Could You Be Guilty Of Something? Depends On How Nice A Car You Have
Shaila Dewan has a piece in The New York Times about how police departments are using "wish lists" to decide which property to seize in the "civil asset forfeiture" bonanza.
That describes when cops accuse you of possibly having merchandise bought with money from some criminal enterprise or contend the cash you're carrying is, oh, perhaps drug money.
Proof? That's your problem. And you'll have to prove that you are innocent -- and sorry about all those lawyers fees and your business maybe going under while you try to get your asset back.
Dewan reports on the Santa's wish list of police goods seizures:
The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don't bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers ("everybody's got one already"), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them "little goodies." And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man's "exotic vehicle" outside a local bar.
"A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new," he explained. "Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like 'Ahhhh.' And he gets out and he's just reeking of alcohol. And it's like, 'Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.' "
Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces.
...In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple's home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch. Despite that opposition, many cities and states are moving to expand civil seizures of cars and other assets. The seminars, some of which were captured on video, raise a curtain on how law enforcement officials view the practice.
..In defense of the practice, Gary Bergman, a prosecutor with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, said civil forfeiture had been distorted in news reports. "All they hear is the woman was left on the side of the road and the police drove off with her car and her money, no connection to drugs," he told other prosecutors at the session.
"I'm not saying that that doesn't happen -- it does. It should not. But they never hear about all the people that get stopped with the drugs in their cars, in their houses, the manufacturing operations we see, all the useful things we do with the money, the equipment, vehicles. They don't hear about that."
Vile Bergman is too bloodthirsty for the win. This procedure is sick and terrible and needs to reflect the tenets of our legal system: Better the guilty go free than the innocent get reeled in.
via @veroderugy
The useful things they do with someone else's money?
What, like food for parties?
Margarita machines? Painted ladies? Clowns?
Armored vehicles?
As an aside, aren't most of the people working for your average police force clowns anyways?
DrCos at November 11, 2014 3:31 AM
aren't most of the people working for your average police force clowns anyways?
Yes, but they take orders from those above them.
And when they are told to take people' stuff, that's what they do.
To paraphrase Voltaire: In America, we should hang some prosecutors and judges from time to time; to encourage the others.
doombuggy at November 11, 2014 4:52 AM
It just gets me how a court can decide that failing to provide a convicted jailbird with the cable channels of his choice is cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution, but seizing a person's life savings without even filing charges is not. As far as I know, no judge at any level of government in the U.S. has ever been willing to take a Constitutional challenge of asset forfeiture seriously. Until then, we just all try to keep our heads down and hope they don't notice us.
Cousin Dave at November 11, 2014 9:41 AM
My ten year old car with the dent in it is looking better to me all of the time.
justme at November 11, 2014 11:59 AM
Are there any lawyers reading this blog who can explain how "civil asset forfeiture" laws are not blatant violations of due process?
Jay at November 11, 2014 12:32 PM
Are there any lawyers reading this blog who can explain how "civil asset forfeiture" laws are not blatant violations of due process?
Posted by: Jay at November 11, 2014 12:32 PM
In a nutshell, as I have tried to explain to many progressives who just don't seem to get it. There is nothing in any of the constitution that really applies to property. It is not considered any kind of fundamental right. If it was, the government couldn't take it through arbitrary and high rates of taxation.
Yes, due process is theoretically an issue but RICO opened the door to a lot of abuses.
If the government wants to charge an individual income tax rate of 98 percent, above some arbitrary amount, such as 50k, or even 20k they are within their rights to do so.
In fact, this is probably the only way that California can stay solvent. They need to pass a state income tax of 95 percent on all state pensions above 60k, and claw back that money in order to stay solvent.
If they don't do that, Calpers will go bankrupt and all those pensions will be slashed and taken over by the RTC, I believe.
It is my believe that without security in your property, you end up with nothing more than a kleptocracy sooner rather than later.
That is the road we have been headed down for quite some time.
Without a right to keep a goodly percentage of your earnings, just what do you think your first amendment rights, and second amendment rights are worth?
Isab at November 11, 2014 4:13 PM
Isab--the 4th amendment states the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS...
It also says a Warrant based on probable cause specifically describing any THINGS to be seized is needed.
This wording seems to apply to property. What am I missing here?
Jay at November 11, 2014 6:39 PM
Isab--the 4th amendment states the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS...
It also says a Warrant based on probable cause specifically describing any THINGS to be seized is needed.
This wording seems to apply to property. What am I missing here?
Posted by: Jay at November 11, 2014 6:39 PM
All the case law on the topic that supports eminent domain, graduated income tax, and RICO.
The 4th amendment applies to criminal court, not civil court, and *civil assent forfeiture * is exactly the subject here.
Isab at November 11, 2014 7:08 PM
It is my believe that without security in your property, you end up with nothing more than a kleptocracy sooner rather than later.
That is the road we have been headed down for quite some time.
Isn't this pretty much every central authority throughout the ages? Islam? Slavery? Colonialism? Communism? Obamaism?
It's the power of the Dark Force.
____________________________________________
I read the constitution as saying that our property cannot be taken without due process. But in this day and age, bureaucratic fiat counts as due process, and good luck getting any court to rule otherwise.
doombuggy at November 11, 2014 8:18 PM
"It is my believe that without security in your property, you end up with nothing more than a kleptocracy sooner rather than later.
That is the road we have been headed down for quite some time. "
Yep. I've written here before of the actual legal mechanism by which a lot of these things work: the prosecution files lawsuits naming inaminate objects as the defendants; the inaminate objects fail to mount a defense (unexpectedly!), and the prosecution wins a default judgement. Why any self-respecting judge would go along with this bit of legal kabuki theater is beyond me, but they all do, without exception. I'll say it again: the judges are all lawyers too, and it's my tribe, right or wrong.
"Isn't this pretty much every central authority throughout the ages?"
Indeed. Ultimately the Constitution has the same power as a restraining order against a violent spouse: it is a piece of paper, and pieces of paper do not stop bullets. Of course, the problem is that there are far too many people who are perfectly OK with property seizure, as long as their property is not the property being seized. Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, etc.
Cousin Dave at November 12, 2014 8:19 AM
Leave a comment