Eric Holder Severely Limits Civil Forfeiture 316
gurps_npc writes: As most people know, the US has for quite some time let police seize pretty much anything they wanted to, forcing you to go to court to get back your stuff (at significant expense). Most of the problems came about because the Federal government let the local cops keep most of what they took.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend this (Score:5, Insightful)
You know someone is going to come in and say this is awful because reasons, because it was done under the Obama administration by Eric Holder.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Insightful)
That someone will be the GOP. I can see them trying to spin this as Obama's "war on cops". They're very predictable in opposing anything Democrats do no matter how rational it is.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP maybe, but this has been a hot-button issue for conservatives for a while, and the current sentiment is "wait, who did this wonderful thing, I must have heard you wrong". The difference between conservatives and the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. And reaction to this could be a good indication of what members of the GOP should be de-elected by conservatives.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing it does do, is to take the wind out of the GOP's sails if they want to themselves pursue a change the asset forfeiture laws. If this has been contentious in the Republican Party (the law-and-order types against stopping it, the small-government times for stopping it) then not only does it deny the small-government side from being able to claim a victory over the incumbent position, but it opens a window to possibly see ugly GOP infighting. In such infighting, the law-and-order types will look bad because the excesses in asset forfeiture will be front and center, and the small-government types will be smeared for agreeing with the President.
This was a masterful move, politically.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a masterful move.
It all depends on if holder has the legal authority to alter the program in such ways. If he does, they just ignore it. If he doesn't they create a law that does what happened and take credit for it. If the president vetos the law, they give holder credit for working with them and doing the right thing and bash Obama for going against the will of yhe people that even departments under him already recognize.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP maybe, but this has been a hot-button issue for conservatives for a while, and the current sentiment is "wait, who did this wonderful thing, I must have heard you wrong". The difference between conservatives and the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.
It is true that any 'conservative' with the slightest shred of principle has been vehemently against the practice for years(one can certainly imagine more unconstitutional programs; but it's hard to think of any that we actually carry out on anything like this scale).
That said, given the percentage of a lot of local police budgets currently covered by stealing stuff, it will be interesting to see whether the people who are always drifting toward the theory that freedom can be measured as a direct functio
Re: (Score:3)
You know, you could simply cut the costs - tell the police to focus on thieves and murderers and leave pot smokers and prostitutes alone. Maybe sto
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Funny)
Depends which part of the GOP you are talking about though (As the Republican party is not some giant monolithic lock step party). The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed, but have regretted it) will support this move. They have seen how this program has been abused by law enforcement agencies and needs to be curtailed.
(BTW, the democrats are very predictable in opposing anything republicans do, no matter how rational it is).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible. It happens every time there's a significant disaster. These people only pretend that they're sorry later, and that goes for all of them, not just republicans.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet when the Democrats came to power, the motto was "Never let a crisis go to waste".
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible.
Hint:
Politicians are also people who were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible.
Three GOP senators and a dem told Holder to do thi (Score:3)
From TFA
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Where "calling on" means telling him "you can set reasonable rules of your choosing, or we can set them for you".
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA next time -
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Republicans called for this to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
RTFA next time -
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Republicans called for this to happen.
I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that just because this is a policy they supported, and indeed requested, they won't use it to lambast their opponents in future elections? If so, there is no historical evidence supporting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The key word there is "Politicians". Not Democrats. Not Republicans. (As they both do this).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This Republican (Goldwater wing) praises Holder's action, the very first time I have ever done this. Let's just hope the announcement is for is real, and as far-reaching as the news reports claim. No police power has been more abused over the years than property seizure. Civil forfeiture is the reason why conservatives have hated cops for years, before police malpractice went racial and therefore attracted the attention of liberals.
I'm hoping that in 2017 President Paul makes them give every stolen dime bac
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some people that might disagree:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop... [gawker.com]
Well... It's either him or Ringo at this point. (Score:3)
And he IS the younger and more vital one.
It's probably all that vegetarian food.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Informative)
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, I'm quite shocked that they did this...
But cudos to them, I'll applaud smart choices no matter who does them...
Re: (Score:2)
Shrug. Even the worst of dictators generally make the trains run on time. But I agree, decrying something positive from an otherwise odious administration merely makes one look foolish. Intellectual honesty requires giving credit where due. On the surface, this looks like a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is that it will stop federal forfeiture but not state forfeiture.
