5 ms·

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.

by tux1968 4y ago

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
    This doesn't seem to be responsive to the point made by the GP: if the owner is in another country, perhaps one that doesn't have extradition to the U.S., then there's not going to be a trial. The U.S. doesn't have in absentia trials except in extraordinary circumstances like a defendant fleeing the country mid-trial.
    - gwd 4y ago
      Looking briefly through the "habeas corpus" stuff, it looks like the way it technically works is this: - Police arrest you - You can request a Writ of Habeas Corpus - The judge then issues the Writ - The police either have to accuse you of a crime or let you go. You could do the same thing wrt the stolen goods: - Police sieze contraband - Owner requests Writ of Habeas Stuffus - etc In the case of an owner in another country and is pretty sure they'll get arrested if they show up to claim their stuff, then they'll choose to leave the stuff where it is rather than apply for a writ. After a year, the police could consider it forfeit by default.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        In rem jurisdiction over property is the exact basis of civil forfeiture - this isn't a solution, it's the problem.
        gwd 4y ago
        Unfortunately I can't understand what you're saying (perhaps beacuse I'm missing the appropriate background). Can you please explain what you mean?
        NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Where courts make a "thing" rather than a "person" the subject of a case, this is called "in rem" (which is Latin for "against a thing"). The legal theory which underlies civil forfeiture is "in rem jurisdiction" where it's not the owner, but rather the property, which is the defendant in the case. If the case is at a Federal level, then it will be something like "United States of America vs. $50,000 in United States currency". The standard of proof is not at the criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt") but instead the civil standard ("preponderance of evidence").
- jrs235 4y ago
  The goods should be stored until the owner comes to claim it in person. If the person has committed a crime that the police feel there is enough evidence to arrest them for they can arrest them at that time. If the goods are left and unclaimed for a period of time (30 days? 60 days? 6 months) then the goods can be considered abandoned the dealt with accordingly. However, if someone is present with the goods and claims to be the owner (and the police don't have evidence contrary to that) then the goods should continue on with the current claimed owner.
- Hello71 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. why not? prosecute them normally, if they show up then the trial proceeds as usual, if not then convict them in absentia and then forfeit the goods. why does this require a whole new system that bypasses all the constitutional rights for domestic citizens?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    In absentia criminal trials are almost unheard of in the U.S. as a result of the due process requirements in the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    Because the US does not do "in absentia" trials. It's why Snowden has never been convicted; he fled before he could be charged. And now that he's gone, the US can't do anything if Russia won't extradite him.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  You are describing a criminal situation.

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
  This doesn't seem to be responsive to the point made by the GP: if the owner is in another country, perhaps one that doesn't have extradition to the U.S., then there's not going to be a trial. The U.S. doesn't have in absentia trials except in extraordinary circumstances like a defendant fleeing the country mid-trial.
  - gwd 4y ago
    Looking briefly through the "habeas corpus" stuff, it looks like the way it technically works is this: - Police arrest you - You can request a Writ of Habeas Corpus - The judge then issues the Writ - The police either have to accuse you of a crime or let you go. You could do the same thing wrt the stolen goods: - Police sieze contraband - Owner requests Writ of Habeas Stuffus - etc In the case of an owner in another country and is pretty sure they'll get arrested if they show up to claim their stuff, then they'll choose to leave the stuff where it is rather than apply for a writ. After a year, the police could consider it forfeit by default.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      In rem jurisdiction over property is the exact basis of civil forfeiture - this isn't a solution, it's the problem.
      - gwd 4y ago
        Unfortunately I can't understand what you're saying (perhaps beacuse I'm missing the appropriate background). Can you please explain what you mean?
        NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Where courts make a "thing" rather than a "person" the subject of a case, this is called "in rem" (which is Latin for "against a thing"). The legal theory which underlies civil forfeiture is "in rem jurisdiction" where it's not the owner, but rather the property, which is the defendant in the case. If the case is at a Federal level, then it will be something like "United States of America vs. $50,000 in United States currency". The standard of proof is not at the criminal standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt") but instead the civil standard ("preponderance of evidence").
jrs235 4y ago
The goods should be stored until the owner comes to claim it in person. If the person has committed a crime that the police feel there is enough evidence to arrest them for they can arrest them at that time. If the goods are left and unclaimed for a period of time (30 days? 60 days? 6 months) then the goods can be considered abandoned the dealt with accordingly. However, if someone is present with the goods and claims to be the owner (and the police don't have evidence contrary to that) then the goods should continue on with the current claimed owner.
Hello71 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. why not? prosecute them normally, if they show up then the trial proceeds as usual, if not then convict them in absentia and then forfeit the goods. why does this require a whole new system that bypasses all the constitutional rights for domestic citizens?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  In absentia criminal trials are almost unheard of in the U.S. as a result of the due process requirements in the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Because the US does not do "in absentia" trials. It's why Snowden has never been convicted; he fled before he could be charged. And now that he's gone, the US can't do anything if Russia won't extradite him.
tehwebguy 4y ago
You are describing a criminal situation.