9 ms·

Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

219 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

jkubicek 3y ago
Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.
- klyrs 3y ago
  I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.
    - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
      The best case response on this issue I’ve seen from TBLiners is apathy.
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      I've never met a pro police type that would mention anything as corruption. If you asked them directly some would agree, but as a group I generally just hear apoligism.
      - smrq 3y ago
        How can it be corruption when it's all because of just "a few bad apples"? (Quoth my thin blue line next door neighbor.) To that world view, nothing wrong is systemic; it's all down to individuals whose behavior is not considered part of the whole. Incidentally, I'm not sure he's familiar with the second half of the idiom ("spoils the whole bunch").
    - burkaman 3y ago
      https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-profit/ https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-... 2016 essay by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police arguing against civil forfeiture reform. > The FOP does not disagree that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform. In fact, we worked very closely with Senator Jeff Sessions on this issue going back to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-property-seizures-coming-from-justice-department/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-pr... Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of civil forfeiture's biggest fans, reinstates aggressive federal policies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-civil-asset-forfeiture-1510237360 https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-... 2017 essay by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein praising civil forfeiture and arguing reform is not necessary. > Some critics claim that civil asset forfeiture fails to protect property rights or provide due process. The truth is that there are multiple levels of judicial protection, as well as administrative safeguards.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Does the Society that a majority of Supreme Court Justices belong to count as credible to you? https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-rea...
      - hedora 3y ago
        4 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe v. Wade (and ruled there is no right to privacy in the US) were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. So, no.
        klyrs 3y ago
        Whether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments. I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, provided a Congress unwilling to hold them accountable (which it currently is). My question of 'credibility' is not "do you like the Federalist Society" but "do you think they're in political alignment with the Thin Blue Liners and are they writing policy."
        hedora 3y ago
        I don't think the current Supreme Court is a credible source of information about US law. The fact that many of them belong to some organization lends it negative credibility in my mind.
        klyrs 3y ago
        I mean, they essentially write and rewrite laws that come before them. They're literally an authoritative source of law. We can scream about the injustice of that until we're blue in the face, but denying the facts doesn't get us anywhere.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      The fact the police unions sell or give out special signifiers for family members of police is proof enough. The fake badgers stuck to windshields in the NYC area is an obvious reminder of the corruption openly allowed by the police. And then you have the license plates and stickers and whatnot.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Biden was one of the "architects" of modern civil forfeiture: https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-architect-of-the-governments-asset-forfeiture-program/ https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar... Voting gets us nowhere with limiting state power. Like falling for a good cop bad cop routine. It provides consent for both sides of the aisle abuse like this. edit: I don't know fee.org. Here's a more neutral reference to widely-known facts: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-prevention-plan-repeats-old-mistakes-policing-2022-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-preven... It's easily researchable.
  - mikece 3y ago
    "Voting doesn't help: it only encourages the bastards!" Too much truth in that, sadly.
  - ciabattabread 3y ago
    So are you advocating for not voting? Exclusively using Tor and ProtonMail? Mass civil disobedience? Overthrow of government? Or becoming a lawyer and filing suit against police departments and other government agencies? Or financially supporting those lawyers?
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Voting is at best a harm reduction tactic. But as I said for limiting state powers specifically, it's usually not even that.
      - bashinator 3y ago
        So what actual actions do you advocate for ordinary citizens to take?
        membrcovidb 3y ago
        [dead]
- banannaise 3y ago
  Generally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their jobs.) The opponent here isn't other citizens, it's the police and their organizations (police benevolent associations, police unions, etc.) which wield considerable political power, and to an extent also legal power (since they collectively have nearly full discretion over what laws are enforced and by what means, to the extent they can cooperate amongst themselves).
  - DebtDeflation 3y ago
    It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Shit NYPD publicly doxed and threatened the mayor's daughter. I've always known the police were evil but that made me stop and really wonder what sort of constraints municipal politicians are operating under. Like that is very very close to "gloves off" mafia type shit right out in the open. What kinds of threats do they make against those figures in private?
      - thechao 3y ago
        In case anyone is interested in the power dynamic in Imperial Rome between the Emporers and the Legions, this is is an analogous situation.
        joshuaissac 3y ago
- bwanab 3y ago
  That's true. Nobody supports civil forfeiture until the moment a politician realizes there's hay to be made from claiming that they support police efforts to prevent crime.
