9 ms·

Good. I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. For people who think it only happened to d

Good. I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. For people who think it only happened to drug dealers who were difficult to prosecute; it happened to my elderly parents. My grandfather died suddenly in Georgia and we were the closest family at the time. My parents packed up their car in a hurry and started from Texas down I-10. In Mississippi they ran into a drunk driving checkpoint. They, being elderly conservative Republican business owners driving a luxury sedan that never conceived that the police would not be on their side, consented to a search of their car. The police found an antique revolver (my dad is an avid collector) locked in its case in the trunk. That plus the $800 he had in his wallet as travel money was enough to get them thrown in jail for the weekend and their property seized as suspected drug dealers. $8000 in local lawyer fees later they got their car back but the antique gun had 'gone missing' along with the cash. Their lawyer said they were lucky to get the car back.

civilian 12y ago
Huh. Hopefully they are now elderly libertarians? Have their political views changed since that experience?
- clavalle 12y ago
  Not really. To be libertarian you have to be pretty idealistic. They don't qualify. Now they are just Republicans that don't trust the police.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    Well, that's some progress anyway. All it will take to fix our police problem is sufficient public will. There isn't any other barrier.
    - wickedlogic 12y ago
      There are people with the will, attempting to fix it in NH: "Reform Asset Forfeiture!" - http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc39db1af2c9f9c#.VLl4gorF82I http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc... https://freestateproject.org https://freestateproject.org
    - cmurf 12y ago
      That assumes an ethical standard, and that the public isn't completely ignorant or malevolent like the one used in top comment example.
  - baddox 12y ago
    It might be true that a large number of self-proclaimed libertarians are idealistic, but it's certainly not true that idealism is necessary for libertarian views.
- task_queue 12y ago
  Libertarians need someone to enforce property rights. Police/Private security firms have always been the strong-arm of the ruling class, nothing about the ideology contradicts that. As that strong-arm, they will be granted special privileges and authority that they will abuse.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Some libertarians advocate self-service (or privately contracted) enforcement with public adjudication.
    - task_queue 12y ago
      Someone whose life is affected by having a car and a few grand taken from them v. Xe Domestic Security, Ltd Prosecution: Xe stole my car and rent money and now I have no way to earn enough credits to buy my insulin and keep my apartment. Defense: The offender was found travelling in an erratic and suspicious manner. As per the agreement made by travelling on Private Road Supranational's private road, the traveler is subject to searches of their person and vehicle if suspected of engaging in certain dangerous activities outlined in Section VI of the contract. In addition, any property suspected of use in a criminal or dangerous activity will automatically have its ownership transferred to Private Road Supranational, as detailed in Section V. Furthermore, we have no record of ever confiscating any of the offender's property. Judge, brought to you by Lockheed Martin: This seems to be a pretty open and shut case.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        I'm not a self-identified libertarian, and I never said it was necessarily a good idea, just that public (or publicly contracted) enforcement entity with special priveleges isn't an essential feature of a libertarian system; some suggest that citizens should contract with their own enforcers, and that enforcers should have no special privileges beyond those of all citizens.
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        Why do I get the creeping suspicion that this is modeled on an actual in rem civil forfeiture case, where only the names have changed?
knodi123 12y ago
> I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. Can someone clarify for me- I read the article, and it SEEMS to be saying "the feds will no longer be participating in this process, which will of course still be carried out by state and city police". It's more about where seized money gets allocated, than about limiting the actual seizures. Is that right?
- wiredfool 12y ago
  This was the easiest way for most of the proceeds to get laundered^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sent back to the police who made the seizure. Many states have clauses where any seizures go to the General Fund, not the Police budget.
  - jobu 12y ago
    This is the biggest problem - police officers have a huge incentive to seize money when most of it goes directly to their department, and often times there is there is little to no oversight on how this money is spent: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with-civil-forfeiture-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with... "One audit examined about $3.4 million in Equitable Sharing funds that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol spent from July 2009 to June 2012. The audit found $1.9 million in unallowable and unsupported expenditures relating to salaries, overtime pay, construction, fees paid to contractors and the use of two Ford F-150 pickup trucks by non-law enforcement personnel."
- ta75757 12y ago
  There are both state and federal laws for the practice. So this will slightly decrease the situations in which the state/local police can do this. Likely to be compensated for by new state laws. And of course this doesn't stop the Federal law enforcement from doing this. Civil forfiture needs to be abolished period. It boggles my mind, as a layman, that this is considered to satisfy the requirement of "due process" and is therefore constitutional. Sure, there's a process, but it's not the due process.
kaffeinecoma 12y ago
I'm curious- did it change your parents' views about DUI inspection stops? If they found them innocuous (or at least constitutional) before the incident, do they still feel the same way?
- clavalle 12y ago
  I am pretty sure my dad didn't like them to begin with but the question at the time was 'do I give the cops a hard time and spend even more time out here or let them take a look and get on my way'. Drunk driving is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach. I am surprised no one's figured out the problem of analyzing traffic camera data to flag people who are driving erratically so enforcement can be both more comprehensive and targeted. I'd be wary of that solution, too, but it is far better than stopping everyone.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    >but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach. Especially when they aren't really looking for drunks, but people like your father to victimize as police fundraiser. Anything that monetizes police action will lead to massive abuse. It blows my mind people won't accept that. The cops and the unions aren't stupid. They want that money for salary, pensions, and toys. The politicians want that funding without having to raise taxes. So now the electorate is literally being bullied and mugged by the police. I'm really starting to like the lame-duck version of Obama. His recent moves are very much needed: encouraging municipal fiber, workers leave rights, sanctioning Russia, immigration amnesty, etc.
    - cmurf 12y ago
      Unfortunately as executive orders, rather than laws, they can easily be undone by the next executive. I think it's overly diplomatic to call this action a police fundraiser. These were highwaymen. Note they aren't doing this to their locals, they know better and that's why they're on the interstate, they're doing it on behalf of the locals. The rot is with the town itself.