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
Jan. 16 2015 7:36 PM
Helicopters Don’t Pay for Themselves
Why Eric Holder’s civil forfeiture decision won’t stop civil forfeiture abuse.
By Leon Neyfakh
With few exceptions (Score:3)
The real question is: after 40 years of non-stop tax cuts (especially for top earners) how are we going to fill the gaping hole in
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Insightful)
But he's correct. Even when "Obummer"'s administration does something demonstrably good that sharply aligns with the folks who hate him, they will minimize it rather than provide the accolades he deserves.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough, and in this case he probably will have earned it.
On the face of it, it sounds like a good move. If applied evenly, and without ulterior motives, I am unabashedly for this one and will give credit where it is due. The administration isn't calling for a change in the law here (and neither are any Republicans) which might indicate they wanted a restoration of our rights. That means they simply want to use this law to further their agenda. I suspect the status quo would be better than what they plan.
The current administration is choosing not to enforce some existing laws, notably immigration, and wants to preclude other entities from enforcing those same laws - I don't believe any reasonable person would dispute that statement. There is little they can do currently about Joe Arapaio enforcing Federal Laws, except choose not to prosecute the cases.
I expect at least two abuses to be in the works:
It will be used as a tool to increase Federal presence/control/"cooperation" in local law enforcement through funding controls/incentives/inducements. We all know how well that has worked out in Education. It will mean more shared data about us being available to the Federal Government.
Currently the Federal Government cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations because of the10th Amendment. This will be used as an end run around that, since the Commerce Clause has never worked very well in compelling the states in law enforcement (drinking age being a notable exception). Laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which had enforcement provisions that were ruled unconstitutional will get their enforcement at the state level because of this type of financial leveraging. It will be used selectively to punish those localities that are not compliant with the wishes of the Federal Government in some regard, and reward those that are aligned with the administration's agendas. Expect Chicago, DC and NYC to be rewarded for their gun controls and Maricopa County, AZ to be punished for its enforcement of immigration laws. Expect the reverse under the next Republican President.
This is a bad law that we need to have repealed, and not made worse by politically selective application.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad you were modded up, because 'civil asset forfeiture' has been a sticking point of mine for quite some time, and you basically said my piece in it.
A number of states limited it using state rules, only to have police departments continue to do it under the federal rules.
The abuses I've read about...
For example: Grandma owns her house. One of her many grandsons, fleeing the police with drugs on him, temporarily escapes into her house until she gets home and promptly turns him over to police. Despite this for some unknown reason the cops decide to seize her house because 'it was used to store drugs'. The only known time there were drugs in there was when the grandson was running! Took the governor telling them to back off.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the "sticking point". I can't do much more than writing my representatives about it, and tossing what money I can to those that promise to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can do more than that and you just did.
Getting the word out at how this is abused will cause the same reaction from many more people who will do the same with writing their representatives and so on. It will not be over night but it will make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said 'much more', because one can always do more, but I have a lot of irons in the fire.
I've posted on this stuff when the subject varies in the correct direction(other directions will trigger different topics).
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it. Make that apply to ANY amount, even if it was only a dollar.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Interesting)
Civil forfeiture shouldn't even exist. All property seizure should be PART of the criminal trial as either proceeds of the crime or restitution or fines for the crime.
Under absolutely no circumstance should the government be able to go into a civil court and take your money outside a debt owed. These forfeitures are supposed to be criminal forfeiture and they should be handled in the criminal side where the defendant has rights and assumption of innocence. I'm horrified you would suggest that the government should be able to prevail in anything on the standard of most believable instead of without a reasonable doubt.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually your response proves the whole system is broken. The Presidential position is really meant to be nothing more than administering the applicable laws provided by the congress and senate. There should be a whole lot less focus on the President and far more focus on the places where laws are actually considered, written and brought into force. What really needs to happen is the congress and senate should work hard on stripping all powers away from the President beyond administrative roles, no more memo laws, no more made up letters pretending they are laws, a President tied down by the laws written by the congress and the senate. In fact all senior roles within the administration should really go to congressmen and senators as selected by the congress and the senate, those senior administrative roles should be directly answerable to the public. Having a US president with all those powers has proven to be very socially and economically destructive not only upon a US basis but upon a global basis. It seems high time for a change, for a President with far, far fewer powers. The autocrats might thing they are electing 'Leaders' but as far as progressives are concerned they are only ever representatives and the electorate remains the 'Commander in Chief' not only during elections but between them as well. You can not have a government of the people, by the people and for the people unless the people can maintain their voice throughout the electoral cycle and not just one day every four years, that is just plain nucking futs. Do you not realise countries like Australia would toss out a political leader that started to call themselves the 'Commander In Chief', that electorate does not ever accept the idea of surrendering power to someone who is just meant to be representing them. I don't get it, it seems America is no longer electing a President they are electing a King, WTF?
