How The Government Takes Your Money, Your Car, And Even Your Home, Even If There's No Evidence You've Committed Any Crime
Chilling article in The New Yorker by Sarah Stillman on the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture:
Another case involves a monthly social event that had been hosted by the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit. In the midst of festivities one evening in late May, 2008, forty-odd officers in black commando gear stormed the gallery and its rear patio, ordering the guests to the ground. Some in attendance thought that they were the victims of an armed robbery. One young woman who had fallen only to her knees told me that a masked figure screamed at her, "Bitch, you think you're too pretty to get in the mud?" A boot from behind kicked her to the ground. The officers, including members of the Detroit Police Department's vice squad and mobile tactical unit, placed the guests under arrest. According to police records, the gallery lacked proper city permits for after-hours dancing and drinking, and an old ordinance aimed at "blind pigs" (speakeasies) and other places of "illegal occupation" made it a crime to patronize such a place, knowingly or not.After lining the guests on their knees before a "prisoner processing table" and searching them, the officers asked for everyone's car keys. Then the raid team seized every vehicle it could find, even venturing to the driveway of a young man's friend nearly a mile away to retrieve his car. Forty-four cars were taken to government-contracted lots.
Most of those detained had to pay more than a thousand dollars for the return of their cars; if payment wasn't made promptly, the car would become city property. The proceeds were divided among the offices of the prosecutors, police, and towing companies. After the A.C.L.U. filed a suit against the city, a district court ruled that the raid was unconstitutional, and noted that it reflected "a widespread practice" by the police in the area. (The city is appealing the ruling.) Vice statutes have lent themselves to such forfeiture efforts; in previous years, an initiative targeted gay men for forfeiture, under Detroit's "annoying persons" ordinance. Before local lawyers challenged such practices, known informally as "Bag a Fag," undercover officers would arrest gay men who simply returned their glances or gestures, if the signals were deemed to have sexual connotations, and then, citing "nuisance abatement," seize their vehicles.
Detroit Police Department officials have said that raids like the one on the Contemporary Art Institute are aimed at improving "quality of life." The raids certainly help address the department's substantial budgetary shortfalls. Last year, Detroit, which has since filed for bankruptcy, cut the annual police budget by nearly a fifth. Today, "blind pig" raids around the city routinely result in the confiscation of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of cars.
Because forfeiture actions tend to affect people who cannot easily fight back, even those who feel wronged seldom contest the seizures or seek public notice. "There's no telling how many Tenahas there are," Vanita Gupta, a deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. Early on, she took an interest in the suit that Guillory and Garrigan were putting together, and her office joined in the effort. "It's very hard to document," she said, noting that many people targeted by the practice are too intimidated to talk. "These cases tend to stay in the dark."
via @overlawyered








And this is the Detroit that thinks it deserves to be bailed out because they voted for Obama...
Radwaste at August 7, 2013 3:05 AM
I can't see the city could even argue this is legal.
Jim P. at August 7, 2013 5:47 AM
Jim, they don't argue that it's right, just that they can get away with it. You can always find some outdated ordinance, like Detroit's speakeasy law, and someone to say, "Hey, we don't write the laws, we just enforce 'em - especially when we can confiscate a few dozen Beemers from a bunch of art lovers."
Grey Ghost at August 7, 2013 6:13 AM
Disgusting. Absolutely appalling. Thankfully, the ACLU won the first round in this particular case, although it's tragic that others have fallen victim to this Nazi-esque tactic and are too cowed to speak out against it.
Patrick at August 7, 2013 6:14 AM
The ACLU does some good for a change. But as others have pointed out, for every case the militarized governments lose, they win ten times as many by default, so it doesn't change the math much. The only to fix this sort of thing is that there have to be personal consequences for people involved in planning and executing these raids. Asking them to actually respect the law is probably too much, but if the mainstream media had any balls at all, it would put the names and faces of everyone involved on the front page above the fold, and keep doing it day after day. But since the MSM is all in for authoritarianism not, it's not gonna happen.
Cousin Dave at August 7, 2013 7:05 AM
I were it not illegal to do so I'd advocate killing such cops, prosecutors, judges, ect involved
lujlp at August 7, 2013 10:46 AM
Cousin Dave: an even better solution is o go back o the days of personal liability for officers who engage in such malfeasance. It only takes one who less his home, savings, cars, and stock in order for others to not do this.
Bridget at August 10, 2013 9:03 AM
Leave a comment