13 ms·

Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize

403 points by molecule 12y ago

lazaroclapp 12y ago
U.S. Bill of rights, article 7: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;[...], nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution (or for that matter, that of any country with both rule of law and capitalist property rights)?
- aqme28 12y ago
  Don't forget the fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get how this is still considered constitutional.
  - Gustomaximus 12y ago
    I agree with you, but people readily throw out common sense for exact definition over the wider sense of a clause. In this case I'm sure the word 'unreasonable' can be twisted to where-ever people gaining advantage through want should they continue to face limited resistance.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - baddox 12y ago
    There's very little incentive for the people who get to decide how the Consititution is interpreted to adopt interpretations that favor individual rights (or even broader social benefit) over state power.
    - javert 12y ago
      The people who ultimately get to decide that are the Supreme Court justices. They aren't incentivized to act in any particular way, except in accordance with their own philosophical values. That's why they are appointed for life.
      - baddox 12y ago
        They are chosen and vetted by people with such incentives.
        smt88 12y ago
        They're chosen with the hope that their beliefs aren't going to change. That doesn't happen. Justices will tend to become more liberal over time [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Su...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kirsebaer 12y ago
    Drug War hysteria. We are finally waking up from this nightmare.
    - a3n 12y ago
      Drug war hysteria may have given us this wave of robbery, but it's sustained by law enforcement's realization that they can, and (IMO) by political unwillingness to raise money for operations through legitimate taxation. "Read my lips, we're taking your car." Q: Why does a cop take your car? A: Because he can.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  So who's going to prosecute them for it? If the government, police and judiciary are all in on it, who can stop them? There's only 2 political parties in the US and they're both in on this, you can't even vote for a party to reform this...
  - pstuart 12y ago
    The foundation for this is the War on Drugs, which many well-meaning citizens support. Only if those attitudes can be changed can we expect any change.
  - Sorgam 12y ago
    No. In America, you can do a "write in" vote whereby you can vote for anyone you want. So the problem is with the voters. If you voted for Obama, then you're partly responsible for this. The problem is people who will only vote for parties that are expensively advertised.
    - jonpaul 12y ago
      I agree with this. My strategy as of lately has been to just write "Libertarian" in the write-in box. I realize that it will have little impact as of now. But if enough people do it, news media will start reporting this. Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity. The liberty movement is growing as demonstrated by the success of Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 vs 2012. It just takes time.
      - baddox 12y ago
        As far as I know, most jurisdictions require write-in candidates to officially register as such, and will count yours as an invalid ballot. Literally no one will see your "message" except for the one person counting write-in ballots.
      - tlrobinson 12y ago
        "Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity." Legally change their name to "Libertarian"?
- damian2000 12y ago
  Is there something like a 'civil forfeiture' law which actually allow them to do this? Here in Australia we have something called 'Anti-hoon laws' which states after three major traffic infringements, your car can be seized (and destroyed/crushed in some cases). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_A...
  - joering2 12y ago
    That's insane! God Bless 4th of July and founding fathers!
    - bbcbasic 12y ago
      </Irony>
- rtpg 12y ago
  De jure, isn't it possible to recover your effects if you're not actually convicted? The process might be too complicated, but it might be possible enough to not infringe on this. I guess the question is whether civil forfeiture meets the due process requirements. In many civil rights cases, we get into the difficulty of processes (something might be de jure possible but de facto impossible/extremely hard to go through). The main issue with trying to go after civil forfeiture in court is that the gov't could simply give you back your goods if you threaten to bring it to court, and you suddenly lose standing
  - joering2 12y ago
    Knowing how long it takes to sue the government... what do you want to do with 2008 Mercedes that is 17 years old??
    - rtpg 12y ago
      The question would be more about challenging the core of the law, not about getting your car back.
      - markbao 12y ago
        For those that have the money to pursue a lawsuit for the principle of it. Most don't take the time or have the money, or the cost–benefit makes the lawsuit more expensive than the asset itself.
      - deciplex 12y ago
        You'd have to have the resources to challenge this on principle, which might be hard to come by if a lot of your money and possessions were recently seized. Furthermore, for asset forfeiture, police departments tend to prey on the weak in the first place, so they are less likely to challenge it - or will give up the challenge once they receive back a pittance from these thugs.
      - adventured 12y ago
        That's part of the reason the cops don't mess with rich people. There are consequences to doing so. They know the line on who they can or can't screw-over without stirring up trouble. You'd need some very rich and or powerful people to be interested in this problem. Soros has taken a specific interest in the prison system in the US, when it comes to drug laws and punishment extent; maybe someone like that will pick this cause up.
- jared314 12y ago
  > I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution IANAL: Last I heard, the logic was that you, the owner, are not accused of anything. Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, because it is not a person protected by the bill of rights. The idea was to seize the assets of organized crime without having to completely prove they were committing a crime (which is hard). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Also, if your plan is to use the bill of rights against a prosecutor, you need a better plan.)
  - lingben 12y ago
    So does this mean that I can sue the Federal Reserve and 'hold' their assets indefinitely until they prove they are not guilty? do I get to keep the interest generated while the case slowly goes through due process?
    - deciplex 12y ago
      If you have an army, yes.
