone with a trash bag full of pills and $300k in cash in their trunk after a legal search, you need a process to handle that money.
        willcipriano 4y ago
        That process has existed since before America has, find probable cause someone is committing a crime, detain the suspect (you can get a warrant first but this is more common), get a warrant (can be done over the phone in a couple of minutes), put the cash away somewhere safe until the trial is over. If they are guilty of that crime and that cash was involved, great! If not you have to return it. What we are talking about here is just taking the cash, sending you on your way and spending it, sidestepping your legal rights like access to a court provided attorney or a jury trial. It probably doesn't do much to prevent crime even, the fentanyl runners would much prefer you just take the cash they have on them and let them go.
Raed667 4y ago
A great video on the subject: Civil Forfeiture: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
tux1968 4y ago
It just shouldn't exist. A judge can impose such penalties upon conviction, but there shouldn't be a way for police to seize assets like this themselves.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture makes a little bit of sense where it was first used: dealing with the cargo of smuggler's ships. It was almost impossible to prosecute a ship owner who lived across the ocean in Europe, so simply seizing a ship and its smuggled goods was a viable alternative. Unfortunately it's expanded to all sorts of ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional seizures in the last few decades.
  - gwd 4y ago
    > It was almost impossible to prosecute a ship owner who lived across the ocean in Europe, so simply seizing a ship and its smuggled goods was a viable alternative. Such seizures should have the same procedural limitations as arrest of an individual does. Individual procedural limitations: - Police can arrest you and throw you in jail if they have reason to suspect you committed a crime. - Within a certain number of days of being thrown in jail, they have to either produce concrete charges against you, or let you go - While the trial is going on, you can apply for bail to get your freedom. - You can't finally be thrown in prison until you've been convicted by a jury of peers. You could apply parallel standards in this situation: - Police / coast guard could seize a ship if they have reason to believe it's smuggled goods - Within a certain number of days, they have to either produce concrete charges against the owner, or let them have your stuff back. - While the trial is going on, the owner should be able to apply for "bail" to get their stuff back. A judge can determine if it's worth the risk or not, just as they do for prison cases - The stuff can't be finally taken away until the owner has been convicted by a jury of peers. Adding in something like, "All seized goods are distributed to the poor" or something rather than "All seized goods go to the department which seized them" would go a long way towards ending this sort of abuse.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
leephillips 4y ago
The only legal way to stop abuse of authority is if those with a higher level of authority put the abusers in handcuffs. So in this case the state prosecutors need to go after the town officials. If the abuse is at the state level then the FBI needs to come in and start arresting people. Otherwise, why would they stop?
- code_duck 4y ago
  Local authorities work with Feds to do this, however. Civil asset forfeiture has been banned in various localities, but is still legal federally - so non-federal police arrange to have a Federal officer (DEA etc) on hand to take care of that part, and then a certain percentage is kept by the federal government and the rest given to the local authorities. So first it would need to be banned federally.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
belltaco 4y ago
The immediate first thing that should be done is that police departments should have no way of benefiting from the seized cash or assets because it creates a perverse incentive across the board for everyone in the police department to overlook transgressions. It should be held by the county/state and the interest accrued till a judge decides. If it's forfeited, it should go into the county or state public benefits program that only benefits the poorest of the poor, seniors and homeless people.
- lrem 4y ago
  The obvious thing to happen next cycle from instituting such rules: the benefits program's dedicated budget gets adjusted down by the expected value of forfeitures.
  - MarkSweep 4y ago
    Maybe instead any money collected civil asset forfeiture should be required to be sent to the Federal Reserve where it is destroyed. That should prevent any of these sorts of perverse incentives.
    - account42 4y ago
      For money that could work. For other assets (e.g. art, anything that has an environmental cost to create it) society may benefit from them being preserved. I guess you could still auction them off and burn the money.
      - lrem 4y ago
        And that's how you get auctions where all the bidders are personal friends of the judical officer.
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  There is actually proof that this works. Using Felony Probation and Parole in a particular state as an example, at one point it went to the department that ran Probation/Parole. So the Probation/Parole Officers were encouraged to aggressively pursue getting the fees for probation/parole. Then it was changed to go to the states general fund (so the department stopped getting it effectively). MAGICALLY the officers only got encouraged to care about restitution payments and started being very blaise about failure to pay fines and fees.
_uy6i 4y ago
Seems a simple way would be that people who have assets seized should get the greater of a) $20k OR b) 3x the value of items seized AND c) attorneys fees At least this allows 1) people to litigate smaller seizures 2) creates disincentives for the more abusive cases
- engineer_22 4y ago
  I appreciate that you're offering a solution. I think the proposal would put the burden on tax-payers.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    As it should be if the public wants the assets sized. Someone should have to pay for the collateral policy damage. It seems that the burden should to those who voted for the policy opposed the innocent victims.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jackcviers3 4y ago
How do you understand the original intent? > Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. --[1] They don't need to prove or even charge you to take property from you. It's robbery. The law needs to require a warrant issued by a judge to sieze the property. The property siezed needs to be stored as evidence, kept separate from other budget items in law enforcement organizations so that it cannot be used to cover expenditures (through auction or otherwise), be under the same sort of provisions as indefinitely holding individuals without charges, be returned in total when charges are not brought to trial or when a trial results in an acquittal, and the material should be subject to destruction after a guilty verdict and appeals are exhausted. Basically, the siezing organization shouldn't be able to use the material proceeds as part of the organizations' operating budgets at any time unless the material is voluntarily submitted by the convicted parties in lieu of levied fines after a conviction. It is evidence, not a funding source. I'm not saying that the government should not be able to take illegitimately gained property from convicted criminals; but that the incentive to do so for material gains by the government without conviction is rife with the potential for abuse as things currently stand. [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse#:~:text=Civil%20forfeiture%20allows%20police%20to,away%20permanently%20by%20the%20government https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po....
QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
Local governments simply cannot be trusted to dole out any punishment that they benefit from financially. We need to fund our courts from taxes, and require punitive fines to be payed by destroying the money instead of by the prosecutor pocketing it.
chrismcb 4y ago
The original intent was to stop drug dealers without having enough to convict. It is difficult for dealers to deal if they lose their car or boat or money. And apparently it is "obvious"the items came from ill gotten gains.

