7 ms·

I have to agree here. The author, I would argue, does the topic a disservice by not presenting the details of the state's arguments and evidence against Bouldi

by cge 3y ago

I have to agree here. The author, I would argue, does the topic a disservice by not presenting the details of the state's arguments and evidence against Bouldin, and not more clearly distinguishing stories of two methods here. The "abandonment" form and negotiation, sounds quite a bit like legalized bribery. But with Bouldin, given the evidence (to what you quote, the supreme court summary [1] adds that his prior conviction involved twelve pounds of marijuana, and that his car had a vacuum sealer and boxes of vacuum seal bags) he was, more likely than not, on a trip to smuggle marijuana. But rather than being something to be hidden in discussing the case, that Bouldin was more likely than not to be planning on smuggling is, I would argue, an example of one of the major problems with civil forfeiture: it subverts the justice system by moving cases from criminal standards of beyond reasonable doubt to civil standards of preponderance of the evidence. The American justice system is not built on convicting people who are more likely than not to be guilty, nor on declining to even prosecute them, which might be much less profitable to the county, in favor of just taking their money. And at the same time, that it uses civil cases is what makes it harder to combat. It doesn't seem like the courts here had to be willing participants in this behavior, or accept ridiculous evidence, they just had to apply the law and civil standards. The money was more likely than not to be for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. With those standards, it doesn't seem likely that Bouldin had much of a case. The problem is that those are not supposed to be the standards, and that the process seems to create very problematic incentives. Without taking an opinion on drugs themselves, or laws around them, a cynical view here is that civil forfeiture used in this way actually makes it in the interest of the county to encourage drug trafficking through their jurisdiction, and to avoid catching traffickers with drugs, or catching them too often. How much more convenient it must be to simply take some cash, without the need to actually arrest and prosecute anyone. And how much more profitable, rather than imprisoning a trafficker, to let potential traffickers continue on their way, their cash seized, to continue trafficking and thus have some chance of being caught and have their cash seized again. And surely it would not be wise to take money too often, or make trafficking too difficult, along that route, in which case traffickers might choose to take their business elsewhere. It seems to make the process more like a bizarre and adversarial tariff scheme rather than anti-drug enforcement. So, in those senses, even if it is mostly, or even only, taking money from likely traffickers, it is still extremely problematic. There should not be a need to hide this when discussing it. [1] https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/state-v-eighteen-thousand-dollars https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/state-v-eighteen-thousand-...

tptacek 3y ago
This is all true and thoughtfully written; the only wrinkle I want to add here are that the shift, from the "preponderance" civil standard to "reasonable doubt" criminal standard, is corrected here not by waiting for Bouldin to actually get caught trafficking, but by charging him under Nebraska attempt liability statutes; in other words, we're in some sense rooting for Bouldin to lose not only his money but his freedom by rationalizing the law.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> he was, more likely than not, on a trip to smuggle marijuana. > The money was more likely than not to be for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. What is the basis of these claims? Do you have any statistics backing it up? Do you, for example, know how often Bouldin drives with cash in his car and do you know how often Bouldin engages in smuggling of marijuana with said cash?
- cge 3y ago
  The "more likely than not" here was from a legal perspective, not a statistical one. The state presented evidence that doesn't seem like it would be nearly enough to convict Bouldin, but they could argue was suggestive of the smuggling: the cash, the vacuum sealer and bags, a previous conviction with a large quantity of marijuana, some text messages the state argued were a negotiation of a sale, and so on. Meanwhile, Bouldin didn't offer a good defense. In a criminal case, he wouldn't have needed to, and in a criminal case, the state would have needed to have strong evidence. Civil forfeiture, however, simply meant that it was enough for the state to just offer a bit more than Bouldin did. The point here is that, if the police had nothing to offer against Bouldin, beyond that he had some cash, then civil forfeiture wouldn't have made that much difference, because he did actually challenge it: cases where people with no evidence at all against them are convinced not to challenge civil forfeiture are different, but that was not the case here. Civil forfeiture seems most dangerous in these cases where a reasonable person would look at the evidence and think that maybe the person was in the process of committing a crime, because it makes that 'maybe' enough, when in reputable criminal justice systems it wouldn't be. And when 'maybe' is enough to punish someone, then innocent people are likely to get hurt.

by cge 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

This is all true and thoughtfully written; the only wrinkle I want to add here are that the shift, from the "preponderance" civil standard to "reasonable doubt" criminal standard, is corrected here not by waiting for Bouldin to actually get caught trafficking, but by charging him under Nebraska attempt liability statutes; in other words, we're in some sense rooting for Bouldin to lose not only his money but his freedom by rationalizing the law.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> he was, more likely than not, on a trip to smuggle marijuana. > The money was more likely than not to be for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. What is the basis of these claims? Do you have any statistics backing it up? Do you, for example, know how often Bouldin drives with cash in his car and do you know how often Bouldin engages in smuggling of marijuana with said cash?

cge 3y ago
The "more likely than not" here was from a legal perspective, not a statistical one. The state presented evidence that doesn't seem like it would be nearly enough to convict Bouldin, but they could argue was suggestive of the smuggling: the cash, the vacuum sealer and bags, a previous conviction with a large quantity of marijuana, some text messages the state argued were a negotiation of a sale, and so on. Meanwhile, Bouldin didn't offer a good defense. In a criminal case, he wouldn't have needed to, and in a criminal case, the state would have needed to have strong evidence. Civil forfeiture, however, simply meant that it was enough for the state to just offer a bit more than Bouldin did. The point here is that, if the police had nothing to offer against Bouldin, beyond that he had some cash, then civil forfeiture wouldn't have made that much difference, because he did actually challenge it: cases where people with no evidence at all against them are convinced not to challenge civil forfeiture are different, but that was not the case here. Civil forfeiture seems most dangerous in these cases where a reasonable person would look at the evidence and think that maybe the person was in the process of committing a crime, because it makes that 'maybe' enough, when in reputable criminal justice systems it wouldn't be. And when 'maybe' is enough to punish someone, then innocent people are likely to get hurt.