Civil asset-forfeiture law.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Keiller TN

New member
I recently read an article about a woman who was jailed and lost her vehicle because the Law had suspicion that she may be connected to drugs. She was not, but lost her car due to legal fees. This seizure of assets concerns me because the government starts bugeting based upon expected seizures. This leaves the door open for temptation for law enforcement not to eradicate the drug culture, because they may benefit from its survival. Is seizure of assets really legal? If it is, I've thought that the proceeds from the sale of assets should go to charities. Not to anything related to those who are in government. But even that leaves the door to corruption open. Maybe it would be best to destroy everything, including money, so that no one could benefit.
 
This is more common than most people think. For instance, people have been losing their vehicles left and right in the New Orleans area for the past few years. The local gvt and police dept is very corrupt according to a detailed news story a while back. Many pull overs ended up in seizures and property not recovered by owners even after found not guilty of drugs or illegal commerce. When there are no checks and ballances, corruption runs rampent.

I am not a lawyer, but in MHO these seizures violate the 4th Article. When a person cannot recover their property after having been found NOT guilty, this is an outrages example of "legal theft". I think the fact that agencies get to keep money from seizers even after a verdict of guilty is rendered is an outrage. Why? Because it gives too much incentive for rights to prevent illegal searches and seizures from taking place. The term "probable cause" can be interpreted very loosely and in some cases, like in N. Orleans, can mean lots of innocent people being stoped for no good reason.

Yes, legal seizures should go to charity....back to the citizens in the form of a refund IMHO. Lets put the BGs away, but leave everyone else alone, including reimbursement of legal fees for "not guilty" verdicts. There's a good charity.

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> She was not, but lost her car due to legal fees. [/quote]

That's not Asset Forfeiture.

Assets that my departments seized remained impounded until such time as the defendant was found guilty. 'Course, we never got much, anyway. Anyone involved in serious Trafficking knows the Seizure laws about as well as the Prosecuting Attorneys do. Sigh.

For what it's worth, Asset Forfeiture is taking a beating in the Courts and will probably be stricken down by this time next year.

LawDog


[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Assets that my departments seized remained impounded until such time as the defendant was found guilty. 'Course, we never got much, anyway. Anyone involved in serious Trafficking knows the Seizure laws about as well as the Prosecuting Attorneys do. [/quote]


Lawdogs comments would seem to indicate:

1. That due process is ignored in these seizures.
2. That there is a presumption of guilt.
3. That average citizens are the ones ensnared in these traps, while the "big fish" they are ostensibly designed for, swim free.

All the more reason to hasten the demise of these "laws".

From Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

To paraphrase our Fearless Leader: "It depends on what your definition of unreasonable is".

:(

------------------
veritas vos liberabit


[This message has been edited by Joe Mama (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
I am not a lwyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I bet the person mentioned in the original post lost her car due to the legal fees involved in getting it back from the PD. My understanding is that even if charges are presses and you are found not guilty, you must file a civil suit against the PD to get your stuff back. Same applies in the event that charges are NOT filed. You must go to court and PROVE that said stuff actually is yours and was taken from you illegally. Funny thing is youare paying for your own lawyer and the DA fightitng to keep your stuff. I hope LawDog is right and thid gross violation of civil rigths goes to the way side, but I doubt it. There is WAY too much money to be made in this. Think of all the cash they seize as "probable" drug money. Would you spend a ten grand on a lawyer and lost wages to recover a grand or two in cash some bozo cop confiscated??? Most people would not, and this is what they are counting on. Not all departments abuse this as badly as some, but those that do make a **** pile of cash. Justask the sheriffs in LA along I10 between the border and New Orleans. Like I said, it will more than likely stay around for a while. If memory serves me correct, there was a recent push to allow the use of seized assets to pay bonuses to departments and individual LEOS.

------------------
If stupidity hurt, liberals would be walking around in agony.
 
When Law Enforcement agencies get appraisals of the properties being seized BEFORE attempting to take the property, as was done in California, and then rading the properties with the expressed intent in taking the property via the asset-forfeiture law, as was done in California, one would have to wonder what is the real intent of the use of the laws. Is it a tool in the "war on drugs" or is it a way to enrich the coffers of the state?



------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
This situation is yet another outrage against the citizens of the United States by the statist forces of political and social oppression. Whatever has happened to our society that we allow these JBTs to get away with this? whew...now I feel better! Thanks for the chance to vent! Seriously, what a bunch of crap that this happens to ANYBODY in America. Stay safe.