- kevin_nisbet 3y ago
  > In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense. I suspect like many things, there was some logic to the introduction. But it's just gotten to really batshit levels that there is probably nothing to do but stop the practice. As I understand it, some of the origins were that for debts owed to the government, with the person not present in the country, it was much more practical to target assets that may exist within the country than try and get the individual. Even in the introduction in the criminal context, I sort of understand the logic. In criminal organizations, there are likely people profiting a lot, that have engineered enough doubt that proving their connection to the beyond a reasonable standard is so difficult. But meeting a preponderance of the evidence standard in the civil context to reclaim those assets I can understand the argument. So I think there are some bad and weak arguments, but they certainly don't outweigh what's happening now. I think one of the worst argument I heard for not returning the money, was the police department wasn't able to follow the judges order, because they deposited the money into a bank account and transferred to another agency. And they'll never be able to find the exact same bills again that they gave to the bank, so are unable to follow the court order to return the money they took to the rightful owner.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Yes the basic premise for why people would support civil forfeiture is “due process let’s too many people ‘get away with it’ so we need an extrajudicial process”. It’s the same basic rationale that all freedoms are ultimately curtailed with - all those rules are inconvenient, let’s by pass them a little bit. Then the reason for the rules start to become readily apparent again. Then the rationale takes on the old “can’t make an omelet” refrain, as if the world revolves around punishing criminals and everyone need to accept the collateral damage. Personally I’m of the old “rather let a thousand guilty go free than punish a single innocent,” but I also don’t set policy.
  - westurner 3y ago
    Civil forfeiture in the United States > History > Holder / Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... Account for the seized assets. Interledger Protocol works with any type of (digital) asset ledger; W3C ILP. The FTC CAT Consolidated Audit Trail system does not uniquely identify individual bills / [ledger] dollars, either FWIU. But are photons uniquely identifiable either Due process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process : > Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law." [3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution. Whether it's possible to disarm and incapacitate without larceny. Criminal Justice Reform > Arguments on criminal justice reform > Support for reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the_United_States#Support_for_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the... Save the children. School-to-prison pipeline > Alternative approaches, Mental Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
- jackmott42 3y ago
  Get ready, because Scotus is writing such a defense right now.
- rhino369 3y ago
  There really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing. But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards. Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property. I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin you can’t explain. By law, I have to file tax returns that explains my income. There isn’t a huge difference. These kind of seizures makes organized crime much easier to fight. But again, a lot of these examples look more like straight theft. Also, law enforcement shouldn’t get to keep the money it seizes. It’s a perverse incentive. Should just go into the general treasury.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    If taxes were paid on the money then your example makes zero sense. But yes we must explain everything to the Government. Rights aren't inherent, but are granted to us by the government if we can explain good enough why we need them. Cops should pull me over and ask how I financed my car and if I don't have a good enough answer/documentation on me they should get to take it /s
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    There's absolutely no reason to have civil forfeiture when criminal forfeiture exists. If you think money is the product of a crime, seize it, and charge the person with a crime. If you can't prove the crime then the money gets returned.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  It might be okay if civil forfeiture were allowed as is but with the owner having an absolute entitlement to a jury case and treble damages against the police if they lose. In theory it already is a constitutional right to Levy a civil trial against the police for forfeiture. And any civil trial with dollar value more than 20 is entitled to a jury.
mikece 3y ago
The key question is "What will SCOTUS Do?" There have been numerous cases where Civil Asset Forfeiture has been overturned, but only AFTER the wronged party sued for actual and punitive damages. I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture (along with treble damages awarded to the wronged party)... but that would make sense so it's likely not going to happen.
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture At that point the defense would be Qualified Immunity.
  - wnoise 3y ago
    Qualified immunity only applies to civil suits.
    - hedora 3y ago
      You're giving SCOTUS too much credit.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Another practice that would have the founders of the USA up in arms ...
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Well, either the courts will circle the wagon or thats going to be backfiring soon. People have started to try to apply Eminent Domain to the Qualified Immunity defense [1]. They're not disputing that you are a LEO acting in official government capacity but Eminent Domain requires that you compensate a private party for use of their stuff. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-did-tens-thousands-dollars-damage-mckinney-womans-house-she-got-them-pay-eminent-domain/287-89f20e5b-84a1-47f0-9251-02eade1f99d3 https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-...
sambeau 3y ago
