Forfeiture Laws and police funding

T

tyme

Administrator
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002276240_drugroutes16.html

It seems to me that forfeiture of property directly to the executive branch breeds corruption, encourages violation of the 4th amendment, and distracts police from combatting real crime.

I know the law-and-order LE folk will ask how I expect them to fight violent crime without sufficient funding, and they'll point out that the vast majority of the time either the person being stopped isn't substantially inconvenienced, or is a scumbag who deserves some quality time in the 9th circle of Hell, presumably because said suspect would have sold crack at the local kindergarden if it weren't for the valiant efforts of Officer Friendly and his drug-sniffing dog.

I think the whole framework of traffic stops being used for anything other than safety-related traffic violations has been twisted beyond recognition. It's almost as if police, knowing they can't routinely kick down doors because reasonable suspicion is harder to articulate for residences, resort to pulling over everyone they can, anyone who's vehicle or driving habits are the slightest bit abnormal, knowing that if they find something, they can nearly always fabricate reasonable suspicion after the fact.

The legislature is of course complicit in this by passing laws against things like concealed carry or drug possession, when the only ways of detecting violations are by luck or 4th amendment violations.

I just don't like it, and I'm not impressed with the counter-arguments I gave above. Restrict cops' funding and they'll find a way to manage, or the incorporated area will do without, or it'll disintegrate. Any sufficiently populated area will have enough money for basic police services, and where they can't provide in preemptive stops and patrols, citizens should and typically do take up the slack by being vigilant.

The monkey wrench in community self-policing is state laws against weapons carry. We only really need police because we've been rendered defenseless, forbade from carrying weapons or forbade from doing anything about crimes we witness.
 
That's why there's horse races
Horse_race_3.gif
 
Of course, it's absolutely ludicrous to give an LEOA a financial incentive to go after non-violent offenders with lotsa assets, rather than the really bad, violent guys, so they can have more toys to play with; not to mention give them a financial incentive for corruption (planting evidence and the like). But, strangely, that's what we've done. Quite clearly, we must implement laws that forbid the assets seized under forfeiture laws to go directly do the LEOAs which seized them; but rather, to the *general* coffers of the gov't which controls the LEOA, be it the feds, a state, or a city, to be then spent in accordance with the will of the legislative/executive branches of those gov'ts - the LEOAs then may or may not see the direct reward, depending on the political will of the elected officials, from the people. Actually, what we *should* do is eliminate forfeiture laws altogether, or at the very least, require the same burden of proof as for the underlying crime giving rise to a forfeiture case (i.e. if you're found not guilty, then your stuff can't be forfeited). But assuming you buy the idea that forfeiture laws as is = good, then it's obvious to me that we can't continue to allow a montrous incentive for corruption hanging out there - it turns the war on some drugs into a Little Shop of Horrors type of organism.
 
Tyme, You're not alone.

I see FirstFreedom has also chipped in here too.

My gripe is not with the idea of seizing assets of criminals but more with the methodology by which this whole thing works and the mentality of some (not all) police officers. Whatever happened to the 5th Amendment declaration that one's property cannot be seized and used for or by the government without just compensation?

When Florida first started doing this they also hit on a number of families traveling to Orlando (DisneyWorld) and a number of these were black families. In some cases, mom or dad had a good sized wad of cash ($1200 to $3k) which the police confiscated as "drug money" because wet swabs dropped into a cocaine test kit showed positive for the drug (as does most currency).

Your average Joe can get relieved of several thousand dollars before it's worth fighting to get it back. Figure it'll cost $5,000 to $10,000 to engage a lawyer and the same amount on top of that if you go to a civil trial. So if the cops know that $3500 is "safe" because it'll cost you more to get it back than it's face value, they can set up a nice little enterprise to supply them with equipment and funds.

My view is that the State needs to prove a direct connection to illegal activities in a courtroom before being allowed to keep their seizures. This would include evidence of an illegal activity that fulfils the "conspiracy" portion of RICO that involves more than Mom & Dad having a nice car and lots of cash even though they look like trailer trash.

I figure that drug cartels can write-off the cost of a $90,000 airplane and it's load of "cargo" when intercepted so if they lose a "mule", car, cash and drugs it's just a "cost of doing (illegal) business" to them. But to the average Schmoe, if you're seizing his car unjustly and it costs him $1200 to get back his car (and then tell him "oops, sorry, but you CAN'T sue us") all you do is breed distrust and disrespect for the laws.
 
