7 ms·

Asset seizures fuel police spending

153 points by electic 12y ago

dghughes 12y ago
As a Canadian I would often take what people from the US say about police with a grain of salt but recently it's seems to have become much worse, even my own government has warned Canadians. I have to wonder though is this not just policy but also a cultural thing on the far-left side there's the 20-something Occupy 1%, pro-weed crowd is this the same thing only on the far-right? As far back as 1999 my first time to the US by myself I was held at the border for no reason other than I was traveling alone, I was going to visit a friend for US Thanksgiving. My car was searched, my suitcase torn apart, held for an hour. Now I wonder if that means I will be flagged on the system as someone who was searched even though it was for no good reason.
- joesmo 12y ago
  We live in a police state where the police are allowed to legally rob and even kill people. The sad part is that hiring "Sparkles the clown" actually makes people forget this and trust the police. Stupidity of the people is on par with the vileness of the police. You should consider yourself lucky that that is the only thing that happened to you, which BTW is standard procedure. I would say that's SOP only at the border, but it is becoming more common everywhere within the US, regardless of alleged constitutional rights that are no longer considered by the police or courts.
  - dghughes 12y ago
    I don't think it was SOP, as you say, since I was about to go through when I casually mentioned to the guard at the booth a woman I know invited me to Thanksgiving dinner. It was the last question of a series of questions the guard asked me. The guard at the border said "I think you're going to stay with her and not come back but there is nothing I can find that will prevent me from holding you." I can't see what going through my entire car would accomplish I had one suitcase, which they took into the main building, and nothing else was in the car yet it took them an hour to search it. Anyway a big FU to the St. Stephen border guards at the crossing in Maine. I honked to them as I drove back into Canada.
    - joesmo 12y ago
      It's very possible they just didn't like you and wanted to make your trip miserable. Or they were just hoping to find contraband, mainly drugs. Or they were bored. Or there was no reason. Who knows? From my experience and research, that is SOP for law enforcement in the US. If they can harass (or worse) you, they will.
      - dghughes 12y ago
        I'd agree, I got the guys working the Thanksgiving weekend and they were pissed, took it our on me. I don't even fit into any often searched groups I'm a pasty white Canadian who speaks nothing but English. I'm so common and dull I could be a spy and blend in anywhere.
qwerta 12y ago
When I was traveling to Russia 15 years ago, relatives warned me not to show any cash to police.
adaml_623 12y ago
Is this an opportunity for a startup to automate the process of retrieving money? Like http://www.getfixed.me/ http://www.getfixed.me/ but on a more serious scale! (Not in US so not something I can do)
justifier 12y ago
these seizures infuriate me, but i do think it is interesting that the slant on a lot of the coverage falls along the lines: 'and look at this stupid shit they bought with it!' which leaves me to wonder.. what would be appropriate, or publicly acceptable, use of the seized funds? perhaps donating directly to services that hope to solve the problems that the seizure was made in claim against?
lotsofmangos 12y ago
John Oliver did a segment on this - http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks One thing that doesn't seem to be covered is how it changes the motivation to seize contraband, as it is much more profitable to wait until the contraband is sold and then seize the money.
- deftnerd 12y ago
  Contraband that is not in-and-of-itself illegal is routinely sold at police auctions to the public. I'm not entirely sure what happens with the proceeds of those auctions. I'm pretty sure they go to the local police department in the same revenue split as cash. Illegal contraband, such as drugs, are destroyed. The federal government gives grants to companies or police departments to cover the inflated costs of destruction. No matter how police choose to play the game, they get money.
praptak 12y ago
A more explicit one on this subject, (don't be black while carrying valuables or police will assume you stole them): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10-story.html#page=1 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-pro...
- thisjepisje 12y ago
  I'm slightly surprised the parent link hasn't been substituted yet.
- bilbo0s 12y ago
  I wonder if the police are assuming the blacks stole what is clearly not stolen... or if the police simply realize they can steal from the blacks ? Those are two different problems at heart. Of course, it doesn't make much of a difference for the blacks.
- jchrisa 12y ago
  I read the whole WaPo article hoping they'd stop listing the things purchased with the funds (who cares?) and instead talk about where they got the funds and what percentage of seizures are dubious / fraudulent. The Chicago link provides a narrow window into that question, and it doesn't look good. For instance I have a nice painting on the wall that a friend created. There's no paper trail of how I got it. Does that mean I continue to own it only at the pleasure of the police? I'm less worried about my major assets, but what if someone decided I could have been using my house as a venue to write code that could be used for illegal purposes? Do I have to prove every library on my Github account can only be used for legal purposes or risk having my house and laptop seized? Is the reason the answers to those questions is "no" merely because I'm white, prominent, and a political donor? How is this different from Putin's Russia? (Aside from in degree.)
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The reason the answer to these questions is "no" is because ownership in a civil forfeiture proceeding must be proved by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The difference between a car trunk full of $100 bills and a painting on your wall is proving that, "more likely than not" the item is the fruit of criminal activity.
coldcode 12y ago
The law as it reads is simply too much of an incentive to take everything you can lay your hands on knowing there is little chance of having to give it back. Until there is a requirement that the reason for seizure is backed up by conviction, so you have to give it back later if you can't make the crime stick.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
If the Washington Post, and others, would turn the same eye on any other organization, they would have a field day of things they would find, but it wouldn't sell as many newspapers. The problem is, they make it sound like all police have these issues (and others they "report" on) when the reality is far from it. Someone will comment, "But the police shouldn't be doing this and it's a government institution!!", as if such institutions are not run by human beings but angels from God.
- walru 12y ago
  So.. is this a boys will be boys scenario? I'm not understanding your general point. It's clear these cops were operating like a mob organization, as do many precincts in this country. I see no harm in highlighting some wrong doing in hopes it'll curb other departments from doing the same.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    My point is, you can find similar stories about any organization, from religious operations to charities to almost anything and people will stand up to it as if such things were rampant throughout every member and each and every one of them is a dastardly person. These stories are what I call the 'shrill of the internet' and you are supposed to focus on it cause, well, someone's screaming about it on the internet so it must be important and rampant and we're all going to die. In the meantime, you get into trouble and who are the first people you call for help?