      - ende 12y ago
        Maybe we need to become an army.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    That demonstrates again why people should reject the argument of "if we don't do this, law enforcement would be hard" or "we'd do it only to the bad guys, don't worry". Because as soon as it's allowed to do this to the bad guys, it is amazing who becomes the bad guy when needed.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    It's not guilty til proven innocence, but a lower standard called a preponderance of evidence. The hearing you get is the due process.
  - 12y ago
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  The same way that growing a plant on your own property for your own consumption became "commerce among the states".
  - kenesom1 12y ago
    Indeed - prohibiting individual use because it might morph into interstate commerce is an illegal type of "pre-crime restraint" [1]. In which case everyone's rights are violated on the mere possibility that a victimless act the government objects to might be committed. [1] http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-the-explosion-of-targeted-noncustodial-prevention/ http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-th...
  - baddox 12y ago
    Which for reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich. Another fun one is when they ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens (all in one state) is interstate commerce: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn
    - jevinskie 12y ago
      And much of that precedent is from the New Deal era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal Edit: In the case you posted, I think this excerpt from Justice Thomas' dissent sums it up nicely: If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  There's a series of cases going way back. The first one had to do with the seizure of a vessel used by a Spanish Privateer (The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 1 1 (1827)). Although not particularity well reasoned -- it doesn't even analyze the constitutional issues -- it was unfortunately written by a very revered justice famous for the first treatise on American Constitutional law. The concept was largely limited to the maritime and smuggling context for a fair amount of time, but was eventually extended beyond that in cases involving moonshine. By the time the 20th century rolled around, there was this long line of cases. Justices, whether politically conservative or liberal, tend to be dispositionally conservative. Every time it's come up it's been reaffirmed largely on the basis of pure precedent, without any analysis from first principles. Here's one of the most liberal justices in history (Brennan) discussing civil forfeiture: At common law the value of an inanimate object directly or indirectly causing the accidental death of a [416 U.S. 663, 681] King's subject was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand.16 The origins of the deodand are traceable to Biblical17 and pre-Judeo-Christian practices, which reflected the view that the instrument of death was accused and that religious expiation was required. See O. Holmes, The Common Law, c. 1 (1881). The value of the instrument was forfeited to the King, in the belief that the King would provide the money for Masses to be said for the good of the dead man's soul, or insure that the deodand was put to charitable uses. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries.18 When application of the deodand to religious or eleemosynary purposes ceased, and the deodand became a source of Crown revenue, the institution was justified as a penalty for carelessness. ... Decisions reaching the same conclusion have continued into this century. In Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1921), it was held that the federal tax-fraud forfeiture statute did not deprive an innocent owner of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There, the claimant was a conditional vendor of a taxicab that had been used in the removal and concealment of distilled spirits upon which the federal tax was unpaid. Although recognizing that arguments against the application of the statute to cover an innocent owner were not without force, the Court rejected them, saying: "In breaches of revenue provisions some forms of property are facilities, and therefore it may be said, that Congress interposes the care and responsibility [416 U.S. 663, 686] of their owners in aid of the prohibitions of the law and its punitive provisions, by ascribing to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong. In such case there is some analogy to the law of deodand by which a personal chattel that was the immediate cause of the death of any reasonable creature was forfeited. To the superstitious reason to which the rule was ascribed, Blackstone adds `that such misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture.' . . . "But whether the reason for [the forfeiture] be artificial or real, it is too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Id., at 510-511. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 416 U.S. 663 (1974) One could be forgiven for thinking that he's reading a Scalia opinion instead of a Brennan opinion!
- adventured 12y ago
  It's incompatible, entirely, with the Constitution. The keyword these days is extra-legal. That's half of what the government does now, and it does not care that you know it, because there is nobody powerful enough to stop such a menacing monster. The collar is off.
- wl 12y ago
  It's a common mistake to believe that due process has to be fair and just. In a civil asset forfeiture case, the owner of the property has the right to take part in the proceedings and contest the seizure. The owner is informed of this. And the owner can appeal the outcome of the proceedings. All this together constitutes due process, even if challenging the seizure costs more than the property in question is worth.
ObviousScience 12y ago
> “If you want the car, and you really want to put it in your fleet, let me know — I’ll fight for it,” Mr. McMurtry said, addressing law enforcement officials on the video. “If you don’t let me know that, I’ll try and resolve it real quick through a settlement and get cash for the car, get the tow fee paid off, get some money for it.” > In an interview, Mr. McMurtry acknowledged that he exercises a great deal of discretion. “The first offense, if it’s not anything too serious, we’ll come up with a dollar amount, depending on the value of the car and the seriousness of the offense,” he said. “I try to come up with a dollar amount that’s not so high that they can’t afford it, but not so low that it doesn’t have an impact. If it’s a second offense, they don’t get it back.” What a fucking asshole. That guy is a thug stealing from the public, and he doesn't even try to hide it. He even admits that he's using the practice to impose fines without due process, in direct violation of the constitution. He's a criminal, and should be treated as such. > Prosecutors estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the cars seized were driven by someone other than the owner, which sometimes means a parent or grandparent loses their car. They're even aware that they're stealing from innocent people, and that they'd likely never get any sort of seizure upheld through having to actually file charges. Criminals, all of them.
