3 ms·
The evidence suggests this isn't a fix. Some states do have the proceeds of civil forfeiture go directly to the general fund... still abused. Until recently, t
by NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The evidence suggests this isn't a fix. Some states do have the proceeds of civil forfeiture go directly to the general fund... still abused.
Until recently, there was even the loophole of bringing the feds in, have them seize it, and then they'd give 90% back to the PD.
To some extent, this still works despite Holder's speech to the contrary. The AG has failed to reign in federal law enforcement agencies who refuse to follow the order given.
Civil asset forfeiture can't be reformed. Period. It has to be abolished.
- thaumasiotes 12y agoFrankly, I think requiring that the property owner has to be convicted of a crime before the property can be seized qualifies as a real "reform".
- abruzzi 12y agoAnd that is functionally the difference between "civil" asset forfeiture and "criminal" asset forfeiture. To be sure even criminal asset forfeiture can be abused, but it is significantly more difficult, and you have to be convicted first. And at some level criminal asset forfeiture is a just response because without it you create perverse incentives (a white collar crime that nets you 100 million and 5 years in jail, is a very good exchange of time for money if there is no forfeiture to take the "ill gotten gains.") What I'd like to know is if NM is the first state to ban civil AF? I'm happy to be a NM resident today, but I wonder if we are a aberration? Not to over simplify, but liberals tend to favor limits on police power, and conservatives tend to be split between the so-called "law and order" conservatives who want power the police and harsh sentences, and the libertarian conservatives who want strong limits on police powers. NM tends to have a lot more libertarian conservatives than a lot of other parts of the country making us a good location for this law.