The people's opinions should always be sought when legislative decisions are made, not just a minority of corporate campaign donors and offshore tax haven holiday funders but the people. American seem to have forgotten who the boss is, in a democracy, they are not called representatives, basically employees for no reason, don't let them ever get away with the delusion that your politicians are you bosses, deciding for you, that is just plain wrong.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a school of thought in comparative politics called "American Exceptionalism" -- in this case, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is exceptional in that it only works in the US -- other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships. See Dahl, Robert Polyarchy .
Believe it or not, is it actually the 5th Republic French Constitution (the DeGaulle constitution) that has proven the most successful in bringing democracy to democratizing nations.
Reforms like proportional representation, abolishment of the electoral college, and institutions to do away with the two-party system have been long in coming to the American political system to keep it in line with the modern conception of democracy. Instead, it keeps slipping into this vaguely democratic polyarchy.
Re:Waiting for Republicans to come in and defend t (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the down sides to being an early adopter. We were one of the first kids on the block to install this shiny new "representative democracy" thing on a large scale, but the bugs really hadn't been worked out yet, and political parasites immediately began to exploit it's weaknesses to insulate themselves from the will of the people. A couple centuries of digging in and they make ticks look positively benevolent. And of course since they're the ones making the rules, good luck dislodging them. Especially with the various black-op "security" branches showing a distinct bias towards interpreting their job as "protecting the status quo"
Naw, it's functioning as designed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We were/are a republic for the rich and powerful, a government of insiders and buerocrats. "Representative Democracy" is little more than propaganda from mid 20th century. When we where founded, we were little more "representative" than England who's had "representative democracy" in some form since the magna carta, and especially since the era of the long p
Re: (Score:3)
The French got to start over a few times after failed experiments.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this sounds like a great thing, however I do have to question why it took so long for him to do this. How long have Obama and Holder been in office? Now, finally, when we're in Obama's last two lame-duck years, Holder decides to finally do something useful?
So yeah, it's great that he's finally fixed this horrible problem, but he sure could have done it earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You don't get to pretend he's blameless; he *continued these practices*, which makes him an evil scumbag. The mass violation of our fundamental liberties is not a joke.
Well done! (Score:3, Insightful)
No Breath Holding (Score:4, Funny)
I'll bet this totally will stop the government from doing this stuff.
This was done so Republicans can criticize it... (Score:2, Insightful)
And thus be seen for the closet corporate fascists that they are. Holder didn't go far enough, and neither did Obama (He never so much as mentioned it). The practice needs to end nationally, via federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the Justice Department end it nationally? Even if they get Congress to cooperate? About the only way the Federal Government can legally mandate state law enforcement actions is through the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have to notice that this practice is against the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The justice department is part of the executive branch, not Congress. This is the US Marshals, FBI, Secret Service, and so on. Holder is saying those Federal law enforcement agencies will no longer use civil forfeiture. Holder is in the correct position to make this happen. It could also have happened if Congress passed a law making it illegal, but enforcement is up to the executive, and law enforcement is up to the justice dept, specifically Eric Holder.
Holder has decided to go out on a high note. It
Incentivize the change you want in the world (Score:2)
It seems to me a super simple, effective, and more complete solution would just be to make the police pay court costs plus penalties when they are sued for recovery of seized assets and lose. This would create an incentive for lawyers to take cases on a deferred compensation basis and rectify the current situation where only people who already have significant economic means can afford to fight back against improper and unjust seizure. Human behavior is driven by incentives; setup the correct incentive stru
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, It would be fully appropriate for state lawmakers to have their asses held to the fire about why state and local cops weren't forbidden by state law from touching asset forfeiture with somebody else's ten foot pole years ago. Hopefully that will actually happen.
Re:This was done so Republicans can criticize it.. (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA - Republicans called for this to happen.