- raarts 12y ago
  Doesn't this completely go against the trias politica principle? The police effectively playing judge and determining the penalty, without due process and even worse, for their own benefit? Frankly I'm at a loss for words here. It's wrong on every imaginable level. The most worrying to me is, that there seem to be so many people who do NOT see anything wrong with it. Do so many people miss a basic grasp of right and wrong, of the building blocks of our society? And what are they doing in the police force?
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    I'm very disturbed by the callousness with which he brags about violating the constitution to get extra-legal justice. I'm also confused why people always (largely rhetorically) wonder why Americans don't trust officials and are withdrawing from the political process when there are ample examples of officials bragging about their illegal activities without any consequence.
adamnemecek 12y ago
John Oliver's show had a segment on this very topic not that long ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  Comedy is not a substitute for public discourse.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    I didn't say it was.
antmldr 12y ago
IANAL, but in Commonwealth countries this seems to be mitigated by the use of consolidated revenue funds[0]. It's explicit in s81[1] and 83[2] of the Australian Constitution that all revenues must be deposited into the CRF and you then need a law to appropriate the revenue elsewhere. Similarly, state law seems to point to revenue from civil seizure is paid into treasury.[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s81.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s83.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s... [3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara1990272/s27.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara199027...
- peteretep 12y ago
  I always feel like an asshole when I say this, but... Much of the constitution and guiding American legal principles (as much as they diverge from Common Law at the time) were built on distrust of The Crown. And since then they've managed to fuck it up spectacularly. Elected public prosecutors instead of something like the Crown Prosecution Service. Insane semi-militarised police instead of a force whose ethos continues to be "policing by consent" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles). ANZAC and the UK are far from perfect, but there's a bitter irony that a country built to escape oppression from the state now feels it more keenly than the other countries born of that state.
- YokoZar 12y ago
  Yes, this is the ultimate solution. Fines and forfeitures should never go to the local government responsible for crafting them, or worse, directly to the police department enforcing them. Remove that incentive, and suddenly the darker motive goes away. The officials can no longer emotionally rationalize excessive fines, misplaced priorities on seizure rather than crime prevention, or even outright theft. The only thing that remains is a desire to actually do the job of protecting the public.
  - ericHosick 12y ago
lukev 12y ago
What is the likely outcome if a victim of civil forfeiture were to file a lawsuit against the law enforcement body for restitution, on constitutional grounds? Is that legally possible, or is there a precedent for this? Seems like the ACLU would be all over funding such a suit and taking it as far as necessary.
- zaroth 12y ago
  The likely outcome is that it costs you more than the property which is at stake. It's not that you won't win, it's that it's too expensive to even try! TFA mentions seizing entire houses? I assume those cases do get filed and won since there's enough at stake. But there's a reason the cops "go for the flat screens" it's a calculated cost/benefit designed to make it just expensive enough to not be worth fighting. This is why we need large punitive damages awards, but my guess is the law is written specifically to preclude that.
  - lukev 12y ago
    But surely that's built into the structure of the legal system? People I do business with don't routinely defraud me of amounts too small to sue over: why can't the same legal reasoning apply to these cases?
    - baddox 12y ago
      One reason people (and particularly businesses) tend to not defraud you over amounts too small to sue over is that the value of continued business and/or word of mouth is larger than the one-time payout of defrauding you. This effect is obviously diminished when dealing with the state, since the difference in physical power between the two parties in the transaction is immense, and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly nonsensical.
      - eru 12y ago
        > [...] and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly nonsensical. Why? You can move away. (Or, more likely, a bad reputations will deter people and businesses considering moving in.)
zaroth 12y ago
It's great the media at least has woken up to this. So they crank out an article every month or so, basically saying the same thing over again. But even the media isn't willing to fully recognize how much the system has turned, how stacked the deck, how all-seeing, and highly discriminatory, lady justice has now become. "The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months..." just comes off as a meek response to the truth on the ground. Is the system so overrun by spineless pricks there's literally no one left to inject some sanity? No prosecutor who can't understand the irony of sizing up citizens like a thug on a smash-and-grab (go for the flat screens!) Not a soul left in the justice department with enough common decency to make a career out of killing this? The legislators aren't willing to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. Is it up to referendums? Who is organizing the offense, and what is the game plan? Where is the coordinated counter-attack? Because without one it's not going to curtail this. I don't think you can simply shame these departments (police and prosecutor) into taking the handcuffs off their belts and slapping them on their own wrists where they apparently belong.
- navait 12y ago
  If the media hasn't fully recognized the problem, how did you become aware of it fully?
  - zaroth 12y ago
    Fair enough, I should have wrote "mainstream media".
Everlag 12y ago
