Confiscating 'criminals' property is a police racket

[mojaveman]

I guess this is kind of a gray issue depending on a persons viewpoint. I've always had the idea that if they are convicted then the criminals should pay their debt to society in more ways than one. It takes some of the burden off of the taxpayer for their illegal activity.

http://www.newsweek.com/confiscating...-racket-323041

[sinjefe]

The entire idea of asset seizure without due process offends me. Basically, you have to prove you didn't do the crime and most people don't have the kind of money needed to get their stuff back. Thus, the state is incentivized to seize as much as they can get away with.

You either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you don't.

Let's say you loan your teenage son your car. He and his friends buy a couple of ounces of marijuana and get stoned in your car. Police pull them over, search and find marijuana. In many states with these laws, they can seize your vehicle based on the above.

Bet you wouldn't be all too happy with asset seizure laws then, would you?

[mojaveman]

I think there are many variables involved here.

What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money? The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him, have proof he's been dealing, grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of cash & rock cocaine in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.

I don't have a problem with that.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

--- I don't have a problem with that.

Neither do I - So long as it's done AFTER their investigation has reached the point where they can obtain a warrant and he's been arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced (again!). Otherwise - I have serious problems with it.

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

I think there are many variables involved here.

What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money. The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him and grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of rock cocaine & cash in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.

I don't have a problem with that.

But what's your efffing hurry? Your fact pattern puts him in for some sort of possession with intent to deliver. Inventory the cash, bling and vehicle until conviction. I agree that post-conviction, there would be no provision for a stay of action pending appeal, but letting anyone but the Great Karnak determine through his/her "training and experience" that any given asset is fruits of a crime for which no one has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt is giving the gubmint way too much power with no check. I don't think it's a gray area at all. For every recently released Roscoe rolling through the hood slinging rock just hours after release from incarceration there are many more who simply possessed cash and didn't want to tell gubmint agents why, who have then had said cash taken. SO, eff that "right to remain silent", right? Invoking a constitutional right is gonna cost you, huh? Well, it's OK because you are a bad guy. The cops say so.

[mojaveman]

There's an enormous difference between normal law abiding tax paying citizens and career criminals.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

There's an enormous difference between normal law abiding tax paying citizens and career criminals.

What part of the 4th Amendment and "due process" do you not understand? Even criminals have rights.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

I think there are many variables involved here.

What if a convicted felon with multiple priors gets paroled from prison and eight months later he's back in his hood slinging crack and making tons of money. The narcotics officers are doing surveillance on him, have proof he's been dealing, grab him when he's driving a brand new Cadillac, wearing ten ounces of gold and has 20K worth of rock cocaine & cash in a leather bag under his seat. They then seize his property, auction it off and buy some new equipment for the department.

I don't have a problem with that.

The entire episode you described would only be known because the police tell us it occurred that way. Police charges do not equal due process. That is a lot of faith to be put into humans who may be under pressure to seize stuff.

Me personally? I don't believe everything I am told by the police.

[mojaveman]

What about known criminal organizations like the Mafia who finance their legal defenses with their illegally gotten income? A little difficult to stop isn't it?

[Peregrino]

Depriving someone of freedom and property isn't supposed to be easy. That's why we fought a Revolution and wrote a Constitution - with a Bill of Rights - to make sure that it never became easy. That way lies tyranny.

[blacksmoke]

My best friend from the Army now owns two brick and mortar surplus stores. He started out selling surplus on Ebay, offering soldiers clearing post more for their old stuff that the stores in town,and within a few moths was making enough money to live off of. Ebay has it's own strict policies on what can and cannot be sold over the internet, what can be exported etc. He turned down soldiers trying to sell their old SAPI plates, IOTVs, NVGs, etc because he knew that it was illegal. After a time he notices other Ebay stores selling certain goods and decides to sell a non-issued ACOG he comes across. FBI shows up thinking he's part of a supply theiving ring getting rid of their stuff online. A few thousand dollars worth of goods is confiscated from his home business with no charges filed until an "investigation" can be completed. 2 years later, a couple thousand in lawyer fees and no charges filed, the FBI has yet to return any of the "illegal" ACU tops, knee pads, ACH covers confiscated.
The only explanation he recieved was that anything issued by the gov't was property of the gov't forever and could not be legally resold. He asked why then do so many surplus stores operate around town unhindered? No answer to that, and still no return of the goods he lost.