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the plan that Heritage came up with in the early 90's that they concluded was unworkable? Romneycare and Obamacare are nothing like that (they are worse).
Closes a massive local law enforcement loophole (Score:5, Informative)
Local and state police used to be able to federalize their seizures to keep it beyond the reach of laws governing civil forfeiture. That protection is gone now.
I generally hold contempt for Holder BUT... (Score:3)
this time he got it right.
VLAD (Score:3, Informative)
I'm in Queensland Australia. We have the VLAD laws
Vicious_Lawless_Association_Disestablishment_Act
A biker used to live around the corner from us.
His home and everything has been taken as proceeds of crime, it is now a construction zone ? fenced off, no entry.
He's probably in gaol.
And that's just for being a biker.
All so the conservative state government can be seen to be hard on crime.
Only? (Score:2)
but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken.
Ah, so "only" most of it?
BTW, Holder can't just change a law by fiat, so ... WTF? Either it wasn't law in the first place (bad), or he just changed a law by fiat (bad).
When will we outlaw car theft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, a lot of money is lost through the civil forfeiture that this story is discussing, but it doesn't impact that many people. Legalized car theft hits a much larger number of individuals.
Why only in America? (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking from Australia we admire the focus of the US constitution on civil rights etc. None of that is in the Australian constitution, and the UK does not even have one.
Yet the US has these crazy laws. Civil forfeiture, way out of control plea bargaining, no legal representation for the poor, and, until relatively recently, slavery. I do not think that any other country in the western world has abuses to anything like that level.
Does the US constitution actually remove people's rights? Or would the situation be even worse without it?
Re:Now all we need to do (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem wasn't that they weren't following the laws. The problem was what they were doing wasn't illegal in the first place.
It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law. But it's often impossible to get them to "do the right thing".
So this is definitely a good step in the right direction. Don't complain just because we've gone from "impossible" to merely "difficult". Sometimes these things take awhile to straighten out. Be thankful we made some significant progress today.
Re: (Score:3)
It can often be difficult to get the cops to even know the law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law.
It can often be difficult to get the cops to even know the law.
It's going to get a lot harder since SCOTUS has declared that cops don't have to know the law. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opinion-analysis-reasonable-mistakes-of-law-by-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/ [scotusblog.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like we live in a country where fascists run around robbing and killing jews.
No, we live in a country where oligarchs steal our money and then send it to israel where it can be used by jews to kill palestinians
WTF? Yes it is illegal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but it IS illegal and protected by the Constitution under the 4th amendment (emphasis mine below). Do you see that word "seizures"? Look it up, it protects people from civil forfeiture.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People are not losing their money and/or property after a court decision found them guilty of some crime, people are losing their money and/or property without a trial at all.
That is what people have been complaining about, and for Holder not to stop it completely is yet another failure of the Obama administration.
I agree with your statement about the police not following the law, but that is an easy fix. Start jailing cops that break the law, jail cops that cover for their buddies, and jail judges who dismiss cases simply because the defendant is a cop. Since we have not been doing that, we recently had cops killed by vigilantes.. go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
Just note that seizure laws are as old as the constitution and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the 4th amendment that way. Example cases are "The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827)." where they seized a pirate ship originally owned by Spain but was operating on its own. Or "Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 24 L.Ed. 637 (1878)" where they ceased property of the man who'd leased out his property for a distillery. In "254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376 (1921)" a taxicab used
Re: (Score:2)
Decent people do not do this, even if it is legal. The hiring criteria for cops have reflected that for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
well where else would you get news on TV from!! FOX? MSNBC?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your cellphone includes a camera and there is a park/school/daycare/child of any sort somewhere within a 10-mile radius."
Re: (Score:3)
My primary worry is that the child porn hole will result in more people having to track down the source o
Re:And so on. (Score:5, Funny)
The "drug dog alerted on his car outside the view of the dash cam"
The drug dogs will simply be re-branded as kiddy porn dogs, and your cash will have trace amounts of 10 year old on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What should they do with the machine gun?
Assuming it's a legal weapon, sell it. Otherwise melt it down.
What should they do with the $20,000?
Keep it.
What should they do with the car?
Sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you're right--I started with the presumption of guilt.
About the only difference I would make is I would be fine with the government keeping the cash but paying it back if the person is found not guilty. So they don't have to return the original $20,000 but if found not guilty, I'd better be getting a check for $20,000 posthaste.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like with the new rules:
1) Confiscate
2) Confiscate
3) "Pretend" that it was never there in the first place and start shopping for a vacation...
