Civil Forfeiture seems unfairly administered to me.
 

The whole idea behind the creation of money laundering laws is that it's indicative of a criminal enterprise. So when signs of money laundering are discovered, a judge should be able to issue wiretap and search warrants so detectives can find evidence of an actual criminal enterprise.

However, the above idea has been bastardized. Instead, the very act of moving money around has been made criminal in and of itself.

The idea that an immoral act should be a crime is "MALA IN SE" (Latin for bad in itself). e.g. rape, murder, theft, et al.

This is in contrast to "MALA PROHIBITA" which means "bad by law". For example, driving 75 in a 65. It's only bad because the law says so, and few people would say it's immoral.

When the first money laundering laws were put in place in the 70s, the dollar amount was set at $10,000. And that amount was not indexed for inflation. So the real value of that limit diminishes over time.

What's worse, if you are suspected of "trying to get around the law" by breaking up the dollar amount into multiple smaller chunks, then you are *breaking* the law.

That's like saying driving at 64 mph is wrong because you are trying to get around the 65 mph law.

Current civil forfeiture laws allow cops to take cash from you at a traffic stop (and even if it's <$10,000) - you are GUILTY until proven innocent, and the onus is ON YOU to prove that the cash wasn't from some criminal activity.

Overly broad laws are very, very bad. The idea that bureaucrats will use judgment is very dangerous. Bureaucrats do what bureaucrats do, and some asshole bureaucrat WILL ENFORCE the letter of the law to a ridiculous extreme because "it is their job" and it gets them a promotion.

How did "the land of the free" get to this point?


USA TODAY: Assault by civil forfeiture: Column

Feds Raid Family Grocery Store's Checking Account Over Innocent Bank Deposits - YouTube

Because it's an easy way to make over 3 billion a year?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1380208320

Left with nothing | The Washington Post

Reality Check: Asset Seizure - WPMI LOCAL 15 News - Top Stories

Are Innocent Citizens at Risk of Police Seizure of Their Cash, Cars and Homes? | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 19, 2013 | PBS

Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker

Iranian-American fights federal seizure of some $841,000 | ABQJournal Online

http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_237...iture-claim-by

Oklahoma DA halts I-40 drug stops after criticism | News OK

East Texas DA offered leniency for cash - Longview News-Journal: State

A matter of due process - The Observation Deck

Simple. Government bureaucracy is administered by individuals who sometimes abuse their power or act in ways contrary to what some people might consider to be consistent with "common sense."

It's actually pretty straightforward once you put aside the conspiracy mindset.

:P

"I am a government worker. I was taught to do it this way. I never thought to question if it was legal or moral because, as a government worker, I am taught not to think. I do what I am told. I watch American Idol. It is thrilling television."-zombie

Agreed 100%. To add to that, it is in the incentive structure built into gov't that produces this result.

But how do these bad laws get written in the first place?

I believe in what Thomas Jefferson said - the only protection liberty has is an educated populace. Not enough people are aware of the distinction I wrote above, MAL IN SE vs MAL PROHIBITA.

As the video "I am Fishead" says, "not enough people distinguish between just vs. unjust laws. Most people just say "It's the law!", and never question the law.

Who's bringing up "conspiracies" in this thread?

Exactly. Hanlon's razor states that we should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


In David Coady's Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, Bernard Ingham (former press secretary under Margaret Thatcher) observes:

Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.

Sometimes the simplest answer really is the correct one.

NYPD Saws Through Locks To Confiscate Bikes Parked Near Biden: Gothamist

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1380307068

DA

DA

Sound like a psychopath trick.

What is the bicycle security risk?

You're looking at this the wrong way.

We created this situation, by running off and filing frivolous lawsuits each and every time some civil servant showed a modicum of initiative and made a decision which offended somebody. We forced the various agencies of our local, state and federal governments to adopt standards which force their employees to behave like robots, mindlessly performing their tasks according to a prescribed set of orders without any capacity for interpretation, in which they are rewarded for zombielike obedience in the form of small, incremental pay raises, and punished for any deviation from the norm, no matter how well-intentioned or reasonable.