It says 'the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year' which means that, spread across every American, is an extra $1400 tax which is off the books. For perspective, on the highest minimum wage of $9.32 per hour, that's around 150 hours of work. THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE MONTH OF 40 HOUR WORK WEEKS TO AN ILLEGITIMATE, OFF THE BOOKS, EFFECTIVELY UNREGULATED, AND FOR PROFIT TAX. Disgusted should not even begin to describe the mood of the American people. EDIT: My math is bad and I feel bad. Its ~$14 a year which is still an hour but oh my, that was an order of a magnitude error!
- EricBurnett 12y ago
  You can't compare an average 'tax' against the lowest working wage. So I did some rough figuring based on annual income. Assuming forfeiture is spread across all income levels evenly, it would be better to compare against mean income. Looks like (based on 2004 numbers) mean household income was 60,528, mean household size 2.57, for a mean income of 23230 per person. That puts forfeiture ballpark 6%, assuming it all comes from on-the-books assets. So for people working one full time job, about 3 weeks equivalently. Actually pretty close to what you got, I'm sad to see. Wouldn't want to be living in the us right now, based on those numbers. That sounds like it adds up to a whole lot of corruption.
- jcampbell1 12y ago
  $4.3 / .31 ~= $14.00 I think you mean $14.00, not $1400.
  - Everlag 12y ago
    Oh no, this is what happens when I take 5 minutes to HN and don't check my math. I put an edit in the bottom as a testament to my eternal shame.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > that was an order of a magnitude error! Two, actually.
forgetaboutit2 12y ago
The Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Ammendments haven't been enforced for over 10 years!!
forgetaboutit2 12y ago
The Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Ammendments haven't been enforced for over 10 years!!
misiti3780 12y ago
anyone what the "last night with john oliver" special on this ?- he got some great video clips of police employees saying some outrageous stuff.
mathattack 12y ago
The challenge here is that people fighting this have to be convinced to pay higher taxes rather than "Stick it to the criminals." When you ask people to pay for higher principles, sometimes they balk. Of course we know about the road to hell, and today it's a drug dealer's car, and tomorrow it's the opposition party's mayoral candidate.
declan 12y ago
Police abuses of civil asset forfeiture have been around longer than many HN readers have been alive. Here's an example of civil asset forfeiture abuse in 1991 (the practice extends back to at least 1985), which was the subject of congressional testimony in 1996: https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he... I remember going to DC policy seminars on the topic that groups like the ACLU and the Cato Institute held 10-15 years ago, and Cato published a lengthy paper about these abuses in 2006: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whit... There's even an organization devoted to ending civil asset forfeiture abuses: http://fear.org/ http://fear.org/ But after roughly three decades of this practice, and over two decades of well-documented abuses, nothing has changed. Why this remains the case, even though every politician and judge is aware or should be aware of these abuses, is left as an exercise for the reader.
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  This is a bigger issue than just civil asset forfeiture. This kind of conflict of interest encompasses ticket "quotas" (technically disallowed but tacitly followed) or when someone with an out-of-state license plate is targeted on the assumption that they're less likely to fight the ticket. I've heard of cops bragging about the tickets they write and how they're putting money in the city's coffer. But I'm at a loss what to do about it. Is there a way to disassociate enforcement from penalizing?
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    You have to make it so that the money doesn't go back into the political unit's general funds nor a fund where the enforcing agency gets access to it directly or indirectly. Perhaps the money goes to a pool of charities, or is earmarked to remedy the victims of crimes, or is simply returned to the Federal Reserve (though that might just circulate back to the banks). The idea is to remove the monetary incentives from enforcement actions.
    - 12y ago
sremani 12y ago
This is John Oliver's commentary on this issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks note: Not sure if we can post youtube videos here, but the commentary on the video very relevant to the topic
stephengoodwin 12y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I have heard that cases literally suing property (as opposed to the property owner): * United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency[1] * United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins[2] * United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola[3] --- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_and_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_...
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
Unbelievable. What kind of training get the police men? Is it police training or training how to be a crook? There is one saying in the bible -- I don't want to preach, but some wisdom can be even found in old books -- "A man reaps what he sows". It seems, this state sows crooks.
viggity 12y ago
Harry Connelly, the one discussing "little goodies" to be seized can be contacted at harryc@las-cruces.org I've sent him an email expressing my displeasure at his use of Civil Asset Forfeiture. I'd like to send a similar email to Sean McMurtry, but came up empty trying to find his email address.
- arbuge 12y ago
  Be careful he doesn't have the laptop you emailed him from seized. More seriously, although your anger is laudable, complaining to criminals is rarely productive. In this case complaining to whoever can put a stop to this practice is what's really needed. I'm not a lawyer, but stopping it seems unlikely to happen unless it's brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Pressure in that direction would likely be more fruitful.
ck2 12y ago
We should stop saying seize. It's "steal". It is outright theft. Even if by some chance the people they were taking it from were doing something wrong, it is still theft because it is done as them being judge, jury and executioner.
dan_sullivan 12y ago
Combine this sort of behavior with the fact that they now have unchecked surveillance powers and what do you get?
- adventured 12y ago
  Rapidly expanding increases in quasi-legalized crime by the State. A $17 trillion economy, with $200 trillion in assets, and all private citizens are now guilty until proven innocent. It's Christmas day for the gangsters in government.
Paradigma11 12y ago
Why are there no specialized Law firms that take the case for a cut of the assets?
Istof 12y ago
Can civilians thieves use civil forfeiture, in small claim court, for example?
lsaferite 12y ago
Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. I'm truly ashamed of my country.
ender89 12y ago
Always wanted to live in a police state.....