- kenjackson 12y ago
  What other organization routinely takes and keeps assets from US citizens without permission?
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    You are lumping everything in one category and calling it the same. This is the (can't think of a better word) falsehood of the internet.
tomohawk 12y ago
This seems to be a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Even if the seizing of assets is legit, the assets should be looked at as revenue, and should be allocated by the legislature, not the police department. It is incredibly unseemly for police to be operating their own private economy based on forfeited assets that were acquired due to their position/power. There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime and the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be returned, with interest. That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's even remotely Constitutional. Once that is changed, I agree with you: the money should go to the state's general fund or the US treasury, not the police department.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    How do I pay my legal fees if my seized cash is being held in escrow?
    - praptak 12y ago
      You can't, and that is on purpose. You know, if you could pay your legal fees, so could a drug lord.
      - otterley 12y ago
        Even drug lords are innocent until proven guilty. Or are supposed to be, anyway. Except for treason, the Constitution doesn't distinguish between offenses charged.
      - waterlesscloud 12y ago
q2 12y ago
Reading of such articles makes me wonder about the reports/ranks given by transparency international ...etc on corruption. Comment by @icantthinkofone in this thread indicates this problem can be seen in other organizations too. If that is true, then corruption is there across all public organizations in US. In India too, we hear stories of corruption but scale is different. I conclude, it is explicit in some sectors/countries and implicit/polished/organized in other sectors/countries i.e. indices such as corruption,human life quality are just instruments to point out at emerging countries and show them in negative shades while pushing similar issues in developed countries silently under carpet and showing them in positive shades (at least during preparation of ranks). After consistent media focus, damage will be done and countries will be forever labeled as negative and leaders,future generations will forever live in that pseudo bubble thinking that they are inferior/corrupt ...etc to developed ones. (Many Indians think America/Europe is heaven with no issues like drought/crime...etc). I included human life quality because as long as systems are working, west including Europe and America appear good(seeing from very far) but once in a while catastrophe occurs(due to nature or man-made), then we will see ugly side (e.g: looting during katrina[1], London riots[2], riots in sweden[3] ...etc) as if that ugly side is suppressed under the weight of systems/rules rather than genuine intrinsic goodness of people living there[4]. My intention is not to show any one in bad light but to give the conclusion or correct the myth that just because a country is materially wealthy i.e. developed, does not mean that there will be no daily issues. If emerging countries like BRICS understand that, then they pursue all round development rather than blindly becoming photo copies of west in pursuit of material wealth and harming themselves like pollution in china[5]. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/looters-take-advantage-new-orleans-mess/#.UI73ZMVG-Nw http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_lon... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots [4]http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no-looting-in-japan/ http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China
- Zigurd 12y ago
  This is systemic corruption. As long as the federal government thinks it's kosher and they take their cut, it's unlikely to show up in international reports.
PaulAJ 12y ago
This article is a distraction from the real issue. Most of the spending (including the oft-repeated $225 for "Sparkles the clown") is legitimate. The process of civil forfeiture, on the other hand, is a clear violation of the constitution.
- TillE 12y ago
  Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments. Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.
  - readerrrr 12y ago
    Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money is taken, cannot take the process to courts.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Yeah, it turns out that a piece of paper cannot magically enforce itself.
    - martincmartin 12y ago
      There have been cases that have gone all the way to the supreme court, including a decision in February of this year: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/civil-liberties-and-supreme-court http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/ci...
michaellosee 12y ago
There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in spite of offering better than average protection from the law[1]. With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS. I expect ALS would benefit very little but at least it would save thousands of people from having their assets stolen by the police. It turns out I'm not the first person to have this idea. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR)[2] seeks to remove the profit incentive and conflict of interest from civil asset forfeiture (along with some other good ideas). There have been other attempts for reform in various states, but FAIR has a lot of potential to change things at the federal level. 1-https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california 2-https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS. That would certainly reduce the problem, but the correct solution is to prevent assets from being seized without criminal charges and require them to be immediately returned without further proceedings if the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assets are the proceeds of a criminal enterprise of which the owner/defendant is found guilty.
  - michaellosee 12y ago
    Good point. This has me thinking more about the root of the problem. It seems like the justification they use most of the time is related to drugs. Perhaps asset forfeiture is a another example of how the war on drugs undermines our civil liberties, and yet not even John Oliver has framed it that way.
- Voodoo463 12y ago
justinator 12y ago
Nice article, we were just talking about this - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035 This is an amazing amount of coverage in fairly large, established news organizations.
a3n 12y ago
> “All of this is at odds with the rights that Americans have.” Had.
a3n 12y ago
> “In tight budget periods, and even in times of budget surpluses, using asset forfeiture dollars to purchase equipment and training to stay current with the ever-changing trends in crime fighting helps serve and protect the citizens,” said Prince George’s County, Md., police spokeswoman Julie Parker. He's stealing those assets from the citizens he professes to protect. Do they have seminars on cynicism at police academy?

