4 ms·

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 eno

by 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.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
I guess I just don't understand the law in question. I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. So more likely than not wouldn't apply since I see no evidence of likelihood of crime at all. To me it's quite obvious this is just government condoned theft. The police and politicians involved should all be ashamed of themselves. And then frankly they should be punished.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Presumably, the prosecution would charge criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416. The burden would be on them at court to establish that the cash, the text messages, the vacuum sealers, the person they were contacting in Colorado, and their itinerary constituted "substantial steps" towards (1) buying a bunch of hash oil in Colorado and (2) driving it across Nebraska on their way back to Virginia.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > Presumably, the prosecution would charge criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416. What? > Bouldin made his decision while standing on the shoulder of I-80 as cars whizzed by. He decided he wasn’t worried about the felony charges – there was nothing illegal in his van. He wouldn’t sign. > The Seward County deputies didn’t arrest him, as they had said they would. But they did seize his cash while charging him with a misdemeanor for possessing drug money – charges that were later dropped. > The county attorney continued with the seizure in civil court in order to keep the $18,000. Bouldin received only a warning for the traffic violation that started it all. What do you say they would presumably charge him with criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416? They charged him with a misdemeanor for possessing drug money. Then they dropped it. Frankly I'm amazed they wasted their time charging with anything when they can simply steal his money regardless of any charges.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      As I understand it, they charged him with a misdemeanor because he signed a civil forfeiture of the money, and their leverage was their ability to charge him with felony criminal attempt.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > As I understand it, they charged him with a misdemeanor because he signed a civil forfeiture of the money, and their leverage was their ability to charge him with felony criminal attempt. ? >> Bouldin made his decision while standing on the shoulder of I-80 as cars whizzed by. He decided he wasn’t worried about the felony charges – there was nothing illegal in his van. He wouldn’t sign. That is from the post by me that you're currently responding to. Notice the last sentence.
- cge 3y ago
  > I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. That was the initial motivation for this particular comment thread: the article excludes essentially all of the evidence the state presented in court against Bouldin. Readers have to look at other sources, like court summaries, to find that evidence. The state did present evidence, if weak, with text messages, equipment, and prior convictions, while Bouldin didn't present anything meaningful, and in a civil case, he needed to. That's how the civil court system works, as problematic as it is. The article both presents a legitimate grievance, and presents it misleadingly, which is what makes it frustrating to me.

by cge 3y ago

CogitoCogito 3y ago

I guess I just don't understand the law in question. I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. So more likely than not wouldn't apply since I see no evidence of likelihood of crime at all. To me it's quite obvious this is just government condoned theft. The police and politicians involved should all be ashamed of themselves. And then frankly they should be punished.

tptacek 3y ago
Presumably, the prosecution would charge criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416. The burden would be on them at court to establish that the cash, the text messages, the vacuum sealers, the person they were contacting in Colorado, and their itinerary constituted "substantial steps" towards (1) buying a bunch of hash oil in Colorado and (2) driving it across Nebraska on their way back to Virginia.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > Presumably, the prosecution would charge criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416. What? > Bouldin made his decision while standing on the shoulder of I-80 as cars whizzed by. He decided he wasn’t worried about the felony charges – there was nothing illegal in his van. He wouldn’t sign. > The Seward County deputies didn’t arrest him, as they had said they would. But they did seize his cash while charging him with a misdemeanor for possessing drug money – charges that were later dropped. > The county attorney continued with the seizure in civil court in order to keep the $18,000. Bouldin received only a warning for the traffic violation that started it all. What do you say they would presumably charge him with criminal attempt of Neb. 28-416? They charged him with a misdemeanor for possessing drug money. Then they dropped it. Frankly I'm amazed they wasted their time charging with anything when they can simply steal his money regardless of any charges.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    As I understand it, they charged him with a misdemeanor because he signed a civil forfeiture of the money, and their leverage was their ability to charge him with felony criminal attempt.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > As I understand it, they charged him with a misdemeanor because he signed a civil forfeiture of the money, and their leverage was their ability to charge him with felony criminal attempt. ? >> Bouldin made his decision while standing on the shoulder of I-80 as cars whizzed by. He decided he wasn’t worried about the felony charges – there was nothing illegal in his van. He wouldn’t sign. That is from the post by me that you're currently responding to. Notice the last sentence.
cge 3y ago
> I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of a crime in that article. That was the initial motivation for this particular comment thread: the article excludes essentially all of the evidence the state presented in court against Bouldin. Readers have to look at other sources, like court summaries, to find that evidence. The state did present evidence, if weak, with text messages, equipment, and prior convictions, while Bouldin didn't present anything meaningful, and in a civil case, he needed to. That's how the civil court system works, as problematic as it is. The article both presents a legitimate grievance, and presents it misleadingly, which is what makes it frustrating to me.