This graph from the 2015 article "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year" really rammed this home for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Both those sums are further eclipsed by wage theft but that's another topic. This is also only based on federal police statistics, because we don't have data available on state and local police forces who all participate in this looting. Previous discussion, which mods removed from the frontpage once it was at the top: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36975143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36975143
  - black_13 3y ago
    [dead]
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  other robbers https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg
  - kbenson 3y ago
    That slide is confusing. The Burglary side says it takes place when people are absent, but then says it's a violent crime (and shows one person punching another). I get it's probably a legal definition of "violent" or something, but in that case showing an image of one person punching another is somewhat misleading...
    - zerocrates 3y ago
      Burglary isn't necessarily/traditionally a violent crime. Crime stats usually report it as a non-violent property crime, though there are parts of federal law that treat it as violent or similarly to violent crimes. It doesn't have violence as an element of the crime, but breaking into peoples' houses obviously sets the stage for more violent encounters. Robbery on the other hand is by definition a violent crime, the threat of violence is what distinguishes it from other forms of theft or larceny.
bparsons 3y ago
This will get resolved as most things do in the US: rich people will be largely exempt while the practice will continue for everyone else.
frank_bb 3y ago
[dead]
stainablesteel 3y ago
i think this falls into the police accountability scope that have driven a lot of protests in the last few years. albeit for completely different reasons, the problem is still accountability. it needs to be addressed.
taneq 3y ago
Isn't this, these days, just one of the reasons to stay as far away as possible from the "land of the free"?
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Canada has it too
- m2f2 3y ago
  Yup. And that's not the only reason.
- Tao3300 3y ago
  If you were exclusively trying to avoid civil forfeiture, where would you suggest going instead?
biomcgary 3y ago
The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cases are reasonably favorable to striking down or curtailing civil asset forfeiture (CAF). Surprisingly, part of the the right wing of the Supreme Court is skeptical of CAF: "Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch criticized asset forfeiture as an “extravagant punishment” in a 2018 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas said outright in a 2017 case that modern civil forfeiture schemes are likely unconstitutional." From: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supreme-court-drops-ball-asset-forfeiture-reform-2022-09-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supr...
- hermitdev 3y ago
  The text of the 5th Amendment is fairly clear: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [0] The weaseling is always "but it's _civil_, not _criminal_.". Except, the premise is that a crime has been committed. But, people are being deprived of their property without due process. That private property is being taken for public use without _any_, let alone _just_, compensation. It should be a 9-0 ruling striking it down, but we'll see... [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-v https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
- cvoss 3y ago
  Is it that surprising? One of the Constitution's major objectives is to restrict the powers of the government and its various entities. Being an originalist gets you there. So does not being an originalist.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  The thing about right-wing politics is that half the time, right-wingers will very justifiably fear government power, but the other half of the time they'll shout about their thin blue lines. Much of the time you'll even see the "no step on snek" and "thin blue line" flags in the same place. Furthermore, a lot of the worry about government overreach is specifically about gun confiscation. While not everyone who owns a gun is a tyrant in waiting, obviously, a lot of people have specific fantasies about seizing power from governments they think are oppressive, while still saying we need to ignore power abuses of local police officers when they aren't targeted at them[0]. I call this mentality "no stop snek from stepping on other snek". It is not an ideology, but the consequence of right-wing outrage perverting that ideology. Right-libertarians do write long rants about police brutality, civil asset forfeiture, and so on; but right-wingers more broadly care solely for identity politics that benefit them. Think about how Louis Rossmann, who is very vaguely right-wing and very libertarian, got shat on by the right-wing half of his audience[2] for interviewing Sam Seder about right-to-repair. What SCOTUS decides will likely be informed by the calculus of who exactly is petitioning them and what benefits the people who put them there. They aren't yet willing to completely shit on the concept of stare decisis[1], but we have to at least present a case to right-wingers that not only civil asset forfeiture is bad and unconstitutional, but that it's bad and unconstitutional in ways that hurt the kinds of people they are sympathetic to. [0] Case in point: the relative lack of outrage in right-wing circles whenever black people get their guns confiscated or are summarily executed for having them [1] The overturn of Roe v. Wade is concerning me, though [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmAX2LFSh4AaABAg.9Rd3MtKe7xj9Rd4S0tGK1d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmA...
olliej 3y ago
This can be fixed simply: require police and the federal government to cover legal fees when successfully recovering stolen property, require them to additionally pay penalties to the victims that match the late payment penalties for fines and taxes. Finally, require all the, ahem, proceeds of this theft to be set aside for paying the above. That removes the profit motive and adds substantial downside to bogus theft.
- staplers 3y ago
  Counterpoint: That would just mean taxpayers would pay more for police gross negligence (which is already a problem).
  - pg_1234 3y ago