153 points by electic 12y ago

As a Canadian I would often take what people from the US say about police with a grain of salt but recently it's seems to have become much worse, even my own government has warned Canadians. I have to wonder though is this not just policy but also a cultural thing on the far-left side there's the 20-something Occupy 1%, pro-weed crowd is this the same thing only on the far-right? As far back as 1999 my first time to the US by myself I was held at the border for no reason other than I was traveling alone, I was going to visit a friend for US Thanksgiving. My car was searched, my suitcase torn apart, held for an hour. Now I wonder if that means I will be flagged on the system as someone who was searched even though it was for no good reason.

joesmo 12y ago
We live in a police state where the police are allowed to legally rob and even kill people. The sad part is that hiring "Sparkles the clown" actually makes people forget this and trust the police. Stupidity of the people is on par with the vileness of the police. You should consider yourself lucky that that is the only thing that happened to you, which BTW is standard procedure. I would say that's SOP only at the border, but it is becoming more common everywhere within the US, regardless of alleged constitutional rights that are no longer considered by the police or courts.
- dghughes 12y ago
  I don't think it was SOP, as you say, since I was about to go through when I casually mentioned to the guard at the booth a woman I know invited me to Thanksgiving dinner. It was the last question of a series of questions the guard asked me. The guard at the border said "I think you're going to stay with her and not come back but there is nothing I can find that will prevent me from holding you." I can't see what going through my entire car would accomplish I had one suitcase, which they took into the main building, and nothing else was in the car yet it took them an hour to search it. Anyway a big FU to the St. Stephen border guards at the crossing in Maine. I honked to them as I drove back into Canada.
  - joesmo 12y ago
    It's very possible they just didn't like you and wanted to make your trip miserable. Or they were just hoping to find contraband, mainly drugs. Or they were bored. Or there was no reason. Who knows? From my experience and research, that is SOP for law enforcement in the US. If they can harass (or worse) you, they will.
    - dghughes 12y ago
      I'd agree, I got the guys working the Thanksgiving weekend and they were pissed, took it our on me. I don't even fit into any often searched groups I'm a pasty white Canadian who speaks nothing but English. I'm so common and dull I could be a spy and blend in anywhere.