Yeah, Bill, I heard that something like 99% of the $100 bills in the state of Florida have traces of cocaine on them. Very, very well put, too - thanks.
 
I know I've said this again and again and before you all say collectively "Shut up, Kirk!", I'll say it again:

As one who works day in and day out in drug and forfeiture cases, if one has a concern for abuses or potential abuses, I believe the best solution is to modify the procedural rules. Change the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence from preponderance. Or, for the hard core out there, change it to beyond a reasonable doubt, or simply tie forfeiture to a criminal conviction--if no conviction, no forfeiture.

*Collective voices* "Shut up, Kirk!" :D
 
"*Collective voices* "Shut up, Kirk!""

Sounds reasonable to me. Too bad it isn't going to happen without a general grassroots uproar, and that isn't going to happen, either. There's too much of a mindset of "well, they had it coming", and the abuse cases aren't normally publicized -- the public doesn't become aware of it. Watchdog groups may be aware of it, but since there's this general attitude pertaining to the WOD that anything that limits the State's powers pertaining to it is tantamount to treason, there's little chance that any rule changes will happen. Convictions and Due Process be damned.
 
The only thing that disturbed me is seeing GSP and the GSSA scripting traffic stops. You can see the same routine and hear the exact same language in almost all traffic stops. It is patently clear that the LEOs are being schooled by someone. Why? Money, vehicles and other assets that can be seized. I have seen some strange behaviour by LEOs. It is about the money. My own thought was that the police were being duped. A idiot mule is given bags of marijuana and a SUV and a delivery location. He attracts LEO attention by stupidity. While the police resources are deployed to search and then arrest the idiot mule with marijuana, a semi full of cocaine drives by laughing at the police.
 
I've seen that stuff on the tube. I think it's disgusting. I think it's real. I think the perpitrators of those crimes are disgusting. I think all those supposed officers of the law need to be wholesale fired and some real Leo's be put into there places. To think someone with a badge and an oath would stoop so low, makes me sick. No difference between them, the mafia, drug dealers and child molesters. When did mexican cop standards become SOP in this country? They have no excuse. Don't give them one.
good shootin
kid
 
To further put that in context, it hasn't been done for over a generation. No money can be seized solely because it has drug residue on it.
Click to expand...
Wanna bet?
Delaware. 1990. Man, without prior record, carrying $100K cash, stopped and sniffed. Money confiscated in a case styled, US Government v. One Hundred Thousand Dollars in US Currency. (They charge the property because it makes it more difficult for the owner to prove "standing" in court.)

The burden of proof was not on the government but the bearer. The money was "guilty until proven innocent". The bearer claimed he was headed to Western North Carolina in search of land deals. In Court he produced his money backer, complete with cash withdrawal history from legal bank accounts; a man who could document his income and who had an un-impeachable background. That backer was yours truly. The money was mine. It no longer is. In the end, the Judged decided that we had not sufficiently proven my ownership of my money.

True story.
Rich
 
part of the issue is that many look at it from the improper viewpoint.

in reality, it is a shakedown from one criminal onto another criminal. it's no different than the "protection racket".
 
No, but it points to that particular law being a bad one. Any time a decent and upright innocent citizen can lose what would amount to a financially ruinous amount for most people without so much as a "by your leave" from the State, then the law is an abomination and needs to be abandoned.

I'd rather let a thousand drug dealers keep their money than have one honest person lose their life savings. You seem to think it's acceptable collateral damage.

Truth is, the history of asset forfeiture law application has not done much to foster my trust in "law enforcement for profit".
 
TBO-
How 'bout one Hundred Thousand Dollar incident out of 121 views and 14 replies to this thread?

Kinda scary.
Besides, your point that cash forfeitures no longer routinely occur is simply incorrect. It still happens daily on I-95, I-10 and many other routes.
Rich
 
your point that cash forfeitures no longer routinely occur is simply incorrect. It still happens daily on I-95, I-10 and many other routes.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. My point was that cash can not be seized just because it contains traces of cocaine. NO forfeiture will stand up on that merit alone. That has been written in stone for some time now.
 
Rich,

The Supreme Court ruling in the CNN article relates to asset forfeiture via civil suits in parallel with criminal prosecutions.

I was under the (mistaken?) impression that asset forfeitures are not civil actions as commonly accepted, but rather actions which short circuit due process and place the burden of proof on the owner of the assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top