    Take it out of police pension funds.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Tax payers already pay for police incompetence and malice, but at least now they wouldn't be able to steal property and then use that to pay for new toys, overtime, bonuses, etc and would have to operate inside their actual budget (rather than using theft to supplement their income). Obviously making police overtime and bonus pools be the source of funds for lawsuit payouts might improve things - the unwillingness of police to actually report illegal behaviour by their coworkers might be reduced when that behaviour lowers their income.
assimpleaspossi 3y ago
I have a feeling there is more to the story than the two or three examples show. I also feel the same issues don't apply to the majority of cases but the article is written as if they do.
- jamilton 3y ago
  Assuming nothing in the story is an outright lie or fabrication, I don't know what additional details could justify any of this.
  - assimpleaspossi 3y ago
    For example, the one case involves the girl's boyfriend and drugs. It's passed almost as an aside but no one gets that brought up if there isn't more to the story. The first story sounds more innocent but how do both of these apply to the volume of other cases? The article makes it sound like all of them would be similarly innocent.
    - jamilton 3y ago
      To me, in Wilson's case it seems irrelevant if the boyfriend was a drug dealer or not, or even if she herself suspected of something. If that's the case, charge one or both of them, there's no just reason to take the car. A hypothetical situation that could somewhat justify the police taking someone's car would be if the car was known to be stolen, but presumably she wouldn't be able to apply to get it back in that case, so that doesn't seem to be the case.
      - assimpleaspossi 3y ago
        As I said, there must be more to this story.
danbruc 3y ago
Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can the state take their stuff to begin with, at least beyond what is required or might reasonably be required to pay for fines or compensations or was acquired illegally?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
    - kbenson 3y ago
      The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        Sorry, but the intentions behind these seizures are in no way benign. Maybe in the original intentions of the law, but the police are there to shake people down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU Reminder: this is yet another piece of evidence that The War on Drugs™ does not serve us well in any way, shape, or form.
yieldcrv 3y ago
SCOTUS should: Limit the ability to charge unincorporated property. The government can charge persons: natural and artificial. But random property? no. Expand constitutional protections to property based on being owned by a natural or artificial person. Expand the 5th amendment right to just compensation, making the government pay for property is seizes and not considering civil asset forfeiture to fit the due process exemption. And this is all for the consideration that random municipalities will try to find a way around any outright ban on civil asset forfeiture I think the lack of seizures from financial institutions merely suspected of a crime is a damning enough indictment of the practice
miah_ 3y ago
What will SCOTUS do? This SCOTUS? Well, they'll take bribes from some billionaires and overturn previous decisions that will negatively affect most Americans.. And in regards to Civil Asset Forfeiture? Nothing. They will do absolutely nothing. It keeps us rabble where we belong, in the gutter.
gwbrooks 3y ago
Cities and counties can address this on their own, without waiting for the statehouse or Washington. The nonprofit I work for has a model policy and research that makes it nearly turn-key. https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-reforming-civil-asset-forfeiture-final.pdf https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-ref...
- staplers 3y ago
  Most law enforcement is "above" local jurisdiction practically speaking. Police are local militias with a near-military supply of weapons, technology, and surveillance. Cities often seek judgement or ways to control law enforcement but police unions and silent strikes render their attempts futile. If your city had George Floyd protests, you're likely aware of these silent strikes. The police simply stop doing their job and allow crime and lawlessness. Without the threat of a national military coming down on them, local LE behaves like a mafia.
  - gwbrooks 3y ago
    It's a political problem rather than a legal-powers problem; most mayors and city council members are (rightly) afraid of the local police union publicly calling them out. That's why, even at the local level, forfeiture reform usually needs to be bundled with other, more broadly popular policing reforms. There isn't a critical mass of people lit up over asset forfeiture in most communities. Other attack vectors include: * Qualified immunity reform packaged as a way to more easily get rid of bad cops. * Collective bargaining transparency so the public (and even the city council) can see what tactics the union is using in contract negotiations.
MagaMuffin 3y ago
[dead]
Zigurd 3y ago
Is it the property seizure laws that are bad? I'm sure some of them are. But isn't the greater problem that law enforcement and prosecution is immunized against liability for misapplying those laws?
Borg3 3y ago
Yes yes.. And yet many many young people in US are against second amendment. I wonder how they will be able to defend they property from criminals and goverment (police) without all those guns. Unless they want live "easy" life (as someone famous said): Do not own anything, so you will have no problems.
- jrajav 3y ago
  Shooting at police when they attempt to take your money is not a viable solution to this problem at all, much less such a first-line solution that it's a contradiction to also advocate gun control. It is already obvious that the government has a monopoly on violence. The entire structure of democracy is geared around spreading around that power to check it, and prevent any one actor from having greater access to it. The only viable solution is to reinforce those checks on power and remove the reins from bad actors trying to consolidate and strengthen their own access to the power.
ralphc 3y ago
If Elon Musk or someone else with boatloads of money wants to help society, they should take this on. Go to a city that is notorious for this, hire an army of lawyers and take every case to court. If it takes $10000 in legal fees to get back a car worth $5000, ::shrug:: Do it over and over and make it not worth it, and hopefully get this stopped.
scrubs 3y ago
This is so petty, greedy, and passive aggressive on the part of police.