403 points by molecule 12y ago

U.S. Bill of rights, article 7: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;[...], nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution (or for that matter, that of any country with both rule of law and capitalist property rights)?

aqme28 12y ago
Don't forget the fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get how this is still considered constitutional.
- Gustomaximus 12y ago
  I agree with you, but people readily throw out common sense for exact definition over the wider sense of a clause. In this case I'm sure the word 'unreasonable' can be twisted to where-ever people gaining advantage through want should they continue to face limited resistance.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 12y ago
  There's very little incentive for the people who get to decide how the Consititution is interpreted to adopt interpretations that favor individual rights (or even broader social benefit) over state power.
  - javert 12y ago
    The people who ultimately get to decide that are the Supreme Court justices. They aren't incentivized to act in any particular way, except in accordance with their own philosophical values. That's why they are appointed for life.
    - baddox 12y ago
      They are chosen and vetted by people with such incentives.
      - smt88 12y ago
        They're chosen with the hope that their beliefs aren't going to change. That doesn't happen. Justices will tend to become more liberal over time [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Su...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kirsebaer 12y ago
  Drug War hysteria. We are finally waking up from this nightmare.
  - a3n 12y ago
    Drug war hysteria may have given us this wave of robbery, but it's sustained by law enforcement's realization that they can, and (IMO) by political unwillingness to raise money for operations through legitimate taxation. "Read my lips, we're taking your car." Q: Why does a cop take your car? A: Because he can.
Mikeb85 12y ago
So who's going to prosecute them for it? If the government, police and judiciary are all in on it, who can stop them? There's only 2 political parties in the US and they're both in on this, you can't even vote for a party to reform this...
- pstuart 12y ago
  The foundation for this is the War on Drugs, which many well-meaning citizens support. Only if those attitudes can be changed can we expect any change.
- Sorgam 12y ago
  No. In America, you can do a "write in" vote whereby you can vote for anyone you want. So the problem is with the voters. If you voted for Obama, then you're partly responsible for this. The problem is people who will only vote for parties that are expensively advertised.
  - jonpaul 12y ago
    I agree with this. My strategy as of lately has been to just write "Libertarian" in the write-in box. I realize that it will have little impact as of now. But if enough people do it, news media will start reporting this. Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity. The liberty movement is growing as demonstrated by the success of Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 vs 2012. It just takes time.
    - baddox 12y ago
      As far as I know, most jurisdictions require write-in candidates to officially register as such, and will count yours as an invalid ballot. Literally no one will see your "message" except for the one person counting write-in ballots.
    - tlrobinson 12y ago
      "Potential liberty minded candidates may then see an opportunity." Legally change their name to "Libertarian"?
damian2000 12y ago
Is there something like a 'civil forfeiture' law which actually allow them to do this? Here in Australia we have something called 'Anti-hoon laws' which states after three major traffic infringements, your car can be seized (and destroyed/crushed in some cases). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon#Anti-hoon_legislation_in_A...
- joering2 12y ago
  That's insane! God Bless 4th of July and founding fathers!
  - bbcbasic 12y ago
    </Irony>
rtpg 12y ago
De jure, isn't it possible to recover your effects if you're not actually convicted? The process might be too complicated, but it might be possible enough to not infringe on this. I guess the question is whether civil forfeiture meets the due process requirements. In many civil rights cases, we get into the difficulty of processes (something might be de jure possible but de facto impossible/extremely hard to go through). The main issue with trying to go after civil forfeiture in court is that the gov't could simply give you back your goods if you threaten to bring it to court, and you suddenly lose standing
- joering2 12y ago
  Knowing how long it takes to sue the government... what do you want to do with 2008 Mercedes that is 17 years old??
  - rtpg 12y ago
    The question would be more about challenging the core of the law, not about getting your car back.
    - markbao 12y ago
      For those that have the money to pursue a lawsuit for the principle of it. Most don't take the time or have the money, or the cost–benefit makes the lawsuit more expensive than the asset itself.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      You'd have to have the resources to challenge this on principle, which might be hard to come by if a lot of your money and possessions were recently seized. Furthermore, for asset forfeiture, police departments tend to prey on the weak in the first place, so they are less likely to challenge it - or will give up the challenge once they receive back a pittance from these thugs.
    - adventured 12y ago
      That's part of the reason the cops don't mess with rich people. There are consequences to doing so. They know the line on who they can or can't screw-over without stirring up trouble. You'd need some very rich and or powerful people to be interested in this problem. Soros has taken a specific interest in the prison system in the US, when it comes to drug laws and punishment extent; maybe someone like that will pick this cause up.
jared314 12y ago
> I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a whole compatible with the U.S. constitution IANAL: Last I heard, the logic was that you, the owner, are not accused of anything. Your property is accused of being used in a criminal act. Your property is guilty until proven innocent, because it is not a person protected by the bill of rights. The idea was to seize the assets of organized crime without having to completely prove they were committing a crime (which is hard). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (Also, if your plan is to use the bill of rights against a prosecutor, you need a better plan.)
