4 ms·

Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use c

Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.” Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money? No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.
        immibis 2y ago
        "murder in any way" covers a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a lot of power. But isn't that a good thing because it discourages people from murdering?
    - BrenBarn 2y ago
      > Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Civil asset forfeiture already facilitates corruption, but it's worse because that corruption is targeted at innocent random civilians. > Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures. Even better: remove qualified immunity for everything.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      > Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers over everyone else.
  - MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
    That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?" The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
    - BrenBarn 2y ago
      > That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. Assuming such a thing exists. . . > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do? I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go through a court proceeding to establish that the money was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that process.
      - dgoldstein0 2y ago
        I'd bet this is covered by other laws. Practically if you come back to claim it you probably expose yourself to being advised of running the meth lab. If it's unclaimed it's then abandoned property, and pretty sure there's laws of how that gets dealt with.
    - jdasdf 2y ago
      >That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do? Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
  - snakeyjake 2y ago
    >"Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony." Civil asset forfeiture means a lot more than what you think it does. Do you remember a story a couple of years ago about a couple who foreclosed on a local Bank of America branch after Bank of America wrongfully started foreclosure proceedings on their home? That's civil asset forfeiture. The sheriff's deputies who went with them to enforce the foreclosure are not criminals. If you are a freelancer and your client doesn't pay you and you get a court order to collect what you are owed: civil asset forfeiture. A clerk filing the paperwork to get you your money is not a criminal. Even the ACLU is fighting civil asset forfeiture ABUSE because as actual lawyers they understand what it means. https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/asset-forfeiture-abuse
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      There is a really simple difference here. The couple who foreclosed on a BoA branch got a court order to do so, otherwise the deputies would not have enforced it. Seizing money in your trunk because you had a tail light out because you have a "suspicion" that the money is somehow criminal does not have the same standard. I don't think many people have a concern with that. So sure, maybe, "any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture absent a valid court order shall be a felony".
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Or maybe law enforcement should only be empowered to carry out criminal asset forfeiture.
Gibbon1 2y ago
My preference is 100% of fines and siezed property should go to the Social Security Administration. Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.

Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.

BrenBarn 2y ago
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.” Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money? No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.
      - immibis 2y ago
        "murder in any way" covers a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a lot of power. But isn't that a good thing because it discourages people from murdering?
  - BrenBarn 2y ago
    > Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Civil asset forfeiture already facilitates corruption, but it's worse because that corruption is targeted at innocent random civilians. > Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures. Even better: remove qualified immunity for everything.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    > Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers over everyone else.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?" The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
  - BrenBarn 2y ago
    > That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. Assuming such a thing exists. . . > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do? I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go through a court proceeding to establish that the money was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that process.
    - dgoldstein0 2y ago
      I'd bet this is covered by other laws. Practically if you come back to claim it you probably expose yourself to being advised of running the meth lab. If it's unclaimed it's then abandoned property, and pretty sure there's laws of how that gets dealt with.
  - jdasdf 2y ago
    >That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute. There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do? Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  >"Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony." Civil asset forfeiture means a lot more than what you think it does. Do you remember a story a couple of years ago about a couple who foreclosed on a local Bank of America branch after Bank of America wrongfully started foreclosure proceedings on their home? That's civil asset forfeiture. The sheriff's deputies who went with them to enforce the foreclosure are not criminals. If you are a freelancer and your client doesn't pay you and you get a court order to collect what you are owed: civil asset forfeiture. A clerk filing the paperwork to get you your money is not a criminal. Even the ACLU is fighting civil asset forfeiture ABUSE because as actual lawyers they understand what it means. https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/asset-forfeiture-abuse
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    There is a really simple difference here. The couple who foreclosed on a BoA branch got a court order to do so, otherwise the deputies would not have enforced it. Seizing money in your trunk because you had a tail light out because you have a "suspicion" that the money is somehow criminal does not have the same standard. I don't think many people have a concern with that. So sure, maybe, "any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture absent a valid court order shall be a felony".
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Or maybe law enforcement should only be empowered to carry out criminal asset forfeiture.

Gibbon1 2y ago

My preference is 100% of fines and siezed property should go to the Social Security Administration. Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.