219 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.

klyrs 3y ago
I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.
  - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
    The best case response on this issue I’ve seen from TBLiners is apathy.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    I've never met a pro police type that would mention anything as corruption. If you asked them directly some would agree, but as a group I generally just hear apoligism.
    - smrq 3y ago
      How can it be corruption when it's all because of just "a few bad apples"? (Quoth my thin blue line next door neighbor.) To that world view, nothing wrong is systemic; it's all down to individuals whose behavior is not considered part of the whole. Incidentally, I'm not sure he's familiar with the second half of the idiom ("spoils the whole bunch").
  - burkaman 3y ago
    https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-profit/ https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-... 2016 essay by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police arguing against civil forfeiture reform. > The FOP does not disagree that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform. In fact, we worked very closely with Senator Jeff Sessions on this issue going back to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-property-seizures-coming-from-justice-department/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-pr... Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of civil forfeiture's biggest fans, reinstates aggressive federal policies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-civil-asset-forfeiture-1510237360 https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-... 2017 essay by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein praising civil forfeiture and arguing reform is not necessary. > Some critics claim that civil asset forfeiture fails to protect property rights or provide due process. The truth is that there are multiple levels of judicial protection, as well as administrative safeguards.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Does the Society that a majority of Supreme Court Justices belong to count as credible to you? https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-rea...
    - hedora 3y ago
      4 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe v. Wade (and ruled there is no right to privacy in the US) were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. So, no.
      - klyrs 3y ago
        Whether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments. I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, provided a Congress unwilling to hold them accountable (which it currently is). My question of 'credibility' is not "do you like the Federalist Society" but "do you think they're in political alignment with the Thin Blue Liners and are they writing policy."
        hedora 3y ago
        I don't think the current Supreme Court is a credible source of information about US law. The fact that many of them belong to some organization lends it negative credibility in my mind.
        klyrs 3y ago
        I mean, they essentially write and rewrite laws that come before them. They're literally an authoritative source of law. We can scream about the injustice of that until we're blue in the face, but denying the facts doesn't get us anywhere.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    The fact the police unions sell or give out special signifiers for family members of police is proof enough. The fake badgers stuck to windshields in the NYC area is an obvious reminder of the corruption openly allowed by the police. And then you have the license plates and stickers and whatnot.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Biden was one of the "architects" of modern civil forfeiture: https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-architect-of-the-governments-asset-forfeiture-program/ https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar... Voting gets us nowhere with limiting state power. Like falling for a good cop bad cop routine. It provides consent for both sides of the aisle abuse like this. edit: I don't know fee.org. Here's a more neutral reference to widely-known facts: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-prevention-plan-repeats-old-mistakes-policing-2022-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-preven... It's easily researchable.
- mikece 3y ago
  "Voting doesn't help: it only encourages the bastards!" Too much truth in that, sadly.
- ciabattabread 3y ago
  So are you advocating for not voting? Exclusively using Tor and ProtonMail? Mass civil disobedience? Overthrow of government? Or becoming a lawyer and filing suit against police departments and other government agencies? Or financially supporting those lawyers?
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Voting is at best a harm reduction tactic. But as I said for limiting state powers specifically, it's usually not even that.
    - bashinator 3y ago
      So what actual actions do you advocate for ordinary citizens to take?
      - membrcovidb 3y ago
        [dead]
banannaise 3y ago
Generally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their jobs.) The opponent here isn't other citizens, it's the police and their organizations (police benevolent associations, police unions, etc.) which wield considerable political power, and to an extent also legal power (since they collectively have nearly full discretion over what laws are enforced and by what means, to the extent they can cooperate amongst themselves).
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Shit NYPD publicly doxed and threatened the mayor's daughter. I've always known the police were evil but that made me stop and really wonder what sort of constraints municipal politicians are operating under. Like that is very very close to "gloves off" mafia type shit right out in the open. What kinds of threats do they make against those figures in private?
    - thechao 3y ago
      In case anyone is interested in the power dynamic in Imperial Rome between the Emporers and the Legions, this is is an analogous situation.
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
bwanab 3y ago
That's true. Nobody supports civil forfeiture until the moment a politician realizes there's hay to be made from claiming that they support police efforts to prevent crime.
kevin_nisbet 3y ago
> In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense. I suspect like many things, there was some logic to the introduction. But it's just gotten to really batshit levels that there is probably nothing to do but stop the practice. As I understand it, some of the origins were that for debts owed to the government, with the person not present in the country, it was much more practical to target assets that may exist within the country than try and get the individual. Even in the introduction in the criminal context, I sort of understand the logic. In criminal organizations, there are likely people profiting a lot, that have engineered enough doubt that proving their connection to the beyond a reasonable standard is so difficult. But meeting a preponderance of the evidence standard in the civil context to reclaim those assets I can understand the argument. So I think there are some bad and weak arguments, but they certainly don't outweigh what's happening now. I think one of the worst argument I heard for not returning the money, was the police department wasn't able to follow the judges order, because they deposited the money into a bank account and transferred to another agency. And they'll never be able to find the exact same bills again that they gave to the bank, so are unable to follow the court order to return the money they took to the rightful owner.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Yes the basic premise for why people would support civil forfeiture is “due process let’s too many people ‘get away with it’ so we need an extrajudicial process”. It’s the same basic rationale that all freedoms are ultimately curtailed with - all those rules are inconvenient, let’s by pass them a little bit. Then the reason for the rules start to become readily apparent again. Then the rationale takes on the old “can’t make an omelet” refrain, as if the world revolves around punishing criminals and everyone need to accept the collateral damage. Personally I’m of the old “rather let a thousand guilty go free than punish a single innocent,” but I also don’t set policy.
- westurner 3y ago
  Civil forfeiture in the United States > History > Holder / Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... Account for the seized assets. Interledger Protocol works with any type of (digital) asset ledger; W3C ILP. The FTC CAT Consolidated Audit Trail system does not uniquely identify individual bills / [ledger] dollars, either FWIU. But are photons uniquely identifiable either Due process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process : > Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law." [3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution. Whether it's possible to disarm and incapacitate without larceny. Criminal Justice Reform > Arguments on criminal justice reform > Support for reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the_United_States#Support_for_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the... Save the children. School-to-prison pipeline > Alternative approaches, Mental Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
jackmott42 3y ago
Get ready, because Scotus is writing such a defense right now.
rhino369 3y ago
There really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing. But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards. Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property. I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin you can’t explain. By law, I have to file tax returns that explains my income. There isn’t a huge difference. These kind of seizures makes organized crime much easier to fight. But again, a lot of these examples look more like straight theft. Also, law enforcement shouldn’t get to keep the money it seizes. It’s a perverse incentive. Should just go into the general treasury.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  If taxes were paid on the money then your example makes zero sense. But yes we must explain everything to the Government. Rights aren't inherent, but are granted to us by the government if we can explain good enough why we need them. Cops should pull me over and ask how I financed my car and if I don't have a good enough answer/documentation on me they should get to take it /s
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  There's absolutely no reason to have civil forfeiture when criminal forfeiture exists. If you think money is the product of a crime, seize it, and charge the person with a crime. If you can't prove the crime then the money gets returned.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
It might be okay if civil forfeiture were allowed as is but with the owner having an absolute entitlement to a jury case and treble damages against the police if they lose. In theory it already is a constitutional right to Levy a civil trial against the police for forfeiture. And any civil trial with dollar value more than 20 is entitled to a jury.