4) Watch it drive away unless they are taking the person into custody in which case it goes to impound where the perp can get it back for a healthy Tow/Storage fee.
Re:For the sake of discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They use their state's seizure laws where the proceeds don't go directly into the police beer fund.
Next question.
Re:For the sake of discussion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For the sake of discussion... (Score:5, Informative)
The driver would be arrested due to the drugs and possibly the weapons. They would be held as evidence. This hasn't changed.
Here's what has: Up until now, the driver could just be driving around with the money... no drugs, no weapons, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and the cops could seize it based on the extremely flimsy suspicion that the driver was a drug dealer. This money would wind up in the coffers of that local police department, to be used at their discretion.
The driver would theoretically have the chance to legally reclaim the money. However, the driver could easily wind up spending more money in legal costs than the original sum that was seized. And in some jurisdictions, the authority making the final decision in such a legal case is the same organization that seized the money in the first place.
See the issues here?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And they have a database of plates of business owners that are likely to be carrying cash! (operation black asphalt) The whole thing is a scam, and massively changed my opinion of the police.
Re: (Score:2)
You arrest and charge the driver. A trial will then answer those questions of yours.
Re: (Score:2)
You give them back, yes really (Score:2)
The drugs are probable cause of a crime (Score:2)
What else? (Score:2)
What would be in done in any normal situation.
Find the person responsible for engaging in the illegal activities. Charge the person with those activities. Find the owners of the property. If that property is part of evidence of a crime, then store it unmolested as evidence.
If an owner is convicted and given a fine, sell the property to pay the fine, and give any remainder to the owner. Sentence the owner according to a law. If the owner is not convicted, give the property back to the owner with an apology.
Re:For the sake of discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes into impound until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
What's that? You can't be bothered with a court case to prove that anything illegal happened? Well, fuck you.
Re: (Score:3)
There are laws on the books in California already that you can not discriminate when hiring an illegal alien over an american citizen
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their nationality, but you also can't legally hire someone without the right to work. And then the argument devolves to what California is or isn't doing in that area, and what they might or might not do in the future. You have been warned.
Re:forfeiture is sometimes better than incarcerati (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no good reason, under any circumstances, for pretrial forfeiture. If you have probable cause (the Constitutional standard for police procedure in the field) to suspect a person of the crimes you describe, arrest and charge him. If he is subsequently found guilty, THEN taking his stuff can be a part of the punishment.
The reason police love civil forfeiture is that is is used only in situations where a suspect is not arrested. An arrest triggers a series of Constitutional protections, while civil forfeiture takes place outside of this legal firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
so, what you're saying is that if we find ourselves in such a situation, *get arrested* so that it triggers the protections we should be getting, regardless.
is that correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, even if you're arrested they'll make sure it's for something entirely distinct from the reason your property is seized, like resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. If they send you on your way without charges, they have the power to grab any money or other valuable asset they see on you before you go. There have been cases where someone walks up to an airline counter and buys a ticket with cash, the ticket agent reports them to the airport police for suspicious possession of cash (not for potential terrorist status, because then you would be arrested), and your cash is seized. The town of Tenaha, TX, was notorious for funding its entire city budget by grabb
Re:forfeiture is sometimes better than incarcerati (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, except that's not the damn choice! The actual choice is between due process (i.e., outlawing civil forfeiture) and lack of due process (i.e, shitting all over the Fourth Amendment), and that should be an easy choice for anyone who isn't a totalitarian sociopath.
Choosing between fines and prison as a punishment after trial and conviction is a wholly separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, under Federal Law, the proceeds of the forfeiture go directly to the agency that seized them, the goods are charged with a crime, and the owner must go to trial against the Federal FSKING Governent to prove the goods innocent in order to get them back.
For extra credit, can anyone spot the perverse incentive here?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a great first step, but practically speaking how will it affect local police departments operating under state or municipal laws?
It depends on the state and locality, of course; but one major reason why letting a seizure be 'adopted' by the feds was common practice was that, even though they got their cut, the federal rules allowed the cash to go straight to the department, a perfect slush fund for purchases that wouldn't withstand the scrutiny of budgeting from public funds(and sometimes outright purchases for personal use; because what are you going to do about it?).
Because of this (trivially obvious, whoever approved of this in