Group_B 4y ago

Legalizing marijuana federally cannot come soon enough.

justin66 4y ago
Nothing about federal marijuana legalization would have prevented the local police from performing civil asset forfeiture.
- lastofthemojito 4y ago
  You're right, but I think the mentality around marijuana legality is colored by the fact that marijuana remains illegal federally, marijuana legality is so new in many places, and marijuana isn't fully unrestricted even when "legalized". This page has a bunch of tables regarding the legality of recreational marijuana in Michigan: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2022/05/19/a-guide-to-michigans-recreational-marijuana-laws-what-you-should-know/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2022/05/19/a-gu... So while I don't think they should have done what they did, I'm not shocked that cops walked into a building full of marijuana plants and thought "we have to bust these guys". I think if marijuana became completely legal and unrestricted nationwide, cops would probably get it - "welp, I guess this is legal now".
  - Group_B 4y ago
    Yeah I guarantee there will be way less of this bullshit once it’s 100% legal.
    - justin66 4y ago
      Civil asset forfeiture is just theft, and the police who engage in this behavior are happy to steal from all sorts of people engaged in all sorts of perfectly legal activities. It has literally nothing to do with marijuana.

jmuguy 4y ago

Maybe a dumb question, but how do the police seize a building? Assuming this just means they barred, under threat of arrest, the owners from using the property?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
It would mean they had ownership of the building transferred to them.
butlerm 4y ago
When the police do anything it is ultimately an exercise of raw force. They come, evict you, and change the locks. The only question is do they have legal justification for their actions that will stand up in court? Warrants, judicial sanction, etc. in advance is highly advisable. This is why we are taking your property, go hire an attorney if you disagree.

kodah 4y ago

The government just passed a computer fraud act where they differentiate between good faith use of the term "security researcher" and bad faith. I think we can do the same with civil asset forfeiture, making the penalties immense. There's always the route of undoing civil asset forfeiture entirely, because it makes zero sense to anyone that encounters it or to our justice system. This is also a good time to point out: when states and the federal government disagree, without mandate for state agencies to follow state law (weed is legal in Michigan) this is the result. The citizens are who pay the price for disagreement, and that mechanic especially needs to change. Edit: Fair, they passed "guidance". I'd encourage anything at this point. Doing nothing is for the birds.