mikece 3y ago

The key question is "What will SCOTUS Do?" There have been numerous cases where Civil Asset Forfeiture has been overturned, but only AFTER the wronged party sued for actual and punitive damages. I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture (along with treble damages awarded to the wronged party)... but that would make sense so it's likely not going to happen.

phkahler 3y ago
>> I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture At that point the defense would be Qualified Immunity.
- wnoise 3y ago
  Qualified immunity only applies to civil suits.
  - hedora 3y ago
    You're giving SCOTUS too much credit.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Another practice that would have the founders of the USA up in arms ...
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Well, either the courts will circle the wagon or thats going to be backfiring soon. People have started to try to apply Eminent Domain to the Qualified Immunity defense [1]. They're not disputing that you are a LEO acting in official government capacity but Eminent Domain requires that you compensate a private party for use of their stuff. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-did-tens-thousands-dollars-damage-mckinney-womans-house-she-got-them-pay-eminent-domain/287-89f20e5b-84a1-47f0-9251-02eade1f99d3 https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-...

sambeau 3y ago

This graph from the 2015 article "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year" really rammed this home for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Both those sums are further eclipsed by wage theft but that's another topic. This is also only based on federal police statistics, because we don't have data available on state and local police forces who all participate in this looting. Previous discussion, which mods removed from the frontpage once it was at the top: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36975143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36975143
- black_13 3y ago
  [dead]
readthenotes1 3y ago
other robbers https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg
- kbenson 3y ago
  That slide is confusing. The Burglary side says it takes place when people are absent, but then says it's a violent crime (and shows one person punching another). I get it's probably a legal definition of "violent" or something, but in that case showing an image of one person punching another is somewhat misleading...
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    Burglary isn't necessarily/traditionally a violent crime. Crime stats usually report it as a non-violent property crime, though there are parts of federal law that treat it as violent or similarly to violent crimes. It doesn't have violence as an element of the crime, but breaking into peoples' houses obviously sets the stage for more violent encounters. Robbery on the other hand is by definition a violent crime, the threat of violence is what distinguishes it from other forms of theft or larceny.