[This message has been edited by nwgunman (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2. That there is a presumption of guilt.[/quote]

Of course there is a presumption of guilt. That's why they're in jail.

--Everyone is innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law--. It's amazing how often people leave that last, important part out.

The Courts must presume the Defendant to be Innocent.

The Jury must presume the Defendant to be Innocent.

Law Enforcement must presume the Defendant to be Guilty.

Law Enforcement must build the case against the Defendant. We cannot do that if we believe him to be innocent.

There is no way to say: "On or about February 30th, of this year, the Defendant, John Doe, walked up to his wife and beat her about the head and neck 12 times with an axe. Here is the axe, here are his fingerprints in blood on the axe, here is his wife's dying declaration and here is his confession. But we believe him to be innocent."

Those who Judge the Defendant must presuppose that he/she is innocent. Those who are charge of punishing the Defendant must presuppose that he/she is innocent.

And, as has been pointed out here so many times: Law Enforcement does not do the above mentioned things.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
In LawDogs case example it is obviously an attempt at railroading a suspect. The man is obviously NOT GUILTY. The suspect, nor anyone else for that matter, did anything on Feb 30 of any year. ;)
 
Lawdog:

I stand corrected on the wording in item 2.

The assertion of unconstitutionality still stands.

Calendar satire duly noted. :D

------------------
veritas vos liberabit
 
I remember when not too long ago "everyone" thought it was a great idea to take stuff from drug dealers. When it happens to "normal" people everyone gets upset...

I am against the seizures, by the way.

Erik
 
Well, the Fourth Article took a clobbering there.

How about the First Article?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It certainly seems there is a fallout of that RIGHT as well.
Of course, I don't know all the particulars of the case, but I do know that legal fees can/will break you. And it's also well known in DA's offices too. And I believe it's that knowledge that allows too many such things to pass without proper challenge.

Best Regards%on

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
See the FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) web site. They clearly think all these laws violate the 4th, and I can't say I disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Forfeiture Endangers American Rights is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to reform of federal and state asset forfeiture laws to restore due process and protect property rights in the forfeiture process.[/quote]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

JimR


[This message has been edited by JimR (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The assertion of unconstitutionality still stands.[/quote]

Okay.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Amendment XIV [1868]

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law
;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/quote] Italics and boldface mine.

So, the State cannot deprive any person of property without due process of law.

What happens once 'due process of law' is obtained? Is depriving the person of property still UnConsituitional? Does it limit what may be seized?

Just wondering.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 22, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
Here's two blatent cases that happened this week in San Antonio I think (was in the SA paper):
1. A woman walking down the street found a bag that had a handgun (no make or model mentioned)and $250,000. Here's the sidline story: she had been plagued with bills from a recent kidney transplant, and needed a lot of money to pay them. She found this money and did the good thing by turning it over to the Police as found property. The police told her that if nobody came forward to claim the money, she could have it, but not the gun. They ran the gun numbers, and it came back clean. Six weeks later, the lady finds out nobody has claimed the money, so she wants it back. The police say no because it is drug money. They say they found cocaine residues on the 100 dollar bills. The DEA concurs and now the police get to keep the cash. True story as reported in the San Antonio Express this past Saturday.
Anybody who has been alive in the past 10 years can probably attest that there aren't many 100 dollar bills that don't have cocaine residues, as users use the rolled up bills to snort the stuff. I bet if I went into the bank and checked their bills, I'd find some that had cocaine residues too. Could I sieze the money for it? Fact is that the money probably was drug money. Fact is also that nomatter what kind of money it is, the LE agency must not keep it unless they have irrefutable evidence that it is drug money, and that evidence cannot be somthing that is so unspecific or circumstantial as to apply to any large sum of money.
2. The SAPD decides to raid a house in Suburbia on a tip from a confidential informant. They bust down the door at 8:00 AM. Inside they find the family just getting up, and everybody still in their pajamas. They HANDCUFF everybody to include the 5YO boy, the 7YO boy, and the parents. They herd everyone into one room. Officers are tearing up all the property and are finding nothing. The officer in charge tells the husband to call the dog. The dog is a 10 month old puppy and is hiding under the bed of the child because it is scared. The man calls the dog, thinking that the cop just wants everyone in one room so there isn't any suprises. The dog comes into the room, and the OIC shoots the dog in the head right in front of the kids. The cops never find anything, and later find out their informant isn't all that good. To add a little insult to injury, one of the cops on the way out picks up a guitar in the living room, and makes up a song about killing the dog. There isn't much positive about this story except that the guy now has an awesome lawyer who is getting very good press. The SA police chief isn't even denying this, and is actually punishing the officers involved. There will probably be a multi-million dollar settlement, but that's OK, because they'll just bust someone else to make up the lost money!
I've worked in this game before. I used to help train narcotics dogs to be sold to departments nation-wide. I found out they get up to $3K for a certified dog. I wondered why since a lot of them are just mutts rescued from the pound and subsequently trained. The guy who does this tells me that if they're lucky, the dog will pay for itself the first good bust in asset forfitures, and then the department is looking to make a profit thereafter.
I heartedly object to the Asset forfiture laws because the principle is wrong. Nobody should have a financial incentive to enforce the laws. A cop's first job or duty(IMHO) is to promote a safety attitude. Not to be a revenue officer for the city or county they work for. In my small town, cops have to make a quota of speeding tickets (5 a week). This is wrong, but they do it to keep their jobs. When I worked for the State park inside the city limits, we were not allowed to keep any "fine money" from tickets issued, and in a year and a half guess how many tickets were issued in that park? Three. Yep there were tens of thousands of visitors, and plenty of incidents, but very few required a ticket to solve the problem. In many cases the "wrong-doers" were just ignorant of the rules, and so when informed, they came into compliance. In a lot of cases, these city cops hate to make quota's and it is a practice that should be addressed before the city leaders. It isn't the cop's fault since he kinda likes feeding his family too. This kind of practice needs to be adressed by YOU the citizen, not him the employee of you the citizen.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In my small town, cops have to make a quota of speeding tickets (5 a week).[/quote]