- lingben 12y ago
  So does this mean that I can sue the Federal Reserve and 'hold' their assets indefinitely until they prove they are not guilty? do I get to keep the interest generated while the case slowly goes through due process?
  - deciplex 12y ago
    If you have an army, yes.
    - ende 12y ago
      Maybe we need to become an army.
- smsm42 12y ago
  That demonstrates again why people should reject the argument of "if we don't do this, law enforcement would be hard" or "we'd do it only to the bad guys, don't worry". Because as soon as it's allowed to do this to the bad guys, it is amazing who becomes the bad guy when needed.
- rhino369 12y ago
  It's not guilty til proven innocence, but a lower standard called a preponderance of evidence. The hearing you get is the due process.
- 12y ago
jeffdavis 12y ago
The same way that growing a plant on your own property for your own consumption became "commerce among the states".
- kenesom1 12y ago
  Indeed - prohibiting individual use because it might morph into interstate commerce is an illegal type of "pre-crime restraint" [1]. In which case everyone's rights are violated on the mere possibility that a victimless act the government objects to might be committed. [1] http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-the-explosion-of-targeted-noncustodial-prevention/ http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-th...
- baddox 12y ago
  Which for reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich. Another fun one is when they ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens (all in one state) is interstate commerce: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn
  - jevinskie 12y ago
    And much of that precedent is from the New Deal era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal Edit: In the case you posted, I think this excerpt from Justice Thomas' dissent sums it up nicely: If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
bradleyjg 12y ago
There's a series of cases going way back. The first one had to do with the seizure of a vessel used by a Spanish Privateer (The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 1 1 (1827)). Although not particularity well reasoned -- it doesn't even analyze the constitutional issues -- it was unfortunately written by a very revered justice famous for the first treatise on American Constitutional law. The concept was largely limited to the maritime and smuggling context for a fair amount of time, but was eventually extended beyond that in cases involving moonshine. By the time the 20th century rolled around, there was this long line of cases. Justices, whether politically conservative or liberal, tend to be dispositionally conservative. Every time it's come up it's been reaffirmed largely on the basis of pure precedent, without any analysis from first principles. Here's one of the most liberal justices in history (Brennan) discussing civil forfeiture: At common law the value of an inanimate object directly or indirectly causing the accidental death of a [416 U.S. 663, 681] King's subject was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand.16 The origins of the deodand are traceable to Biblical17 and pre-Judeo-Christian practices, which reflected the view that the instrument of death was accused and that religious expiation was required. See O. Holmes, The Common Law, c. 1 (1881). The value of the instrument was forfeited to the King, in the belief that the King would provide the money for Masses to be said for the good of the dead man's soul, or insure that the deodand was put to charitable uses. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries.18 When application of the deodand to religious or eleemosynary purposes ceased, and the deodand became a source of Crown revenue, the institution was justified as a penalty for carelessness. ... Decisions reaching the same conclusion have continued into this century. In Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1921), it was held that the federal tax-fraud forfeiture statute did not deprive an innocent owner of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There, the claimant was a conditional vendor of a taxicab that had been used in the removal and concealment of distilled spirits upon which the federal tax was unpaid. Although recognizing that arguments against the application of the statute to cover an innocent owner were not without force, the Court rejected them, saying: "In breaches of revenue provisions some forms of property are facilities, and therefore it may be said, that Congress interposes the care and responsibility [416 U.S. 663, 686] of their owners in aid of the prohibitions of the law and its punitive provisions, by ascribing to the property a certain personality, a power of complicity and guilt in the wrong. In such case there is some analogy to the law of deodand by which a personal chattel that was the immediate cause of the death of any reasonable creature was forfeited. To the superstitious reason to which the rule was ascribed, Blackstone adds `that such misfortunes are in part owing to the negligence of the owner, and therefore he is properly punished by such forfeiture.' . . . "But whether the reason for [the forfeiture] be artificial or real, it is too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Id., at 510-511. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 416 U.S. 663 (1974) One could be forgiven for thinking that he's reading a Scalia opinion instead of a Brennan opinion!
adventured 12y ago
It's incompatible, entirely, with the Constitution. The keyword these days is extra-legal. That's half of what the government does now, and it does not care that you know it, because there is nobody powerful enough to stop such a menacing monster. The collar is off.
wl 12y ago
It's a common mistake to believe that due process has to be fair and just. In a civil asset forfeiture case, the owner of the property has the right to take part in the proceedings and contest the seizure. The owner is informed of this. And the owner can appeal the outcome of the proceedings. All this together constitutes due process, even if challenging the seizure costs more than the property in question is worth.

