3 ms·

It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The

It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money. There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.

simoncion 12y ago
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.
- rhino369 12y ago
  This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
      - rgbrenner 12y ago
        US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d) Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
        rhino369 12y ago
        It is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs. The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.
Meekro 12y ago
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money. "Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars" -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken There's no trial because they go after tiny amounts, generally with no evidence of guilt, knowing that it won't be worth the owner's time to fight back. Read that article I linked if you haven't already, it's quite extensive and well-researched. And then tell me that this is something other than straight-up highway robbery.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Ok I'll have to read it tomorrow, but I will since the New Yorker piece about the execution of an innocent man really changed my opinion on the death penalty.
anigbrowl 12y ago
You're about people not claiming it in some some situations - for example, if cops burst into a warehouse and find a briefcase full of cocaine and a briefcase full of cash, it's reasonable to guess that one was being traded for the other. In this case it's also appropriate that the cash be charged, as in 'US vs $1 million dollars,' because the erstwhile traders haven't stuck around to be arrested. But it makes absolutely no sense to apply those methods to cash confiscated from individuals not charged with a crime. Having cash isn't a criminal offense, even while black - although as a practical rather than a moral matter, this young man would have been smarter to open an account with a large national bank or get a cashier's check to open an account in LA rather than carrying the cash around.
- dTal 12y ago
  >In this case it's also appropriate that the cash be charged, as in 'US vs $1 million dollars,' because the erstwhile traders haven't stuck around to be arrested. Um, what? "US vs kitchen knife covered in blood" "US vs flaming car wreck" Ridiculous. If an inanimate object is involved in a crime, it is evidence. Not a suspect! What does it mean to charge money with a crime? It clearly cannot defend itself, so the concept of a trial is moot to begin with. If the money is "found guilty", which of course lacking a defense it will be, does the government put it in prison (sorry, "correctional institution") to prevent it from doing further damage to society? No, of course not - they keep it and spend it. How terribly convenient. Got to keep that bad money off the streets, eh? The entire thing is inconceivably preposterous, and the fact that it ever got off the ground in the US is a sign that something is terribly, fundamentally broken in the judiciary at the deepest levels. I'm frankly shocked that anyone could consider any application of it reasonable.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic before getting all worked up about it.

simoncion 12y ago

> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive. NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.

rhino369 12y ago
This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support making the government pay attorneys fees in cases where the money was found not to be illegal. That should prevent government from just going around and stealing money in bad faith.
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d) Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
      - rhino369 12y ago
        It is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs. The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.

Meekro 12y ago

> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money. "Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars" -- http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken There's no trial because they go after tiny amounts, generally with no evidence of guilt, knowing that it won't be worth the owner's time to fight back. Read that article I linked if you haven't already, it's quite extensive and well-researched. And then tell me that this is something other than straight-up highway robbery.

rhino369 12y ago
Ok I'll have to read it tomorrow, but I will since the New Yorker piece about the execution of an innocent man really changed my opinion on the death penalty.

anigbrowl 12y ago

You're about people not claiming it in some some situations - for example, if cops burst into a warehouse and find a briefcase full of cocaine and a briefcase full of cash, it's reasonable to guess that one was being traded for the other. In this case it's also appropriate that the cash be charged, as in 'US vs $1 million dollars,' because the erstwhile traders haven't stuck around to be arrested. But it makes absolutely no sense to apply those methods to cash confiscated from individuals not charged with a crime. Having cash isn't a criminal offense, even while black - although as a practical rather than a moral matter, this young man would have been smarter to open an account with a large national bank or get a cashier's check to open an account in LA rather than carrying the cash around.

dTal 12y ago
>In this case it's also appropriate that the cash be charged, as in 'US vs $1 million dollars,' because the erstwhile traders haven't stuck around to be arrested. Um, what? "US vs kitchen knife covered in blood" "US vs flaming car wreck" Ridiculous. If an inanimate object is involved in a crime, it is evidence. Not a suspect! What does it mean to charge money with a crime? It clearly cannot defend itself, so the concept of a trial is moot to begin with. If the money is "found guilty", which of course lacking a defense it will be, does the government put it in prison (sorry, "correctional institution") to prevent it from doing further damage to society? No, of course not - they keep it and spend it. How terribly convenient. Got to keep that bad money off the streets, eh? The entire thing is inconceivably preposterous, and the fact that it ever got off the ground in the US is a sign that something is terribly, fundamentally broken in the judiciary at the deepest levels. I'm frankly shocked that anyone could consider any application of it reasonable.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic before getting all worked up about it.