fennecfoxen 4y ago
No they didn't. The justice department announced their interpretation of that policy and how they'd use discretion. You want meaningful reform on anything within 500 miles of this topic from the legislature? Good luck.
- kodah 4y ago
  They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. Something would be better than the current approach, which is feeling more cartel-esque by the year. Nihilist and fatalist approaches like yours make the outcome certain. If I show up, speak like a big boy, and provide evidence someone might listen. This is the difference.
  - walls 4y ago
    > They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. That's how it works already. That's also why they can do it to whoever they like.
    - kodah 4y ago
      Right, leaving discretion without oversight is a massive gap. I am advocating that something be done. What are you advocating?

zivkovicp 4y ago

I would imagine it is worth registering a holding company that would ultimately own the property, and then another LLC that is responsible for renting and maintenance... and then just rent it to yourself. I don't know if this would make it more difficult for a seizure to occur but it seems that it would since the physical person is no longer the "owner" or even responsible for operating. If the assets are worth any significant amount, it's worth protecting them and yourself from the law... as crazy as it sounds.

prepend 4y ago
In this case it wouldn’t matter as the city would just seize it from the llc. They never charged anyone with a crime so they could just not charge the owners of the llc.

esics6A 4y ago

Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn't even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal system: "Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Police under the US Constitution have to go before a judge and court and make an Oath under perjury of law describing the items to be seized. There has to be a justification and supported by affirmation meaning evidence and supporting facts. In the case of the building that was seized it was operating a perfectly legal business under state law. It had the necessary licenses and permits. There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it's a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system.

jjoonathan 4y ago
I know that courts just interpret the constitution to mean what they want, but they really outdid themselves on this one. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- oceanghost 4y ago
  We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.
  - avs733 4y ago
    lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.

SeanLuke 4y ago

lbriner 4y ago
Possibly except that they returned the building the day after the article was published.
ch4s3 4y ago
> being promoted by Reason, which has a poor reputation for bias in reporting They're a LIBERTARIAN magazine, it says "free minds and free markets" right on the mast head. They're 100% up front about their view of the world. What do you really expect? This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists Which you can expect to see in the comments whenever it’s posted on HN as well.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    See my other response here[1], but just pointing to the ideology of the publication as a form of criticism is substance-less and lazy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists. No, it's like suspecting that an article might be distorted to serve socialist ideological interests when Jacobin is the only source. Which is, of course, what any sane person would do, even if they share the outlet’s ideological orientation.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    It just isn't a very interesting critique in and of itself. If the OP was pointing out how their ideological outlook influenced the facts presented in the story, or how they left some complicating factor out, then it would be useful. However C.J. Ciaramella, the author of the piece has a long history and good track record of reporting on police misconduct, and civil rights abuses. Moreover the article is covering reporting originally done by WXYZ Detroit, so it not even originally from Reason, they just picked it up for their audience. My overarching point is that unless you can point to the ideology of the publication negatively influencing the reporting it's just lazy and useless criticism.

ezconnect 4y ago

Too bad China can't sanction you for such an abusive practice.

engineer_22 4y ago
What's the connection? This comment went right over my head.
- Vladimof 4y ago
  The US sanction other countries for bad stuff they are doing... he wants China to join the sanctioning party so that they can help Americans?
pessimizer 4y ago
We're getting very close to the flip, when the US will start complaining that China's sanctions on it are inhumane and unfair.
llanowarelves 4y ago
Get most non-US corporations to ban American customers with little or no heads up, across all their SaaS, domains, bank accounts and when they complain here on HN, tell them "you don't have it that bad, it's war" etc.