Quotas are specifically forbidden by Texas Law. It is a crime to require a quota. Every wet-behind-the-ears kid coming out of the Academy knows this. If the Chief is requiring a quota, he should be prosecuted.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The dog comes into the room, and the OIC shoots the dog in the head right in front of the kids.[/quote]

Texas Penal Code 42.09: Cruelty to Animals.

The officer committed a class 'A' misdemeanor when he killed an animal not belonging to him, and not posing an immediate threat to himself or a third party.

A class 'A' misdemeanor is punishable by confinement up to one (1) year in County Jail and/or by a fine not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000).

As a side benefit, anyone convicted of a class 'A' misdemeanor may not be commissioned as a Peace Officer in the State of Texas.

If the family's lawyer doesn't know this, he should be fired and a new one retained.

LawDog
 
Law Dog,
You're right in both places. I believe the officers who made that raid will pay dearly. The police chief has been on the radio, and he's making no attempt to hide the facts or cover it up. It is actually strange when a high-ranking government official doesn't try to lie to you. I doubt that there will be any career jepordizing charges brought from this. Cops break the law all the time (so does everybody else for that matter ie: speeding, rolling stops), yet you don't see them ever getting ticketed, or any other sanctions unless they really step on it. While Texas law may forbid the practice of ticket quota's you and every other commissioned peace officer out there know that the practice is still alive and well even where it has been outlawed. No cops will tell you unless you're good buddies with them. I know a couple places in Texas with unofficial quota's: Harris County Sheriff's office 2 a day, and Kerrville Police Department 1 a day or 5 a week. This is just the way it is.
 
About the ticket quotas thing - Quotas are illegal, but I've heard more than one officer say that they get chewed out for not writing enough tickets during a shift.

"You were stationed at the corner of X & Y street and you only saw 3 violations?? If you had been doing your job, would have seen at least 7! What were you doing, sleeping?"
 
True about the tickets. I never had quotas, just lectures about how tickets = productivity. No tickets = no productivity to the sargaents. Yes, there was a suggested amount of tickets which should be written in a 10 hour shift- but those aren't quotas, just suggestions!
 
Another description for the fiasco that is civil forfeiture is as follows, at least in some cases, likely a great many cases:

THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, also known as AN EASY PICKINGS CASH COW.

By the way, for what we enjoy, we have the trash that we send to Washington, D.C. to thank. They were sure going to teach those crooks a lesson. Unfortunately, the crooks, elected and otherwise, seem mostly to escape.

Of course, for an interesting reprise, there is always our vaunted War On Drugs, the major casualties of which have always been CIVIL RIGHTS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top