Well, you set up that kind of environment, and then post a sign saying "no vehicles in this space." What, precisely, do you expect to happen in that situation?

Florida Cops Made Millions Dealing Cocaine: The Latest Asset Forfeiture Outrage - Forbes

How The NYPD's Use Of Civil Forfeiture Robs Innocent New Yorkers: Gothamist

Yeah, he's innocent. Because every working stiff keeps nearly 5 grand in cash around the house.

what does that have to do with anything other than you being an asshole?

they had no warrant, found no drugs, and took his money. he was unable to collect it when his silly charge was finally dropped.

he's also a bartender that gets paid mostly in tips, in, guess it, gasp, cash. and most poor people don't have, guess it, gasp, bank accounts.

what NYC did with his money is actually illegal. Nothing Bryan did, in relation to this raid and his money, was. But they are innocent since they are police right?

High five, Braineack.

Large amounts of cash used to be a tip for investigators to look for crime.

Money laundering laws have turned holding large amounts of cash into a crime in itself: "Malum Prohibitum" - wrong because prohibited - or violations of statute law, laws which are handed down by legislators like they are on Mt. Olympus.

This is in contrast to "Malum In Se", meaning wrong in itself, such as murder, rape, and theft, which are violations of common law, crimes wherein there is a definite plaintiff.

Now in the above story who violates common law and who violates statute law?

In a common-law system the courts sat and waited until there was a complaint. During the trial the law was "discovered". Humans have a long history of common law. At the time the English colonists rebelled they had a long tradition of common law, going back to English common law.

In the preceding and succeeding decades statute law took over (according to one historian, due to pressure from businesses, and politicians like Alexander Hamilton). Today when the average person thinks of "law" they can only think of statute law, wherein our wise overlords pass innumerable decrees e.g. it's illegal to have a "secret compartment" in your car, you go to jail for a few grams of plant matter in your pocket, you can't sell raw milk, etc.

These statute laws which create victimless crimes are *the* main system by which the average schmoe is tyrannized.

I do. Does that make me a criminal or just mean you aren't good with generalizations.

You live in FL, that means you are a drug runner.

Or that I don't trust that the bank will be open and dispensing cash when the power is out for several days after a natural disaster. Not having access to your money or your emergency supplies when you really need them is the functional equivalent to not having any.

My eggs reside in many baskets.

:rofl: I laugh, while deeply sad inside.

Our great beast of a government at work. It runs like a machine with no off switch, and allows for no use of common sense.

This might be one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum, and that says a lot.

Cash is king. If you don't have it on you, you don't have it.

Well isn't all currency sort of abstract in a way? Cash is nothing more than a paper representation of something of value, be it gold, silver, or some other precious metal. And then, what is that metal really worth? It is only worth it's rarity and difficulty to extract from the ground. But then, why is that worth anything? What is really king?


















Answer key from the back of the book: Pussy. If you don't have it on you, you don't have it.

And these same colonists deliberately set up a legal system in the new country that they founded which drew from what they considered to be the best parts of both common-law and civil-law systems. Specifically, they decided that the civil courts (which typically hear disputes between two private parties, with the goal of providing redress) would function under the common law, while the criminal courts would function under a statutory system.

This was necessary in order to correct what they felt to be a common injustice, namely that a person should not be held criminally liable for any act which, until that time, could not unambiguously be known to be a criminal offense! Were it any other way, you or I might well be prosecuted and jailed for any number of acts, such as wearing unfashionable shoes or crossing state lines while carrying legally-purchased whiskey for the purpose of employing the services of a veterinary abortionist on a Sunday.



