10 ms·

Any confiscated cash needs to go into state level or even federal coffers, not to the agency or local cops that did the confiscating. That removes the immediate

by jacobn 2y ago

Any confiscated cash needs to go into state level or even federal coffers, not to the agency or local cops that did the confiscating. That removes the immediate incentive for abuse, while retaining the tool for what it was intended for: actual criminals. (I don’t have the sources but read years ago that states that let the cops keep the cash have ridiculous levels of abusive confiscations, whereas states that have the money go to the state coffers basically don’t) (Most civil asset forfeiture is done by local cops stopping people on the highway and similar)

gg82 2y ago
Just stop trying to justify highway robbery. The criminal is the government until the person has been properly adjudicated by the courts!
- jacobn 2y ago
  I agree it sounds absolutely absurd - first time I heard about it I couldn’t believe it. The Wikipedia page has more on the rationale, good or bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
  - meroes 2y ago
    I like how the first two paragraphs under the intro (History) is basically outlining how the British doing it to American colonists was a catalyst for violent revolution to come… …and then the third is describing how American courts immediately recreated the laws with these inspirations to increase their budgets.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  I mean say what you will about monarchism and its many flaws, they at least had the sense to hang or behead highway robbers instead of funding them!
  - thayne 2y ago
    Only as long as they weren't the ones who worked for the monarch.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Monarchs used to sponsor pirates to harass enemy nations, so long history.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        It was a great work program for young overactive men with low morals and high intelligence - Sir Francis Drake proved his worth to the crown. https://medium.com/luminasticity/adrenaline-culture-bed2d6406d4f https://medium.com/luminasticity/adrenaline-culture-bed2d640... (note: non-serious article has some crude language and scenarios)
        OutOfHere 2y ago
        It cost the US a failure to use the metric system.
        eru 2y ago
        Though I heard that during Drake's circumnavigation his body count was remarkably low, especially for the age.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        I figured Drake was the kind of guy who would stock his crew with men of his caliber, and those guys tend to make it through hell with a smile.
        eru 2y ago
        Basically, they (almost?) didn't kill any Spaniards when they raided their ships and settlements in South America.
greyface- 2y ago
The DoJ has established a workaround for this, and it's called Equitable Sharing. Local cop seizes assets on behalf of the DEA or other federal agency, assets are held by the federal agency rather than the local agency, the federal agency sends a kickback payment to the local agency and takes over prosecution, local agency washes its hands of the matter, enjoys the plunder, and goes off and robs more subjects. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1044326/dl https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1044326/dl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing
- umbra07 2y ago
  why on earth do they get a kickback??
  - rebuilder 2y ago
    It creates an incentive.
    - safety1st 2y ago
      I suspect the DoJ understood this and non ironically did not consider the problem of exploitation by corrupt cops to be a meaningful one. Because they're the DoJ. Many of them are or were basically cops themselves. It's very hard to recognize when your own people have become the bad guys. This is what we came up with checks and balances and separation of powers for, but I guess Congress is checked out on this one.
      - serial_dev 2y ago
        It wasn't an accident that abuse was not considered, it was intentionally designed this way, to keep local cop buddies happy and complicit. It might actually also make things worse, as local cops only get a small kickback, they need to confiscate more to get to the same levels for themselves.
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
akira2501 2y ago
> That removes the immediate incentive for abuse, It abstracts it away by one level. Without appropriate third party oversight you're going to be playing whack a mole until you have the President himself managing the operation.
- drdeca 2y ago
  To solve this, I would go further: any money seized by the government, whether asset forfeiture or a fine (but not fees or taxes) must not go into any government funds, and should instead be removed from the money supply, if there isn’t a “who it should be returned to”. Well, maybe if money from fines was allowed to go directly to paying for something that directly addresses the specific type of harm that the type of crime the fine was for tends to cause, that would be ok. Like, if someone is fined for damaging the road, that money can go towards fixing roads. But nothing else.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Just make it a criminal case. "Transporting more than $10,000 cash in service of a crime." Now the government has to prove the details of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simple preponderance of evidence, and the accused has actual constitutional rights which dictate the process. A key piece there would afford the accused legal representation if they cannot afford it and would allow them to make constitutional arguments about the nature of the search and seizure.
    - lazide 2y ago
      That would require evidence and due process, which is exactly what is not desired by the gov’t here. Because money is fungible and proving some specific money came from some specific illegal activity is hard. Making someone else prove it came from a legit source before it disappears is much easier on them. Especially since drug dealers (or most other folks) are not really all that interested in the scrutiny involved in a civil trial. Civil discovery is potentially incredibly invasive, with few of the protections of a criminal case.
  - 2y ago
bagels 2y ago
How about no more asset forfeiture? Why not require due process and 4th amendment rights to be respected? If the government convicts you of the crime and proves the money is the proceeds of the crime you are convicted for, them maybe it makes sense for the government to seize the funds. Absent that, it should be taken for what it is: armed robery.
- samus 2y ago
  The whole exigent circumstances exception is required to stop a crime which is highly probably to already be in progress and for which evidence could be lost to the prosecution. Especially at international airports this is highly likely to happen. The problem is that the system is set up in a way that encourages corruption.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    What about your phone? Perhaps it's a stolen one. Would you mind if the airport crew keep it in custody for a few years until you prove it was adquired legaly in a court?
    - samus 2y ago
      If they have reasonable suspicion that it indeed was. For example a case with a unique color pattern that is similar to a phone known to be stolen. Or if you can't unlock it. This ship has sailed quite some time ago - resist TSA or border control to unlock your phone, and they either confiscate it or turn you back. These powers are unlikely to ever be curtailed again in the name of security. But I also think that TSA and border control should rather focus on people actually violating immigration law and compromising travel security.
  - bagels 2y ago
    The state has proven it can't be trusted with this power.
    - samus 2y ago
jjav 2y ago
> Any confiscated cash needs to go into state level or even federal coffers If I was king.. all confiscated cash must go to organizations such as ACLU and EFF (not a comprehensive list). That way it can still be done when sensible, but the more it happens the more money goes to organizations who strive to reduce abuse.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  Giving those organizations an incentive not to reduce abuse!
samus 2y ago
This moves the problem one level up and makes returning it more difficult since they are now muddled with other assets. A safe deposit box would be required, with the court handling the keys.
sowbug 2y ago
Or just publicly burn the cash. This retains the punitive element of seizure from actual criminals, eliminates the perverse incentives from LE treating seized funds as a revenue source, and causes actual pain to LE if/when a court determines that they owe restitution for unwarranted seizure.