qwerta 12y ago

When I was traveling to Russia 15 years ago, relatives warned me not to show any cash to police.

adaml_623 12y ago

Is this an opportunity for a startup to automate the process of retrieving money? Like http://www.getfixed.me/ http://www.getfixed.me/ but on a more serious scale! (Not in US so not something I can do)

justifier 12y ago

these seizures infuriate me, but i do think it is interesting that the slant on a lot of the coverage falls along the lines: 'and look at this stupid shit they bought with it!' which leaves me to wonder.. what would be appropriate, or publicly acceptable, use of the seized funds? perhaps donating directly to services that hope to solve the problems that the seizure was made in claim against?

lotsofmangos 12y ago

John Oliver did a segment on this - http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks One thing that doesn't seem to be covered is how it changes the motivation to seize contraband, as it is much more profitable to wait until the contraband is sold and then seize the money.

deftnerd 12y ago
Contraband that is not in-and-of-itself illegal is routinely sold at police auctions to the public. I'm not entirely sure what happens with the proceeds of those auctions. I'm pretty sure they go to the local police department in the same revenue split as cash. Illegal contraband, such as drugs, are destroyed. The federal government gives grants to companies or police departments to cover the inflated costs of destruction. No matter how police choose to play the game, they get money.

praptak 12y ago

A more explicit one on this subject, (don't be black while carrying valuables or police will assume you stole them): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10-story.html#page=1 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-pro...

thisjepisje 12y ago
I'm slightly surprised the parent link hasn't been substituted yet.
bilbo0s 12y ago
I wonder if the police are assuming the blacks stole what is clearly not stolen... or if the police simply realize they can steal from the blacks ? Those are two different problems at heart. Of course, it doesn't make much of a difference for the blacks.
jchrisa 12y ago
I read the whole WaPo article hoping they'd stop listing the things purchased with the funds (who cares?) and instead talk about where they got the funds and what percentage of seizures are dubious / fraudulent. The Chicago link provides a narrow window into that question, and it doesn't look good. For instance I have a nice painting on the wall that a friend created. There's no paper trail of how I got it. Does that mean I continue to own it only at the pleasure of the police? I'm less worried about my major assets, but what if someone decided I could have been using my house as a venue to write code that could be used for illegal purposes? Do I have to prove every library on my Github account can only be used for legal purposes or risk having my house and laptop seized? Is the reason the answers to those questions is "no" merely because I'm white, prominent, and a political donor? How is this different from Putin's Russia? (Aside from in degree.)
- rayiner 12y ago
  The reason the answer to these questions is "no" is because ownership in a civil forfeiture proceeding must be proved by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The difference between a car trunk full of $100 bills and a painting on your wall is proving that, "more likely than not" the item is the fruit of criminal activity.

coldcode 12y ago

The law as it reads is simply too much of an incentive to take everything you can lay your hands on knowing there is little chance of having to give it back. Until there is a requirement that the reason for seizure is backed up by conviction, so you have to give it back later if you can't make the crime stick.

icantthinkofone 12y ago

If the Washington Post, and others, would turn the same eye on any other organization, they would have a field day of things they would find, but it wouldn't sell as many newspapers. The problem is, they make it sound like all police have these issues (and others they "report" on) when the reality is far from it. Someone will comment, "But the police shouldn't be doing this and it's a government institution!!", as if such institutions are not run by human beings but angels from God.

walru 12y ago
So.. is this a boys will be boys scenario? I'm not understanding your general point. It's clear these cops were operating like a mob organization, as do many precincts in this country. I see no harm in highlighting some wrong doing in hopes it'll curb other departments from doing the same.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  My point is, you can find similar stories about any organization, from religious operations to charities to almost anything and people will stand up to it as if such things were rampant throughout every member and each and every one of them is a dastardly person. These stories are what I call the 'shrill of the internet' and you are supposed to focus on it cause, well, someone's screaming about it on the internet so it must be important and rampant and we're all going to die. In the meantime, you get into trouble and who are the first people you call for help?
kenjackson 12y ago
What other organization routinely takes and keeps assets from US citizens without permission?
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  You are lumping everything in one category and calling it the same. This is the (can't think of a better word) falsehood of the internet.