EDIT: It should also be noted that your characterization of the English legal system during the American colonial era as free of statutory law is incorrect. The English had also begun to codify their criminal laws into statues at that time, and some of these statues were adopted almost verbatim into the early US Codes. Examples here would be the Fraudulent Conveyances Act (1571) and the Statue of Frauds (1677).




In the hands of a corrupt authority, any legal framework can be used to tyrannize the masses.

At least in a statutory-law framework, the consensus of an elected legislative body independent from the judiciary is required in order to criminalize an act.

I didn't mean to say that there was zero statute law in England <1776...

While true, I reckon that centralized authority (statue law et al), produces centralized tyranny that is harder to escape from than localized tyranny. De-centralized authority with no legal barriers to moving (such as immigration laws), produces a modicum of competition between states. e.g. if you decide the CA gov't sucks you pack up and leave for NV. However the greater the number of laws and taxes from the central gov't (D.C.) there are, the less difference there will be between NV and CA.

The same type of "consensus" that says you should go to jail if you have certain bits of plant matter in your pocket. I'd prefer to be subjected to the consensus of a jury of my peers.

Quite to the contrary. Statutory law, by its very nature, is subject to review by many levels of Appeals Courts- State, District, and Federal Supreme. Laws which are truly unjust and unconstitutional are routinely struck down by this mechanism, and convictions made under them reversed.

Without such a body of codified law, a far greater share of "unjust" convictions would go unresolved, for there would be no underlying basis for their resolution.


Or, put another way, what you are suggesting was very specifically rebelled against by men who had experienced it first-hand under what they considered to be a tyrannical government.





This is a very naive suggestion, and one decoupled from the general realities of modern life. While it may have been true during the frontier era, today I could not have simply packed up and left CA (except to go to the place I went to, NY) because collectively, those two places are where the jobs in my industry are.

It is worthy of note, incidentally, that California and New York collectively contain over 18% of the US population, despite representing only 4% of the number of states and 5.7% of the total land area of the country. Given that these two states are also the two most commonly cited by proponents of anarchy as examples of bad government, then by your logic, Americans disproportionately express a preference for being persecuted by tyrants.



Nor were NV and CA intended by The Founders to be completely autonomous and different from one another. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution) states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

In modern times, this power is exercised to force one state to recognize the validity of common-law marriages in another state (where common-law marriage is not generally recognized) for the purposes of divorce proceedings, for the enforcement of protective orders (eg: restraining orders) issued by one state by the police and courts of another, and most recently, by homosexual couples legally married in one state seeking recognition of same (eg: for tax purposes, health insurance, etc) in another.





That is correct. And in those states in which the popular opinion now largely feels that the possession of this plant matter shall not be a jailable offense, this very same consensus is, even as we speak, eliminating these penalties.

Or, put another way, the system works. It's slow and inefficient, but it beats the alternative.

Minnesota Now Requires A Criminal Conviction Before People Can Lose Their Property To Forfeiture - Forbes

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1399642080

things just got a little more fair.

U.S. attorney general bans asset seizure by local police

Great step in the right direction.
However, the headline is misleading. Holder ended the use of *Federal* laws to justify local police taking assets. AFAIK *all* states have laws that still allow local cops seizing assets. The next step is to undo those.

But the fed can't undo those. Only the states individually or the US Supreme Court.

Inside the Worst Forfeiture Court in America | Washington Free Beacon

good read.

Here you go, proof that license plate recognition technology is being used by the DEA to automate asset forfeiture: Feds Have Been Spying On Millions Of Cars In The U.S.


Pretty clever, actually.

Saw this recently, was reminded of this thread:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1428023312

The oddly beautiful and sometimes disturbing artistic talent of the nation's drug cops - The Washington Post

IRS Seized $107,000 From Him. He?s Fighting to Get It Back.

Newest Fox News report says $$$$ was returned, but innocent citizen is out lawyer fees.

Police are probably the worst being at fidning and/or solving crimes.

Police destroy lives. that's it. completely innocent peoples lives are completely destroied because police has nothing better to do. all in the name of justice, and they cant even get that right (IQs too low).