by jacobn 2y ago

gg82 2y ago

Just stop trying to justify highway robbery. The criminal is the government until the person has been properly adjudicated by the courts!

jacobn 2y ago
I agree it sounds absolutely absurd - first time I heard about it I couldn’t believe it. The Wikipedia page has more on the rationale, good or bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
- meroes 2y ago
  I like how the first two paragraphs under the intro (History) is basically outlining how the British doing it to American colonists was a catalyst for violent revolution to come… …and then the third is describing how American courts immediately recreated the laws with these inspirations to increase their budgets.
Nasrudith 2y ago
I mean say what you will about monarchism and its many flaws, they at least had the sense to hang or behead highway robbers instead of funding them!
- thayne 2y ago
  Only as long as they weren't the ones who worked for the monarch.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Monarchs used to sponsor pirates to harass enemy nations, so long history.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      It was a great work program for young overactive men with low morals and high intelligence - Sir Francis Drake proved his worth to the crown. https://medium.com/luminasticity/adrenaline-culture-bed2d6406d4f https://medium.com/luminasticity/adrenaline-culture-bed2d640... (note: non-serious article has some crude language and scenarios)
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        It cost the US a failure to use the metric system.
      - eru 2y ago
        Though I heard that during Drake's circumnavigation his body count was remarkably low, especially for the age.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        I figured Drake was the kind of guy who would stock his crew with men of his caliber, and those guys tend to make it through hell with a smile.
        eru 2y ago
        Basically, they (almost?) didn't kill any Spaniards when they raided their ships and settlements in South America.