tomohawk 12y ago

This seems to be a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Even if the seizing of assets is legit, the assets should be looked at as revenue, and should be allocated by the legislature, not the police department. It is incredibly unseemly for police to be operating their own private economy based on forfeited assets that were acquired due to their position/power. There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime and the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be returned, with interest. That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's even remotely Constitutional. Once that is changed, I agree with you: the money should go to the state's general fund or the US treasury, not the police department.
- DanBC 12y ago
  How do I pay my legal fees if my seized cash is being held in escrow?
  - praptak 12y ago
    You can't, and that is on purpose. You know, if you could pay your legal fees, so could a drug lord.
    - otterley 12y ago
      Even drug lords are innocent until proven guilty. Or are supposed to be, anyway. Except for treason, the Constitution doesn't distinguish between offenses charged.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago

q2 12y ago

Reading of such articles makes me wonder about the reports/ranks given by transparency international ...etc on corruption. Comment by @icantthinkofone in this thread indicates this problem can be seen in other organizations too. If that is true, then corruption is there across all public organizations in US. In India too, we hear stories of corruption but scale is different. I conclude, it is explicit in some sectors/countries and implicit/polished/organized in other sectors/countries i.e. indices such as corruption,human life quality are just instruments to point out at emerging countries and show them in negative shades while pushing similar issues in developed countries silently under carpet and showing them in positive shades (at least during preparation of ranks). After consistent media focus, damage will be done and countries will be forever labeled as negative and leaders,future generations will forever live in that pseudo bubble thinking that they are inferior/corrupt ...etc to developed ones. (Many Indians think America/Europe is heaven with no issues like drought/crime...etc). I included human life quality because as long as systems are working, west including Europe and America appear good(seeing from very far) but once in a while catastrophe occurs(due to nature or man-made), then we will see ugly side (e.g: looting during katrina[1], London riots[2], riots in sweden[3] ...etc) as if that ugly side is suppressed under the weight of systems/rules rather than genuine intrinsic goodness of people living there[4]. My intention is not to show any one in bad light but to give the conclusion or correct the myth that just because a country is materially wealthy i.e. developed, does not mean that there will be no daily issues. If emerging countries like BRICS understand that, then they pursue all round development rather than blindly becoming photo copies of west in pursuit of material wealth and harming themselves like pollution in china[5]. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/looters-take-advantage-new-orleans-mess/#.UI73ZMVG-Nw http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_lon... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots [4]http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no-looting-in-japan/ http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

Zigurd 12y ago
This is systemic corruption. As long as the federal government thinks it's kosher and they take their cut, it's unlikely to show up in international reports.

PaulAJ 12y ago

This article is a distraction from the real issue. Most of the spending (including the oft-repeated $225 for "Sparkles the clown") is legitimate. The process of civil forfeiture, on the other hand, is a clear violation of the constitution.

TillE 12y ago
Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments. Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.
- readerrrr 12y ago
  Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money is taken, cannot take the process to courts.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Yeah, it turns out that a piece of paper cannot magically enforce itself.
  - martincmartin 12y ago
    There have been cases that have gone all the way to the supreme court, including a decision in February of this year: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/civil-liberties-and-supreme-court http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/ci...

michaellosee 12y ago

There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in spite of offering better than average protection from the law[1]. With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS. I expect ALS would benefit very little but at least it would save thousands of people from having their assets stolen by the police. It turns out I'm not the first person to have this idea. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR)[2] seeks to remove the profit incentive and conflict of interest from civil asset forfeiture (along with some other good ideas). There have been other attempts for reform in various states, but FAIR has a lot of potential to change things at the federal level. 1-https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california 2-https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS. That would certainly reduce the problem, but the correct solution is to prevent assets from being seized without criminal charges and require them to be immediately returned without further proceedings if the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assets are the proceeds of a criminal enterprise of which the owner/defendant is found guilty.
- michaellosee 12y ago
  Good point. This has me thinking more about the root of the problem. It seems like the justification they use most of the time is related to drugs. Perhaps asset forfeiture is a another example of how the war on drugs undermines our civil liberties, and yet not even John Oliver has framed it that way.
Voodoo463 12y ago

justinator 12y ago

Nice article, we were just talking about this - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035 This is an amazing amount of coverage in fairly large, established news organizations.

a3n 12y ago

> “All of this is at odds with the rights that Americans have.” Had.

a3n 12y ago

> “In tight budget periods, and even in times of budget surpluses, using asset forfeiture dollars to purchase equipment and training to stay current with the ever-changing trends in crime fighting helps serve and protect the citizens,” said Prince George’s County, Md., police spokeswoman Julie Parker. He's stealing those assets from the citizens he professes to protect. Do they have seminars on cynicism at police academy?