Joe Perez condones the destruction of lives and lossof property and wages because he could have maybe been a criminal and probably should have just been shot on site under the suspicion of a crime.

Gubbment be stealin' yo shit!




New report: In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff from people
By Christopher Ingraham November 10 at 5:00 AM


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1447167587

Recent years have brought public scrutiny on a controversial law enforcement practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted -- and in many cases, even charged -- with wrongdoing. But despite a growing public outcry spurred in part by news investigations and congressional hearings, a new report Tuesday from the Institute for Justice, a non-profit civil liberties law firm, finds that the past decade has seen a "meteoric, exponential increase" in the use of the practice.

The government does not measure the number of times per year that assets are seized. But one common measure of the practice is the amount of money in the asset forfeiture funds of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Treasury, the two agencies that typically perform forfeitures at the federal level. In 2008,there were less than $1.5 billion in the combined asset forfeiture funds of the Justice Department and the U.S. Treasury, according to the report. But by 2014, that number had tripled, to roughly $4.5 billion.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1447167587

In an e-mail, a Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. It's not possible to determine precisely how much of these deposits have been subsequently released to victims.

The figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers above represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, according to the Institute for Justice.

"Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward," said report co-author Lisa Knepper.

One possible explanation for the recent rise is that "the years 2008 to 2014 were some lean economic years," said report co-author Dick Carpenter in an interview. "Forfeiture is an attractive way to keep revenue streams flowing when budgets are tight."

Law enforcement officers generally acknowledged this factor, according a Washington Post investigation last year: "All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book in 2011.

Critics of the system also say that the increase in forfeiture activity is due largely to the profit motive created by laws which allow police to keep some or all of the assets they seize.

"It’s possible that the spike is due to a growing recognition by law enforcement of the profitability of forfeiture," said Carpenter. He notes that Congress made some attempt to rein in forfeiture abuses with a modest reform bill in 2000. After that, "elected officials stopped paying attention," he said. "The combination of low procedural hurdles, high profit incentive, and meager accountability or oversight created a rich environment for forfeiture activities to flourish."

Civil asset forfeiture "is happening to every day people in every state across the country," the Institute for Justice's Carpenter said. "There are people here in your community to whom this is happening. This is not something isolated happening to drug kingpins and mafiosos."

In one case represented by the Institute, a drug task force seized $11,000 from a college student at an airport because his luggage smelled like marijuana. They lacked evidence to charge him with any crime, but they kept the money and planned to divvy it up between 13 different law enforcement agencies, most of which had nothing to do with the actual seizure of cash.

In another case, the IRS emptied a convenience store owner's bank account because they suspected he was depositing cash in such a way as to avoid reporting requirements for large deposits. He eventually won his money back after a lengthy court fight.

"Once property is seized," the report explains, "owners must navigate a confusing, complex and often expensive legal process to try to win it back." In Illinois, for example, in order to challenge a seizure property owners must pay a bond of up to 10 percent of the property's value. If they lose their challenge, they must pay for the full legal cost of the proceedings. "Even if they win, they lose 10 percent of the bond on top of whatever attorney costs they accrued," the report found.

Profit motive

Like many of the more controversial aspects of the present-day criminal justice system, civil asset forfeiture's roots lie in the war on drugs. In the 1980s, law enforcement officers said they needed a tool to help capture cartel leaders and large-scale drug traffickers, who are difficult to pin criminal cases on. So Congress amended the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act to create the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund.

One feature of the fund was that it allowed agencies to keep the cash and property they seized, creating something of a profit incentive. "For the first time, agencies could obtain a financial benefit from the proceeds of forfeited properties, using funds to do everything from purchase vehicles to pay overtime," the report explains. States followed suit by updating their own forfeiture laws.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1447167587

At the state level there's considerable variation in how much cash and property from seizures law enforcement officers get to keep. In some, like New Mexico and Missouri, 100 percent of seized assets go to state general funds rather than to law enforcement coffers. But in 25 states and at the federal level, police get to keep 100 percent of the assets they seize. "Allowing law enforcement agencies to reap financial benefits from forfeitures encourages the pursuit of property over the impartial administration of justice," the report argues.