bparsons 3y ago

This will get resolved as most things do in the US: rich people will be largely exempt while the practice will continue for everyone else.

frank_bb 3y ago

[dead]

stainablesteel 3y ago

i think this falls into the police accountability scope that have driven a lot of protests in the last few years. albeit for completely different reasons, the problem is still accountability. it needs to be addressed.

taneq 3y ago

Isn't this, these days, just one of the reasons to stay as far away as possible from the "land of the free"?

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Canada has it too
m2f2 3y ago
Yup. And that's not the only reason.
Tao3300 3y ago
If you were exclusively trying to avoid civil forfeiture, where would you suggest going instead?

biomcgary 3y ago

The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cases are reasonably favorable to striking down or curtailing civil asset forfeiture (CAF). Surprisingly, part of the the right wing of the Supreme Court is skeptical of CAF: "Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch criticized asset forfeiture as an “extravagant punishment” in a 2018 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas said outright in a 2017 case that modern civil forfeiture schemes are likely unconstitutional." From: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supreme-court-drops-ball-asset-forfeiture-reform-2022-09-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/south-carolina-supr...

hermitdev 3y ago
The text of the 5th Amendment is fairly clear: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [0] The weaseling is always "but it's _civil_, not _criminal_.". Except, the premise is that a crime has been committed. But, people are being deprived of their property without due process. That private property is being taken for public use without _any_, let alone _just_, compensation. It should be a 9-0 ruling striking it down, but we'll see... [0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-v https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
cvoss 3y ago
Is it that surprising? One of the Constitution's major objectives is to restrict the powers of the government and its various entities. Being an originalist gets you there. So does not being an originalist.
kmeisthax 3y ago
The thing about right-wing politics is that half the time, right-wingers will very justifiably fear government power, but the other half of the time they'll shout about their thin blue lines. Much of the time you'll even see the "no step on snek" and "thin blue line" flags in the same place. Furthermore, a lot of the worry about government overreach is specifically about gun confiscation. While not everyone who owns a gun is a tyrant in waiting, obviously, a lot of people have specific fantasies about seizing power from governments they think are oppressive, while still saying we need to ignore power abuses of local police officers when they aren't targeted at them[0]. I call this mentality "no stop snek from stepping on other snek". It is not an ideology, but the consequence of right-wing outrage perverting that ideology. Right-libertarians do write long rants about police brutality, civil asset forfeiture, and so on; but right-wingers more broadly care solely for identity politics that benefit them. Think about how Louis Rossmann, who is very vaguely right-wing and very libertarian, got shat on by the right-wing half of his audience[2] for interviewing Sam Seder about right-to-repair. What SCOTUS decides will likely be informed by the calculus of who exactly is petitioning them and what benefits the people who put them there. They aren't yet willing to completely shit on the concept of stare decisis[1], but we have to at least present a case to right-wingers that not only civil asset forfeiture is bad and unconstitutional, but that it's bad and unconstitutional in ways that hurt the kinds of people they are sympathetic to. [0] Case in point: the relative lack of outrage in right-wing circles whenever black people get their guns confiscated or are summarily executed for having them [1] The overturn of Roe v. Wade is concerning me, though [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmAX2LFSh4AaABAg.9Rd3MtKe7xj9Rd4S0tGK1d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DR1AIsyzZ0&lc=UgxdShhyG9NmA...

olliej 3y ago

This can be fixed simply: require police and the federal government to cover legal fees when successfully recovering stolen property, require them to additionally pay penalties to the victims that match the late payment penalties for fines and taxes. Finally, require all the, ahem, proceeds of this theft to be set aside for paying the above. That removes the profit motive and adds substantial downside to bogus theft.

staplers 3y ago
Counterpoint: That would just mean taxpayers would pay more for police gross negligence (which is already a problem).
- pg_1234 3y ago
  Take it out of police pension funds.
- olliej 3y ago
  Tax payers already pay for police incompetence and malice, but at least now they wouldn't be able to steal property and then use that to pay for new toys, overtime, bonuses, etc and would have to operate inside their actual budget (rather than using theft to supplement their income). Obviously making police overtime and bonus pools be the source of funds for lawsuit payouts might improve things - the unwillingness of police to actually report illegal behaviour by their coworkers might be reduced when that behaviour lowers their income.

assimpleaspossi 3y ago

I have a feeling there is more to the story than the two or three examples show. I also feel the same issues don't apply to the majority of cases but the article is written as if they do.

