9 ms·

And here's the meat, since the article does come from Economist: > Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allo

by bostik 13y ago

And here's the meat, since the article does come from Economist: > Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back. > Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion. Proliferation of SWAT team setups may have been due to a perception issue, but they sure as hell are kept going because there is a real financial incentive. For that reason the answer to the article's title should probably be something like: "Neither. Try mercenaries."

mercurial 13y ago
> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect? > Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- Crito 13y ago
  You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
  - mercurial 13y ago
    That's legal sophistry.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime. Thus, even if they don't have enough evidence to pin you to the crime, they can prove you don't have a legitimate right the property.
      - Crito 13y ago
        > "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more permissive "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But of course you already know that. You are lying by admission.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.
        ericd 13y ago
        Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
Oculus 13y ago
No one in large organizations wants to leave their budget unspent so they can get more of it the following year. It's actually a culture in enterprise/government organizations to blow what's left of one's budget before the end of the year. I think this is the culture that brought us from $100m to $6 billion.
- sandstrom 13y ago
  I agree on the budget practice of spending it all to avoid a cut next year. I think that's very common. Small note though: I think the $100 ($93.7) to $6B was an increase in seized assets.
  - polynomial 13y ago
    Is there no incentive to spend the seized assets as well?
iwwr 13y ago
>"Neither. Try mercenaries." "Freebooters" may be a more appropriate term
- bostik 13y ago
  I had to look the term up. I'm not convinced it's the right one, as the etymology (according to wikipedia [1]) comes from military personnel acting without consent on foreign soil. What I understood was more like jingoism in action. On the other hand, if we use the second paragraph's description: "... are irregular soldiers who act without authority from their own government, and are generally motivated by financial gain, political ideology, or the thrill of adventure." -- We get something that has only partial overlap with mercenaries or privateers. I still don't see how the term applies in this case. "Without authority" is a pretty steep accusation. Maybe I'm missing some cultural context. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29

by bostik 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago

> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect? > Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Crito 13y ago
You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
- mercurial 13y ago
  That's legal sophistry.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime. Thus, even if they don't have enough evidence to pin you to the crime, they can prove you don't have a legitimate right the property.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more permissive "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But of course you already know that. You are lying by admission.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.
        ericd 13y ago
        Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.

Oculus 13y ago

No one in large organizations wants to leave their budget unspent so they can get more of it the following year. It's actually a culture in enterprise/government organizations to blow what's left of one's budget before the end of the year. I think this is the culture that brought us from $100m to $6 billion.

sandstrom 13y ago
I agree on the budget practice of spending it all to avoid a cut next year. I think that's very common. Small note though: I think the $100 ($93.7) to $6B was an increase in seized assets.
- polynomial 13y ago
  Is there no incentive to spend the seized assets as well?

iwwr 13y ago

>"Neither. Try mercenaries." "Freebooters" may be a more appropriate term

bostik 13y ago
I had to look the term up. I'm not convinced it's the right one, as the etymology (according to wikipedia [1]) comes from military personnel acting without consent on foreign soil. What I understood was more like jingoism in action. On the other hand, if we use the second paragraph's description: "... are irregular soldiers who act without authority from their own government, and are generally motivated by financial gain, political ideology, or the thrill of adventure." -- We get something that has only partial overlap with mercenaries or privateers. I still don't see how the term applies in this case. "Without authority" is a pretty steep accusation. Maybe I'm missing some cultural context. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29