civilian 12y ago

Huh. Hopefully they are now elderly libertarians? Have their political views changed since that experience?

clavalle 12y ago
Not really. To be libertarian you have to be pretty idealistic. They don't qualify. Now they are just Republicans that don't trust the police.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Well, that's some progress anyway. All it will take to fix our police problem is sufficient public will. There isn't any other barrier.
  - wickedlogic 12y ago
    There are people with the will, attempting to fix it in NH: "Reform Asset Forfeiture!" - http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc39db1af2c9f9c#.VLl4gorF82I http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc... https://freestateproject.org https://freestateproject.org
  - cmurf 12y ago
    That assumes an ethical standard, and that the public isn't completely ignorant or malevolent like the one used in top comment example.
- baddox 12y ago
  It might be true that a large number of self-proclaimed libertarians are idealistic, but it's certainly not true that idealism is necessary for libertarian views.
task_queue 12y ago
Libertarians need someone to enforce property rights. Police/Private security firms have always been the strong-arm of the ruling class, nothing about the ideology contradicts that. As that strong-arm, they will be granted special privileges and authority that they will abuse.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Some libertarians advocate self-service (or privately contracted) enforcement with public adjudication.
  - task_queue 12y ago
    Someone whose life is affected by having a car and a few grand taken from them v. Xe Domestic Security, Ltd Prosecution: Xe stole my car and rent money and now I have no way to earn enough credits to buy my insulin and keep my apartment. Defense: The offender was found travelling in an erratic and suspicious manner. As per the agreement made by travelling on Private Road Supranational's private road, the traveler is subject to searches of their person and vehicle if suspected of engaging in certain dangerous activities outlined in Section VI of the contract. In addition, any property suspected of use in a criminal or dangerous activity will automatically have its ownership transferred to Private Road Supranational, as detailed in Section V. Furthermore, we have no record of ever confiscating any of the offender's property. Judge, brought to you by Lockheed Martin: This seems to be a pretty open and shut case.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      I'm not a self-identified libertarian, and I never said it was necessarily a good idea, just that public (or publicly contracted) enforcement entity with special priveleges isn't an essential feature of a libertarian system; some suggest that citizens should contract with their own enforcers, and that enforcers should have no special privileges beyond those of all citizens.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Why do I get the creeping suspicion that this is modeled on an actual in rem civil forfeiture case, where only the names have changed?

knodi123 12y ago

> I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. Can someone clarify for me- I read the article, and it SEEMS to be saying "the feds will no longer be participating in this process, which will of course still be carried out by state and city police". It's more about where seized money gets allocated, than about limiting the actual seizures. Is that right?

wiredfool 12y ago
This was the easiest way for most of the proceeds to get laundered^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sent back to the police who made the seizure. Many states have clauses where any seizures go to the General Fund, not the Police budget.
- jobu 12y ago
  This is the biggest problem - police officers have a huge incentive to seize money when most of it goes directly to their department, and often times there is there is little to no oversight on how this money is spent: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with-civil-forfeiture-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-bought-with... "One audit examined about $3.4 million in Equitable Sharing funds that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol spent from July 2009 to June 2012. The audit found $1.9 million in unallowable and unsupported expenditures relating to salaries, overtime pay, construction, fees paid to contractors and the use of two Ford F-150 pickup trucks by non-law enforcement personnel."
ta75757 12y ago
There are both state and federal laws for the practice. So this will slightly decrease the situations in which the state/local police can do this. Likely to be compensated for by new state laws. And of course this doesn't stop the Federal law enforcement from doing this. Civil forfiture needs to be abolished period. It boggles my mind, as a layman, that this is considered to satisfy the requirement of "due process" and is therefore constitutional. Sure, there's a process, but it's not the due process.

kaffeinecoma 12y ago

I'm curious- did it change your parents' views about DUI inspection stops? If they found them innocuous (or at least constitutional) before the incident, do they still feel the same way?

clavalle 12y ago
I am pretty sure my dad didn't like them to begin with but the question at the time was 'do I give the cops a hard time and spend even more time out here or let them take a look and get on my way'. Drunk driving is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach. I am surprised no one's figured out the problem of analyzing traffic camera data to flag people who are driving erratically so enforcement can be both more comprehensive and targeted. I'd be wary of that solution, too, but it is far better than stopping everyone.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >but stopping everyone on an interstate to talk with them is insane overreach. Especially when they aren't really looking for drunks, but people like your father to victimize as police fundraiser. Anything that monetizes police action will lead to massive abuse. It blows my mind people won't accept that. The cops and the unions aren't stupid. They want that money for salary, pensions, and toys. The politicians want that funding without having to raise taxes. So now the electorate is literally being bullied and mugged by the police. I'm really starting to like the lame-duck version of Obama. His recent moves are very much needed: encouraging municipal fiber, workers leave rights, sanctioning Russia, immigration amnesty, etc.
  - cmurf 12y ago
    Unfortunately as executive orders, rather than laws, they can easily be undone by the next executive. I think it's overly diplomatic to call this action a police fundraiser. These were highwaymen. Note they aren't doing this to their locals, they know better and that's why they're on the interstate, they're doing it on behalf of the locals. The rot is with the town itself.