3 ms·

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

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.
- echoangle 2y ago
  So you should be able to keep money acquired with illegal acts? If you become a millionaire by selling drugs and get caught, you go to prison but after you get out, the money is yours? Or what does „wrap it up in their probate“ mean?
  - cherryteastain 2y ago
    If you get convicted the court can seize the funds as part of the sentence If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was no crime
    - echoangle 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. The example was a meth lab though and the claim was "This should be nothing to do with the police.". Is operating a meth lab not a crime?
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        The context is "what to do with the $200000 we just found", not investigating crimes in general.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > context is "what to do with the $200000 we just found" If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it, it's unclaimed property [1]. [1] https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money
        Supermancho 2y ago
        Each state and federal body has process for it. It's not uncommon to encounter unclaimed property (including cash), especially with poorly/inaccurately described bank accounts. eg https://www.fdic.gov/bank-failures/unclaimed-property-information-state https://www.fdic.gov/bank-failures/unclaimed-property-inform... Allowing specific state actors to actively claim these goods via civil forfeiture (and bypass these systems) has always been improper. Law enforcement is untrustworthy in many locales, so this is unsurprising.
potato3732842 2y ago
>so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state? Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car. It hurts society less to not seize things than to have the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of suspicion of involvement in a crime.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SauciestGNU 2y ago
Use criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction. Shouldn't be too hard to secure in those circumstances.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Make a law the the police can only operate under criminal law, not civil law. Problem solved instantly and with common sense. Anything the police do should have the protections/restrictions/rules/requirements of criminal law, not the looser standards used by civil law.

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.

echoangle 2y ago
So you should be able to keep money acquired with illegal acts? If you become a millionaire by selling drugs and get caught, you go to prison but after you get out, the money is yours? Or what does „wrap it up in their probate“ mean?
- cherryteastain 2y ago
  If you get convicted the court can seize the funds as part of the sentence If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was no crime
  - echoangle 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. The example was a meth lab though and the claim was "This should be nothing to do with the police.". Is operating a meth lab not a crime?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The context is "what to do with the $200000 we just found", not investigating crimes in general.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > context is "what to do with the $200000 we just found" If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it, it's unclaimed property [1]. [1] https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money
        Supermancho 2y ago
        Each state and federal body has process for it. It's not uncommon to encounter unclaimed property (including cash), especially with poorly/inaccurately described bank accounts. eg https://www.fdic.gov/bank-failures/unclaimed-property-information-state https://www.fdic.gov/bank-failures/unclaimed-property-inform... Allowing specific state actors to actively claim these goods via civil forfeiture (and bypass these systems) has always been improper. Law enforcement is untrustworthy in many locales, so this is unsurprising.

potato3732842 2y ago

>so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state? Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car. It hurts society less to not seize things than to have the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of suspicion of involvement in a crime.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

SauciestGNU 2y ago

Use criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction. Shouldn't be too hard to secure in those circumstances.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Make a law the the police can only operate under criminal law, not civil law. Problem solved instantly and with common sense. Anything the police do should have the protections/restrictions/rules/requirements of criminal law, not the looser standards used by civil law.