greyface- 2y ago

The DoJ has established a workaround for this, and it's called Equitable Sharing. Local cop seizes assets on behalf of the DEA or other federal agency, assets are held by the federal agency rather than the local agency, the federal agency sends a kickback payment to the local agency and takes over prosecution, local agency washes its hands of the matter, enjoys the plunder, and goes off and robs more subjects. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1044326/dl https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1044326/dl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing

umbra07 2y ago
why on earth do they get a kickback??
- rebuilder 2y ago
  It creates an incentive.
  - safety1st 2y ago
    I suspect the DoJ understood this and non ironically did not consider the problem of exploitation by corrupt cops to be a meaningful one. Because they're the DoJ. Many of them are or were basically cops themselves. It's very hard to recognize when your own people have become the bad guys. This is what we came up with checks and balances and separation of powers for, but I guess Congress is checked out on this one.
    - serial_dev 2y ago
      It wasn't an accident that abuse was not considered, it was intentionally designed this way, to keep local cop buddies happy and complicit. It might actually also make things worse, as local cops only get a small kickback, they need to confiscate more to get to the same levels for themselves.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago

akira2501 2y ago

> That removes the immediate incentive for abuse, It abstracts it away by one level. Without appropriate third party oversight you're going to be playing whack a mole until you have the President himself managing the operation.

drdeca 2y ago
To solve this, I would go further: any money seized by the government, whether asset forfeiture or a fine (but not fees or taxes) must not go into any government funds, and should instead be removed from the money supply, if there isn’t a “who it should be returned to”. Well, maybe if money from fines was allowed to go directly to paying for something that directly addresses the specific type of harm that the type of crime the fine was for tends to cause, that would be ok. Like, if someone is fined for damaging the road, that money can go towards fixing roads. But nothing else.
- akira2501 2y ago
  Just make it a criminal case. "Transporting more than $10,000 cash in service of a crime." Now the government has to prove the details of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simple preponderance of evidence, and the accused has actual constitutional rights which dictate the process. A key piece there would afford the accused legal representation if they cannot afford it and would allow them to make constitutional arguments about the nature of the search and seizure.
  - lazide 2y ago
    That would require evidence and due process, which is exactly what is not desired by the gov’t here. Because money is fungible and proving some specific money came from some specific illegal activity is hard. Making someone else prove it came from a legit source before it disappears is much easier on them. Especially since drug dealers (or most other folks) are not really all that interested in the scrutiny involved in a civil trial. Civil discovery is potentially incredibly invasive, with few of the protections of a criminal case.
- 2y ago

bagels 2y ago

How about no more asset forfeiture? Why not require due process and 4th amendment rights to be respected? If the government convicts you of the crime and proves the money is the proceeds of the crime you are convicted for, them maybe it makes sense for the government to seize the funds. Absent that, it should be taken for what it is: armed robery.

samus 2y ago
The whole exigent circumstances exception is required to stop a crime which is highly probably to already be in progress and for which evidence could be lost to the prosecution. Especially at international airports this is highly likely to happen. The problem is that the system is set up in a way that encourages corruption.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  What about your phone? Perhaps it's a stolen one. Would you mind if the airport crew keep it in custody for a few years until you prove it was adquired legaly in a court?
  - samus 2y ago
    If they have reasonable suspicion that it indeed was. For example a case with a unique color pattern that is similar to a phone known to be stolen. Or if you can't unlock it. This ship has sailed quite some time ago - resist TSA or border control to unlock your phone, and they either confiscate it or turn you back. These powers are unlikely to ever be curtailed again in the name of security. But I also think that TSA and border control should rather focus on people actually violating immigration law and compromising travel security.
- bagels 2y ago
  The state has proven it can't be trusted with this power.
  - samus 2y ago

jjav 2y ago

> Any confiscated cash needs to go into state level or even federal coffers If I was king.. all confiscated cash must go to organizations such as ACLU and EFF (not a comprehensive list). That way it can still be done when sensible, but the more it happens the more money goes to organizations who strive to reduce abuse.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Giving those organizations an incentive not to reduce abuse!

samus 2y ago

This moves the problem one level up and makes returning it more difficult since they are now muddled with other assets. A safe deposit box would be required, with the court handling the keys.

sowbug 2y ago

Or just publicly burn the cash. This retains the punitive element of seizure from actual criminals, eliminates the perverse incentives from LE treating seized funds as a revenue source, and causes actual pain to LE if/when a court determines that they owe restitution for unwarranted seizure.