ObviousScience 12y ago

> “If you want the car, and you really want to put it in your fleet, let me know — I’ll fight for it,” Mr. McMurtry said, addressing law enforcement officials on the video. “If you don’t let me know that, I’ll try and resolve it real quick through a settlement and get cash for the car, get the tow fee paid off, get some money for it.” > In an interview, Mr. McMurtry acknowledged that he exercises a great deal of discretion. “The first offense, if it’s not anything too serious, we’ll come up with a dollar amount, depending on the value of the car and the seriousness of the offense,” he said. “I try to come up with a dollar amount that’s not so high that they can’t afford it, but not so low that it doesn’t have an impact. If it’s a second offense, they don’t get it back.” What a fucking asshole. That guy is a thug stealing from the public, and he doesn't even try to hide it. He even admits that he's using the practice to impose fines without due process, in direct violation of the constitution. He's a criminal, and should be treated as such. > Prosecutors estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the cars seized were driven by someone other than the owner, which sometimes means a parent or grandparent loses their car. They're even aware that they're stealing from innocent people, and that they'd likely never get any sort of seizure upheld through having to actually file charges. Criminals, all of them.

raarts 12y ago
Doesn't this completely go against the trias politica principle? The police effectively playing judge and determining the penalty, without due process and even worse, for their own benefit? Frankly I'm at a loss for words here. It's wrong on every imaginable level. The most worrying to me is, that there seem to be so many people who do NOT see anything wrong with it. Do so many people miss a basic grasp of right and wrong, of the building blocks of our society? And what are they doing in the police force?
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  I'm very disturbed by the callousness with which he brags about violating the constitution to get extra-legal justice. I'm also confused why people always (largely rhetorically) wonder why Americans don't trust officials and are withdrawing from the political process when there are ample examples of officials bragging about their illegal activities without any consequence.

adamnemecek 12y ago

John Oliver's show had a segment on this very topic not that long ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

stefantalpalaru 12y ago
Comedy is not a substitute for public discourse.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  I didn't say it was.

antmldr 12y ago

IANAL, but in Commonwealth countries this seems to be mitigated by the use of consolidated revenue funds[0]. It's explicit in s81[1] and 83[2] of the Australian Constitution that all revenues must be deposited into the CRF and you then need a law to appropriate the revenue elsewhere. Similarly, state law seems to point to revenue from civil seizure is paid into treasury.[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s81.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s... [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s83.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s... [3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara1990272/s27.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara199027...

peteretep 12y ago
I always feel like an asshole when I say this, but... Much of the constitution and guiding American legal principles (as much as they diverge from Common Law at the time) were built on distrust of The Crown. And since then they've managed to fuck it up spectacularly. Elected public prosecutors instead of something like the Crown Prosecution Service. Insane semi-militarised police instead of a force whose ethos continues to be "policing by consent" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles). ANZAC and the UK are far from perfect, but there's a bitter irony that a country built to escape oppression from the state now feels it more keenly than the other countries born of that state.
YokoZar 12y ago
Yes, this is the ultimate solution. Fines and forfeitures should never go to the local government responsible for crafting them, or worse, directly to the police department enforcing them. Remove that incentive, and suddenly the darker motive goes away. The officials can no longer emotionally rationalize excessive fines, misplaced priorities on seizure rather than crime prevention, or even outright theft. The only thing that remains is a desire to actually do the job of protecting the public.
- ericHosick 12y ago

lukev 12y ago

What is the likely outcome if a victim of civil forfeiture were to file a lawsuit against the law enforcement body for restitution, on constitutional grounds? Is that legally possible, or is there a precedent for this? Seems like the ACLU would be all over funding such a suit and taking it as far as necessary.

zaroth 12y ago
The likely outcome is that it costs you more than the property which is at stake. It's not that you won't win, it's that it's too expensive to even try! TFA mentions seizing entire houses? I assume those cases do get filed and won since there's enough at stake. But there's a reason the cops "go for the flat screens" it's a calculated cost/benefit designed to make it just expensive enough to not be worth fighting. This is why we need large punitive damages awards, but my guess is the law is written specifically to preclude that.
- lukev 12y ago
  But surely that's built into the structure of the legal system? People I do business with don't routinely defraud me of amounts too small to sue over: why can't the same legal reasoning apply to these cases?
  - baddox 12y ago
    One reason people (and particularly businesses) tend to not defraud you over amounts too small to sue over is that the value of continued business and/or word of mouth is larger than the one-time payout of defrauding you. This effect is obviously diminished when dealing with the state, since the difference in physical power between the two parties in the transaction is immense, and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly nonsensical.
    - eru 12y ago
      > [...] and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly nonsensical. Why? You can move away. (Or, more likely, a bad reputations will deter people and businesses considering moving in.)

zaroth 12y ago

It's great the media at least has woken up to this. So they crank out an article every month or so, basically saying the same thing over again. But even the media isn't willing to fully recognize how much the system has turned, how stacked the deck, how all-seeing, and highly discriminatory, lady justice has now become. "The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months..." just comes off as a meek response to the truth on the ground. Is the system so overrun by spineless pricks there's literally no one left to inject some sanity? No prosecutor who can't understand the irony of sizing up citizens like a thug on a smash-and-grab (go for the flat screens!) Not a soul left in the justice department with enough common decency to make a career out of killing this? The legislators aren't willing to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. Is it up to referendums? Who is organizing the offense, and what is the game plan? Where is the coordinated counter-attack? Because without one it's not going to curtail this. I don't think you can simply shame these departments (police and prosecutor) into taking the handcuffs off their belts and slapping them on their own wrists where they apparently belong.

navait 12y ago
If the media hasn't fully recognized the problem, how did you become aware of it fully?
- zaroth 12y ago
  Fair enough, I should have wrote "mainstream media".

Everlag 12y ago

It says 'the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year' which means that, spread across every American, is an extra $1400 tax which is off the books. For perspective, on the highest minimum wage of $9.32 per hour, that's around 150 hours of work. THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE MONTH OF 40 HOUR WORK WEEKS TO AN ILLEGITIMATE, OFF THE BOOKS, EFFECTIVELY UNREGULATED, AND FOR PROFIT TAX. Disgusted should not even begin to describe the mood of the American people. EDIT: My math is bad and I feel bad. Its ~$14 a year which is still an hour but oh my, that was an order of a magnitude error!