jamilton 3y ago
Assuming nothing in the story is an outright lie or fabrication, I don't know what additional details could justify any of this.
- assimpleaspossi 3y ago
  For example, the one case involves the girl's boyfriend and drugs. It's passed almost as an aside but no one gets that brought up if there isn't more to the story. The first story sounds more innocent but how do both of these apply to the volume of other cases? The article makes it sound like all of them would be similarly innocent.
  - jamilton 3y ago
    To me, in Wilson's case it seems irrelevant if the boyfriend was a drug dealer or not, or even if she herself suspected of something. If that's the case, charge one or both of them, there's no just reason to take the car. A hypothetical situation that could somewhat justify the police taking someone's car would be if the car was known to be stolen, but presumably she wouldn't be able to apply to get it back in that case, so that doesn't seem to be the case.
    - assimpleaspossi 3y ago
      As I said, there must be more to this story.

danbruc 3y ago

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can the state take their stuff to begin with, at least beyond what is required or might reasonably be required to pay for fines or compensations or was acquired illegally?

yieldcrv 3y ago
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      Sorry, but the intentions behind these seizures are in no way benign. Maybe in the original intentions of the law, but the police are there to shake people down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU Reminder: this is yet another piece of evidence that The War on Drugs™ does not serve us well in any way, shape, or form.

yieldcrv 3y ago

SCOTUS should: Limit the ability to charge unincorporated property. The government can charge persons: natural and artificial. But random property? no. Expand constitutional protections to property based on being owned by a natural or artificial person. Expand the 5th amendment right to just compensation, making the government pay for property is seizes and not considering civil asset forfeiture to fit the due process exemption. And this is all for the consideration that random municipalities will try to find a way around any outright ban on civil asset forfeiture I think the lack of seizures from financial institutions merely suspected of a crime is a damning enough indictment of the practice

miah_ 3y ago

What will SCOTUS do? This SCOTUS? Well, they'll take bribes from some billionaires and overturn previous decisions that will negatively affect most Americans.. And in regards to Civil Asset Forfeiture? Nothing. They will do absolutely nothing. It keeps us rabble where we belong, in the gutter.

gwbrooks 3y ago

Cities and counties can address this on their own, without waiting for the statehouse or Washington. The nonprofit I work for has a model policy and research that makes it nearly turn-key. https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-reforming-civil-asset-forfeiture-final.pdf https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-ref...

staplers 3y ago
Most law enforcement is "above" local jurisdiction practically speaking. Police are local militias with a near-military supply of weapons, technology, and surveillance. Cities often seek judgement or ways to control law enforcement but police unions and silent strikes render their attempts futile. If your city had George Floyd protests, you're likely aware of these silent strikes. The police simply stop doing their job and allow crime and lawlessness. Without the threat of a national military coming down on them, local LE behaves like a mafia.
- gwbrooks 3y ago
  It's a political problem rather than a legal-powers problem; most mayors and city council members are (rightly) afraid of the local police union publicly calling them out. That's why, even at the local level, forfeiture reform usually needs to be bundled with other, more broadly popular policing reforms. There isn't a critical mass of people lit up over asset forfeiture in most communities. Other attack vectors include: * Qualified immunity reform packaged as a way to more easily get rid of bad cops. * Collective bargaining transparency so the public (and even the city council) can see what tactics the union is using in contract negotiations.

MagaMuffin 3y ago

[dead]

Zigurd 3y ago

Is it the property seizure laws that are bad? I'm sure some of them are. But isn't the greater problem that law enforcement and prosecution is immunized against liability for misapplying those laws?

Borg3 3y ago

Yes yes.. And yet many many young people in US are against second amendment. I wonder how they will be able to defend they property from criminals and goverment (police) without all those guns. Unless they want live "easy" life (as someone famous said): Do not own anything, so you will have no problems.

jrajav 3y ago
Shooting at police when they attempt to take your money is not a viable solution to this problem at all, much less such a first-line solution that it's a contradiction to also advocate gun control. It is already obvious that the government has a monopoly on violence. The entire structure of democracy is geared around spreading around that power to check it, and prevent any one actor from having greater access to it. The only viable solution is to reinforce those checks on power and remove the reins from bad actors trying to consolidate and strengthen their own access to the power.

ralphc 3y ago

If Elon Musk or someone else with boatloads of money wants to help society, they should take this on. Go to a city that is notorious for this, hire an army of lawyers and take every case to court. If it takes $10000 in legal fees to get back a car worth $5000, ::shrug:: Do it over and over and make it not worth it, and hopefully get this stopped.

scrubs 3y ago

This is so petty, greedy, and passive aggressive on the part of police.