Petty crimes

Asset forfeiture's defenders say that the practice is instrumental in dismantling large-scale criminal enterprises. "The Asset Forfeiture Program is a nationwide law enforcement initiative that removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations," wrote the chief of the DOJ's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Division in 2007. "The stakes are high. The national security and lives of Americans are at risk."

But evidence suggests that forfeiture proceedings are often initiated against small time criminals or people who aren't criminals at all. An American Civil Liberties Union report earlier this year found that the median amount seized in forfeiture actions in Philadelphia amounted to $192. These forfeiture actions were concentrated in the city's poorest neighborhoods, the report found.

And according to the Institute for Justice's report, in most states the typical forfeiture amount is very small. The median forfeiture case in Illinois is worth $530, according to the report. In Tennessee it's $502. In Minnesota, $451. Those are hardly kingpin-level hauls.

One more data point supports this contention: at the federal level, at least, "the vast majority of forfeiture victims are never convicted or charged with a crime," according to Carpenter. Using data obtained via FOIA requests, Carpenter found that 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings were civil cases, not criminal ones. "It's troubling that 87% of the time the conviction appears to be irrelevant," said co-author Lisa Knepper.

Defending forfeiture

The Department of Justice, and many law enforcement groups, maintain that civil forfeiture is an important crimefighting tool in cases when a criminal prosecution may not be possible. "The Department proudly recognizes the value and importance of its asset forfeiture program,"according to written testimony presented by the DOJ to Congress earlier this year. "Civil forfeiture enables the government to recover property when criminal prosecution of the possessor of the property may not be appropriate or feasible."

The testimony points to high-profile cases like that of Kenneth Lay, of Enron infamy, who died before he could be criminally sentenced. "Civil forfeiture was the only way to secure millions of dollars of Lay’s assets, which were then used to compensate victims of the Enron fraud," the testimony concludes. The federal government also used civil forfeiture to seize dozens of pit bulls from Michael Vick's dog fighting operation, many of whom were subsequently adopted.

"Appropriate use of asset forfeiture law allows the Justice Department to safeguard the integrity, security, and stability of our nation’s financial system and provides unique means to go after criminal and terrorist organizations, while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans," said Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr in an email. "As we continue our comprehensive review of the asset forfeiture program, we will stay focused on deterring criminal activity, returning the proceeds of crime to victims, and defending the rights of our citizens."

Strengthening safeguards

But critics like the Institute for Justice say that civil rights protections for innocent property owners are not nearly strong enough. At the state and federal levels, for instance, there's little transparency into what types of assets are seized -- or how they're used by law enforcement officers. Few states have any reporting requirements in place. And in most of them, "the quality of the data ranged from useless to pathetic," Carpenter said. "The ability to do any basic or simple analysis to know what is going on is basically impossible."

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1447167587

As part of its report, the Institute issued state-level grades based on a variety of criteria, like the share of forfeited funds that cops get to keep and protections for innocent owners. Most states and the federal government earned a D-. Two states, Massachusetts and North Dakota, earned an F for the incredibly low standard of proof required to forfeit goods there. Only one state, New Mexico, earned above a B+, primarily because of high-profile forfeiture reforms recently passed there.

The Institute for Justice would like to see civil forfeiture abolished completely. "The idea that you can take somebody's property without convicting them should be anathema in our criminal just system. And police shouldn't be able to profit from this," said report co-author Lisa Knepper.

"A law enforcement officer will typically say that this is stuff taken from criminals," Dick Carpenter said. "My response is, how would they know? They don't charge anyone, much less convict them." He points out that no studies have been done to determine the effects of asset forfeiture on crime rates.