EricBurnett 12y ago
You can't compare an average 'tax' against the lowest working wage. So I did some rough figuring based on annual income. Assuming forfeiture is spread across all income levels evenly, it would be better to compare against mean income. Looks like (based on 2004 numbers) mean household income was 60,528, mean household size 2.57, for a mean income of 23230 per person. That puts forfeiture ballpark 6%, assuming it all comes from on-the-books assets. So for people working one full time job, about 3 weeks equivalently. Actually pretty close to what you got, I'm sad to see. Wouldn't want to be living in the us right now, based on those numbers. That sounds like it adds up to a whole lot of corruption.
jcampbell1 12y ago
$4.3 / .31 ~= $14.00 I think you mean $14.00, not $1400.
- Everlag 12y ago
  Oh no, this is what happens when I take 5 minutes to HN and don't check my math. I put an edit in the bottom as a testament to my eternal shame.
ceejayoz 12y ago
> that was an order of a magnitude error! Two, actually.

forgetaboutit2 12y ago

The Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Ammendments haven't been enforced for over 10 years!!

forgetaboutit2 12y ago

The Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Ammendments haven't been enforced for over 10 years!!

misiti3780 12y ago

anyone what the "last night with john oliver" special on this ?- he got some great video clips of police employees saying some outrageous stuff.

mathattack 12y ago

The challenge here is that people fighting this have to be convinced to pay higher taxes rather than "Stick it to the criminals." When you ask people to pay for higher principles, sometimes they balk. Of course we know about the road to hell, and today it's a drug dealer's car, and tomorrow it's the opposition party's mayoral candidate.

declan 12y ago

Police abuses of civil asset forfeiture have been around longer than many HN readers have been alive. Here's an example of civil asset forfeiture abuse in 1991 (the practice extends back to at least 1985), which was the subject of congressional testimony in 1996: https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he... I remember going to DC policy seminars on the topic that groups like the ACLU and the Cato Institute held 10-15 years ago, and Cato published a lengthy paper about these abuses in 2006: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whit... There's even an organization devoted to ending civil asset forfeiture abuses: http://fear.org/ http://fear.org/ But after roughly three decades of this practice, and over two decades of well-documented abuses, nothing has changed. Why this remains the case, even though every politician and judge is aware or should be aware of these abuses, is left as an exercise for the reader.

whoopdedo 12y ago
This is a bigger issue than just civil asset forfeiture. This kind of conflict of interest encompasses ticket "quotas" (technically disallowed but tacitly followed) or when someone with an out-of-state license plate is targeted on the assumption that they're less likely to fight the ticket. I've heard of cops bragging about the tickets they write and how they're putting money in the city's coffer. But I'm at a loss what to do about it. Is there a way to disassociate enforcement from penalizing?
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  You have to make it so that the money doesn't go back into the political unit's general funds nor a fund where the enforcing agency gets access to it directly or indirectly. Perhaps the money goes to a pool of charities, or is earmarked to remedy the victims of crimes, or is simply returned to the Federal Reserve (though that might just circulate back to the banks). The idea is to remove the monetary incentives from enforcement actions.
  - 12y ago

sremani 12y ago

This is John Oliver's commentary on this issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks note: Not sure if we can post youtube videos here, but the commentary on the video very relevant to the topic

stephengoodwin 12y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I have heard that cases literally suing property (as opposed to the property owner): * United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency[1] * United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins[2] * United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola[3] --- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_and_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_...

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

Unbelievable. What kind of training get the police men? Is it police training or training how to be a crook? There is one saying in the bible -- I don't want to preach, but some wisdom can be even found in old books -- "A man reaps what he sows". It seems, this state sows crooks.

viggity 12y ago

Harry Connelly, the one discussing "little goodies" to be seized can be contacted at harryc@las-cruces.org I've sent him an email expressing my displeasure at his use of Civil Asset Forfeiture. I'd like to send a similar email to Sean McMurtry, but came up empty trying to find his email address.

arbuge 12y ago
Be careful he doesn't have the laptop you emailed him from seized. More seriously, although your anger is laudable, complaining to criminals is rarely productive. In this case complaining to whoever can put a stop to this practice is what's really needed. I'm not a lawyer, but stopping it seems unlikely to happen unless it's brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. Pressure in that direction would likely be more fruitful.

ck2 12y ago

We should stop saying seize. It's "steal". It is outright theft. Even if by some chance the people they were taking it from were doing something wrong, it is still theft because it is done as them being judge, jury and executioner.

dan_sullivan 12y ago

Combine this sort of behavior with the fact that they now have unchecked surveillance powers and what do you get?

adventured 12y ago
Rapidly expanding increases in quasi-legalized crime by the State. A $17 trillion economy, with $200 trillion in assets, and all private citizens are now guilty until proven innocent. It's Christmas day for the gangsters in government.

Paradigma11 12y ago

Why are there no specialized Law firms that take the case for a cut of the assets?

Istof 12y ago

Can civilians thieves use civil forfeiture, in small claim court, for example?

lsaferite 12y ago

Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. I'm truly ashamed of my country.

ender89 12y ago

Always wanted to live in a police state.....