FredPret 4y ago

What an absolute joke. And I see this is in Detroit - are they trying to chase investment away?

vnchr 4y ago
There's been a lot of outside money invested into legal marijuana businesses in Detroit, particularly along 8 mile road (brand recognition). It's an otherwise poor area, so I could see local police trying to get a taste from these new profitable businesses. They're not going after typical local businesses with tight margins and a neighborhood customer base.
- FredPret 4y ago
  They’re attacking the best thing that’s happened to their town in decades. All the best to them

sethd 4y ago

This forfeiture notice is crazy: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4614019-Chappell-Notice-of-Intent-to-Forfeit.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4614019-Chappell-Not... or 3) Prove you are an innocent owner. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

rascul 4y ago
> So much for innocent until proven guilty. That's only for people and organizations with expensive legal teams.
javajosh 4y ago
>So much for innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure how long it has been this way, but "innocent until proven guilty" isn't true in most of the country. If you are arrested, you will spend at least a day in jail if you can make bail. If not, you will spend weeks or months in jail prior to your first hearing. Often, that hearing will just be to setup another hearing, months down the line. So, you could be in jail a very long time without ever having a hearing at all, and without the state proving your guilt. Even if you are rich and innocent and lucky, then you will spend a day in jail, and spend thousands on bail and lawyers, and if found innocent you will still have all of it on your record, lost all of that money, a day of your life, the abuse of the police officer and jailors, and there are many situations where answering "yes" to "have you ever been arrested" will disqualify you. So, yeah, innocent until proven guilty is not a thing in the US. I fear that people might read this and think it's hyberbole, or that I'm part of some right-wing conspiracy theorist thing. It's not, I'm not. If you know a LEO, ask them. A LEO in the US is judge, jury and executioner, and they are quite happy for this to be the case. It means they get to do whatever they want. It is remarkable that Chauvin got convicted for murdering George Floyd on camera! That's why I think the BLM protests aren't quite right - should be CLM, civilians lives matter, because it's not about race, it's about giving low-to-average intelligence people absolute power over everyone around them.
- nopeYouAreWrong 4y ago
  The question is never "have you been arrested." It is, always, "have you ever been convicted"

alephnan 4y ago

I spent a summer in Vietnam 12 years ago. Police showed to my uncle’s cellphone store. Said their daughter’s IPhone was broken and left a note to an address of a different cellphone shop. You’re expected to go to that shop, buy the phone in the name of his daughter. They probably won’t actually collect the phone. They will return it for cash. If you don’t comply, the police will invite your customers to go for a ride around the block.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

colpabar 4y ago

Jesus, the headline made me think this was done by citizens. I hate civil asset forfeiture so god damn much. https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.aclupa.org/en/issues/criminal-justice-reform/civ...

leephillips 4y ago
“The Town” sounds like “citizens”?
- colpabar 4y ago
  yes, citizens live in towns

mdrzn 4y ago

Man, civil forfeiture in the United States is really something else. This seems like a nightmare. Related video by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight regarding Civil Forfeiture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

As someone that has had to deal with the Wayne county legal system on a consistent basis at work, this doesn’t at all surprise me.

ta988 4y ago

Is there a map of civil forfeiture intense areas so we can all avoid living and starting businesses in those areas?

bityard 4y ago
It's legal in all 50 states, good luck. :)
- ta988 4y ago
  Just not as intense everywhere

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

I'd bet a lot of money that someone related to, friends with, or owed a big favor by, one of the officials that would have had to sign off on this is deeply involved in the local weed industry. Between the insane capital required and level of asinine compliance stuff and box checking you need to do to get into the legal weed industry more or less precludes those people from being "easy targets". Your local dirt mover is going far less likely to be able show up in court with a "and that's exactly where each dollar bill came from" accounting than your local weed grower.

FYYFFF 4y ago

Very little about the War on Drugs was/is legal let alone moral. But just like "Torture" was gifted a pass during the Bush years, we ignored the reality of the "War on Drugs" in order to pacify the most frightened and ignorant among us... Oh and enrich the makers of fear, weapons and armory.

tlb 4y ago

Not excusing the extortion here, but if you run a high-profit gray-area business, it can be a good idea to butter up the local cops. There are many ways to do so legally, from equipment donations to contributing to the sheriff’s reelection campaign. For 0.1% of profits you can get them on your side in some situations that might come up: - you get burgled - federal law enforcement takes an interest in your industry and asks “who should we look at in your jurisdiction?” - you need a flexible interpretation of local zoning or fire codes to run your operation, especially if cranky neighbors might complain about noise or smell. Start with small contributions proactively before they make trouble.