[The Reaper]

I think the policy almost guarantees unlawful seizure of private property without due process.

Many LE agencies derive a large part of their operating revenue from seizing private property and cash.

It turns into a "prove you are innocent and you might get your stuff back." Eventually.

20 years ago, my Senior 18E had the fire department called to his house after a minor fire while he was TDY. The FD called the cops to report ammo cans in the garage. (If you were in the military and do not own at least one ammo can, you did something wrong.)

The cops came by and asked his wife if they could search. She consented. (Mistake number two.) The answer, whether you are home or not is "Not without a warrant."

During the search, the overenthusiastic and imaginative young LEOs found a black commercial parachute and some cash he kept at home. Both were seized under the presumption that the Golden Knights (who were not missing or looking for any of their parachute rigs) used black (and gold) canopies, and the cash was close enough to the suspect parachute that it might have been acquired from the sale of stolen military property. These charges were eventually dropped, but not until he got yanked back from a TDY, charged, dragged through the mud, hired a lawyer, and waited several months.

Just because you wear a badge does not entitle you to violate the rights of American citizens, and allowing it to occur against certain people or groups of people because of suspicion should not be tolerated in this country. One day, it is drug owners, the next it is gun owners ("hey, this could have been used in a crime!") I do not believe our founding fathers would have allowed this abuse, and as Peregrino noted, specifically forbade it in the Bill of Rights.

This is a very slippery slope.

TR

[RCummings]

John Yoder and Brad Cates, who headed the Asset Forfeiture Office at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1983 to 1989, slammed civil forfeiture as a “complete corruption” and “fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and notions of fairness,” in an op-ed for The Washington Post. Thanks to civil forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors don’t need to charge someone with a crime to seize and keep their property. Yoder and Cates “were heavily involved in the creation of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department,” they write, but after seeing civil forfeiture become a “gross perversion of the status of government amid a free citizenry,” the two now believe it should be “abolished.”

Their criticisms come on the heels of an extensive, three-part investigation by The Washington Post into highway interdiction. Since 9/11, without warrants and despite a lack of criminal charges, law enforcement nationwide has taken in $2.5 billion from 61,998 cash seizures under equitable sharing. This federal civil forfeiture program lets local and state law enforcement literally make a federal case out of a seizure, if they collaborate with a federal agency. Not only can they then bypass state forfeiture laws, they can pocket up to 80 percent of the proceeds. So of that $2.5 billion seized through equitable sharing, local and state authorities kept $1.7 billion for their own uses.

The rest of the article,

Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/institut...il-forfeiture/

How much money flows before the "white hat" becomes a "black hat"?

I know there are "LEOs" reading this forum, do you think that a criminal in a uniform is different than a criminal not in uniform? I don't and I will be a juror.
Stealing among other things great and small is wrong and I don't give a rip for LE or non-LE criminals rationalization.

Bob

[Constant]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

What about known criminal organizations like the Mafia who finance their legal defenses with their illegally gotten income? A little difficult to stop isn't it?

Due process. Period. End of effing debate. Why? Because it is supposed to protect a little guy like me. Oh but what about....no, period. Due process. It's allowing little slips and a little chipping away at people's rights that has put us in the situations we are in now. Worry about you, not the "known mafia" or some bull crap. Look at how it can hurt you as a citizen. Because that document we don't uphold anymore was to restrain the Givernment.

Or, just recognize that we aren't a republic anymore or even a democracy, be a sheep and allow the government to do what they want to you.

[mojaveman]

Ok, so it's a practice that should stop. Anybody want to make an educated guess though and say what's going to happen? Are more states going to follow New Mexico and abolish civil forfeiture?

With the current economic situation the way it is in many parts of the country I only see the situation getting worse. Tax revenues are down in many areas and agencies need the money, plain and simple.