"People say this is an essential crimefighting tool but there's no evidence," Carpenter said.

At the federal level, numerous reform efforts are being considered in Congress. The FAIR act, introduced this year with bipartisan support, would increase the burden of proof required in federal cases and direct the Department of Justice to deposit forfeited assets in the Treasury Department's general fund, rather than to law enforcement accounts.

Momentum appears to be on critics' side.

The issue has united organizations on opposite ends of the political spectrum, including the ACLU and the Koch brothers. Even lawmakers who are often skeptical of the need for policing reform, like Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, have argued that the practice needs to be changed. "Civil asset forfeiture leads government to exceed its just powers over the governed," he said in a statement earlier this year.

Frankly, I'm shocked this isn't a bigger issue with people. I guess we've all become drones to the people who we've entrusted our protections to.

I look at 9/11 as a seminal moment where the US citizen has lost the most basic constitutional protections of rights and property. We've been conditioned to dismiss it as a 'price you pay to be protected'.

Vietnam era vets were conditioned to never wear the uniform and likely would never openly discuss/volunteer having served until recently. Now it's de rigueur and people who never served flaunt a Marine sticker on the back window (no haters... I'm a veteran...). Not to start a debate but I see no real difference between the lies of Vietnam and the lies of Iraq.

Police and, to a certain extent, the EMS folks think of themselves as members of a military more so than public employees. All stemming from the 9/11 attacks. IMO

Voters are pissed but frankly don't know who they should be pissed at and we've lost the logical middle of the road thinking that drove things forward.

Weird times...

/endrant

Stupidity is rampant. The people get the gov't they deserve.

:vash2:

I had $15,000 in cash in my house a few weeks ago...

I think I have an envelope containing around $5k lying around somewhere in my apartment.

I'd be extremely annoyed if law enforcement came into my apartment and seized it. But my annoyance would be apportioned jointly and severally, with a large part of it directed at myself for whatever behavior of mine caused law enforcement to notice that I exist in the first place.

It is common for prepared people to keep a few grand around in case of a hurricane or something interrupting bank access for a couple of weeks.

And, of course, individuals are reluctant to accept checks for used vehicle purchases.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1447269815

cat for scale.

Yes, I have a stash of emergency cash on hand. It would be pretty irresponsible as a homeowner and father to do otherwise. It's not $15 grand, but it's enough to handle emergencies. That said, it's not just laying around, and it would take more than a casual search to find it. I think it's safe to say it would be downright difficult for even cops to find unless they knew where it was.

I have also been arrested a few times. Probably a little more than the average for a young white male. Trespassing, assault (bar fight), DUI, and even once for indecent exposure (long story, false arrest, charges dropped). I have never been beaten, manhandled, or even spoken to impolitely. I was even carrying weed and a pipe the first time (hey, it was the mid 1970's). My car or home has never been searched, and I haven't had any no-knock raids.

Are police departments abusing civil asset forfeiture? I have no doubt many are. Are cops using more force than necessary to arrest people? Obviously. But there are ways to reduce the chances it happens to you, and I'd be willing to be a lot of these victims are not using common sense in dealing with authorities.

Don't let Braineack hear you say that. He'll call you a pussy for not exercising your constitutional right to be a belligerent asshole towards pretty much everyone in a position of authority.

I wonder if Brainey has ever had the pleasure of an all-expenses-paid overnight accommodation at the County Inn? I kind of doubt it.

Civil Forfeiture seems unfairly administered to me.
 

I have plenty of personal experience with police. More than anyone should. My favorite was when feds walked into my room and woke me up one nigbt when they were snooping around taking things without a warrant after they told my parents they could do whatever they wanted and we couldn't call our lawyer. The case was thrown out and they were repremanded.

I should post the pics of what the police did last time they raided the house. The term raid is very fitting.

Sounds like your reasoning is well founded.

Thankfully, I have never been subject to anything like that.