4 ms·

Haven’t we been hearing about the horrors of civil asset forfeiture for more than a decade? Why is this still happening? Is there any sizeable constituency for

• Simulacra 3y ago
  Because it's profitable.
• School-Cotton 3y ago
  > Why is this still happening? What would cause it to stop happening? State control over the police in the US is imperfect, and, since the US is a fundamentally flawed democracy for deep structural reasons, popular control over the state is even more limited. Thus there are two separate reasons why this wouldn’t be stopped even if most people were against it (which is by no means clear anyway).
  • ddq 3y ago
    My hope with stories like this is broader awareness and understanding of the deep systemic flaws in the U.S. as a State. In so many areas, the amassed institutional power far exceeds the popular will to challenge it in any serious, effective capacity, the sheer number of such examples a shotgun effect discouraging resistance. I’d like to dream that it would become fairly obvious to the majority that these institutions simply are not under actual popular control, have no true accountability, and are in baldfaced defiance of the country’s founding principles and Constitution. I have yet to hear any convincing argument that this assessment is wrong, so hopefully the number of Americans who agree will someday reach a critical mass.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• photonbeam 3y ago
  Has there been any significant challenges to this system?
• fzeroracer 3y ago
  It's still happening because people believe the police to be above the law. Look at how hard people go to bat for officers that murder someone and have it caught on video, how expansive qualified immunity is. When these kinds of issues go to court, it's very hard to get people to look beyond the idea that blue badge good which makes any court case a massive uphill battle. It's not that the police are right, it's that if you get harassed by the police or pulled over etc that you clearly did something wrong, and people will contort themselves into a pretzel to make that logic true.
• uLogMicheal 3y ago
  The sizeable constituency has been isolated into tiny bubbles of self-absorption.
• klodolph 3y ago
  It's a slow process fixing it, and the police departments don't want it fixed, and the police departments have a lot of leverage. It is slowly being fixed, however.
  • loeg 3y ago
    What makes you say it is slowly being fixed?
    • klodolph 3y ago
      Laws are being passed across the country which ban, or attempt to ban the practice. This is being done on a state-by-state basis.
      • loeg 3y ago
        Anywhere other than New Mexico (2015)? That's the only example I can find on the Wikipedia article on the subject.
        • klodolph 3y ago
          Yes, other states as well, such as mentioned in the article: > The sheriff’s office has specialized in and perfected the practice, known as civil asset forfeiture, despite a 2016 law meant to ban it in Nebraska. Other laws have either passed, not been passed, or are being written in other states. I’m not going to dig up more citations for a dead thread buried in the HN archives—it is easy enough to find out about these laws being passed. If you can’t find information on Wikipedia, you will have to look elsewhere. I know traditional news sources carry stories about legislation, so I recommend starting there.
          • loeg 3y ago
            Man, I was just curious. My impression was that progress had been slow.
• isleyaardvark 3y ago
  >In 2016, Garrett led an effort to change Nebraska’s forfeiture laws. The bill, when passed, led state senators and civil liberties advocates to believe they had abolished state civil asset forfeiture. >The 2016 law was designed to require a criminal conviction before the state could seize money, according to the bill’s statement of intent. >But the Legislature left two loopholes. Seizures over $25,000 could circumvent state law entirely by being adopted into federal court. >And law enforcement could still seize assets under state law if evidence connected the cash to drugs – even if there are no drugs in the car. Because law enforcement is determined to steal people's money.
• yieldcrv 3y ago
  > Why is this still happening? Because nationally its been upheld as constitutional and would require a constitutional amendment. This interpretation of the sixth amendment isn't open to other interpretations. Specifically that civil cases are different than criminal cases, so they civilly charge the asset itself and the not the human being. Whoops. Subsequently, some states started changing their own laws to stop the practice in their state, including the state in this article but it didn't work. Obviously if they started seizing bank branches under probably cause of criminal activity, it would change overnight, but nobody wants a real challenge so they don't.
  • sokoloff 3y ago
    There's still the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures, which seems like it gives grounds here.
    • yieldcrv 3y ago
      drivers either allow the search "I have nothing to hide", or the drug dog gives a false positive for probable cause the police aren't skipping these procedures
      • sokoloff 3y ago
        The seizure part is more relevant here.
        • yieldcrv 3y ago
          Okay. Well look at the current case law. The courts are not in a place to invalidate existing laws, so the legislatures are required to change those laws. Or a clarifying constitutional amendment is required. If you can think of a shortcut nobody else thought of then go for it.
    • UncleMeat 3y ago
      Sadly, a nontrivial portion of the scotus doesn’t give a shit about the 4th and will happily let police steal from people because drugs.
• tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  > Why is this still happening? Unions the police want it to stay and they have a very strong Union. It's the other side of well coordinated collection action it can allow a very small minority to hold the rest of the people hostage.