bityard 4y ago
Yes, you have to work your way UP to two police cars.
klyrs 4y ago
You're normalizing corruption here. Specifically, recommending bribery. That can land you in more hot water than whatever "gray-area" business you're running.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Not if you make sure all of the bribes are legal, or else lobbying wouldn't be an entire industry. edit: In Illinois, at least, for it to be bribery there needs to be proof of an explicit quid quo pro e.g. a recording of you saying "If you give me X, I will do Y." Note that "I'm going to give you X," "What a coincidence, I'm going to do Y" does not count.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    You're describing flaws in the legal system that lead to corruption.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Also, holding a Concealed Carry license automatically gets the cops to like you. Show it when you're stopped (and tell them that you're not carrying unless you are)...

ccleve 4y ago

I've long had an idea for solving the civil asset forfeiture problem. It's simply this: any asset seized must go to the general fund, not into a law enforcement fund. If a local police department seizes cash or a car, that asset goes to the state. If federal law enforcement does the same, it goes to the treasury, not the FBI or ATF or the Justice Department. This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals. We also need due-process reforms, but this would be a good start. Government departments should never profit from criminal activity.

fractallyte 4y ago
Or, another idea, for when you're out of luck, furious, and have nothing to lose: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals. What about spite?
- bonestamp2 4y ago
  I had the same thought. Some police have punished citizens for petty reasons and that door is still wide open in this solution. It's still better than what we have now, but it's not perfect. Perhaps an additional measure could be that a jury of the people should decide if the property is returned to the person or if it goes to the state/treasury. Most people seem to think civil forfeiture is problematic.
sowbug 4y ago
Or go a step farther: any asset seized (including money) must be publicly destroyed. Set fire to the defendant's pile of cash in the town square, while everyone watches. This would remove the financial incentive for seizure and would preserve its punitive aspect, both general and specific deterrence. As a check against wanton destruction, the seizing entity should remain subject to a civil cause of action of conversion (in regular language, liable for taking stuff) in case the defendant (or now plaintiff) can prove that the seizure didn't follow due process, or that the underlying justification for seizure in the first place was unfounded. Obviously, this suggestion isn't fully baked. But it's worth considering why anyone should benefit from punitive measures such as asset seizure (or punitive damages in a civil lawsuit).

jimt1234 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 Sorry if I'm being repetitive ^^^, but seeing the impact of civil forfeiture first-hand really shook me. I still get angry, and it took place 30 years ago!

theptip 4y ago

I suppose “write your representatives”? This is an area with reforms actively being proposed, and it feels like banning this stuff is inside the Overton Window. Eg https://reason.com/2020/12/17/justin-amash-introduces-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-nationwide/ https://reason.com/2020/12/17/justin-amash-introduces-bill-t..., https://ivn.us/2017/09/13/amash-gabbard-lead-surprising-victory-against-civil-asset-forfeiture https://ivn.us/2017/09/13/amash-gabbard-lead-surprising-vict....

tehwebguy 4y ago
The police willing to commit this crime under color of law are so incurably corrupt that changing the law wouldn’t stop them. They will still take your stuff, they just won’t give you a receipt.
- bagels 4y ago
  Police in California siezed an armored car after laws being passed that explicitly made this illegal. It being legal makes it easier for them, but they don't stop at what is legal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2022/02/03/sheriffs-team-up-with-the-feds-to-hold-up-armored-car-company-civil-forfeiture-makes-it-possible/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/institutef...

tehwebguy 4y ago

No police that have been a part of any instances of civil forfeiture can possibly be reformed to a point where they should be allowed to hold any position of power whatsoever. This email is a nice smoking gun but every instance of this is the same exact mafia style violence against civilians even if they don’t admit to it in writing each time.

darioush 4y ago

efitz 4y ago

“Nice building ya got here; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

GamerUncle 4y ago

Marvin Heemeyer was right

uoaei 4y ago

This is called "extortion"

hitovst 4y ago

Reminds me of the ATF issuing Leathermans with "ATF Always Think Forfeiture" engraved on them. Any forfeiture, or any supposed necessary violation of individual rights, should require investigation, and should cost the organization behind it, regardless of outcome. This may seem difficult to work, but incentivizing the opposite is completely absurd, and makes corruption inevitable.

otikik 4y ago

Just another gang.