Confiscating 'criminals' property is a police racket

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

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

Us.
and Them.
and after all, we're only ordinary men . . .

[PSM]

I recall several years ago Bob Cohen, one of the "B"s in B&B Guns (the shop that "loaned" the LAPD SWAT officers the ARs to take out the N. Hollywood bank robbers), said that it took them years to get those guns back. He blamed the litigation on their bankruptcy. (I'm not, in fact, sure that they did get them back.)

They didn't commit a crime. I assume that the weapons were held for evidence in the pending lawsuits, but LAPD could have at least paid for them.

On the other hand, B&B may have not wanted to sell them as they had gained historical significance.

Either way, helpful citizens were harmed by those sworn to "Serve and Protect".

Pat

[I am Al]

This is from last year, so a bit dated, but interesting. A lot of small businesses are having their cash confiscated for not doing anything illegal other than making deposits the IRS/FBI thought looked suspicious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us...-required.html

ETA: If you're a marijuana shop in Colorado dealing in a $1 million a day in untraceable cash, that's totally OK with the FBI and IRS. If you're a small fast food place in Iowa, a dairy in Maryland, or a candy store in NY that deals in cash, they confiscate your accounts. It's shameful.

[BlueYing]

Last I knew those marijuana shops in Colorado couldn't use the banks. My cousin is one of those businessmen (okay, he was a dealer who started to sell medical marijuana, who then hit it big when it was legalized), and last I talked to him, he couldn't use any banks.

[Box]

a police racket
...much more dangerous than a tennis racket

At least a tennis racket has to meet certain specifications before it can be used in an official capacity and if you question the legality of a tennis racket you wont get frisked, tased, or shot

a police racket - not so much

Its win-win if you have a badge!

[MR2]

Government takings has always been a controversial topic whether it is federal, state, and local or the historically more recent by law enforcement.

You can go to Institute for Justice which covers both types of seizures. We used them to help with CO SB15-006 Concerning Limitations on Forfeiture Actions that we ran this year. This year the Grinch wore Blue and brought in a DA, CoP, and Sheriff from each Committee members district to argue against the bill. Being a GOP stacked committee (one Senator was most recently a Sheriff), they voted with law enforcement against the bill.

Let's be clear, the government is authorized within the constitution to take. It is also clear that they have been abusing those explicit reasons for takings. Law enforcement is authorized by statute to seize as well. It too has clearly been abused. Frequently.

IMO, law enforcement should never be in the position to seize and keep anything. It should always be adjudicated and if so deemed placed into the treasury. If law enforcement needs more - they should (get it) request it just like everyone else does.

My testimony in support of the bill:

Good afternoon Madam Chair, Members. My name is ...., I represent Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 006. Which makes Colorado's forfeiture laws more fair.

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the Colorado today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your cash, your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash, etc.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

This bill still allows local and federal police to seize assets, but it raises the threshold amount of assets that can be seized, requires criminal conviction, and makes law enforcement more responsible for when they are wrong.

It’s time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t lose their property without being convicted of a crime, and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to profit from other people’s property.

No doubt you've heard the recent case of a South Dakota couple who lost thousands of dollars because they had “too much” legal tender on hand. What's in your wallet?

Please stop a police officer from taking citizens money and putting it in his pocket all because he thinks you might be thinking about committing a crime!

I urge you to support SB15-006 and return police to the level of respect and honor that we expect and they deserve. Thank you.

[Guymullins]

Our alleged government in S Africa passed a bill allowing exactly this a few years ago. It was instantly so abused by the ruling gang to silence their enemies that it seems to have not been used lately. It was so transparently anti-consttutional that it became an embarrassment for a government not easily embarrassed.
Some of the confiscated money and goods found homes in policeman's personal possessions.
All Americans must fight this tooth and nail. The arguments for it are quite persuasive, but it is a poisoned chalice.

[SF_BHT]

We have a local municipal government that has enacted a seizure/forfeiture law for DUI's. The law states if you are picked up for a DUI they are going to take your vehicle and sell it.

No not after you go to court and found guilty.......
They are even in violation of New Mexico's new state law that stops what is the subject of this thread. I am waiting for them to try to take a car and sell it. It should be a good show.

Even the sheriffs department is not happy with the situation. Impounding is one thing but selling it before you are found guilty is a pretty long stretch.

Granted you are more likely to be killed by a drunk here than any where else I have ever lived but selling your property is pretty extreme without your day in court.

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

We have a local municipal government that has enacted a seizure/forfeiture law for DUI's. The law states if you are picked up for a DUI they are going to take your vehicle and sell it.

No not after you go to court and found guilty.......
They are even in violation of New Mexico's new state law that stops what is the subject of this thread. I am waiting for them to try to take a car and sell it. It should be a good show.

Even the sheriffs department is not happy with the situation. Impounding is one thing but selling it before you are found guilty is a pretty long stretch.

Granted you are more likely to be killed by a drunk here than any where else I have ever lived but selling your property is pretty extreme without your day in court.

Thats enough to drive you to drink

[Bleed Green]

NM is a strange state in my experience. They pass laws that I have seen very easily could have killed people while waiting for a warrant to be issued on a weekend and in the next breath get progressive on civil asset forfeiture.

In my time here I had not seen the police doing what I would consider abusing asset forfeiture, but then my standard is pretty much the same we have always used at work. If you have a trunk load of dope or aliens and you are the owner of the vehicle you can probably kiss that one good bye as it is hard to argue that you had no knowledge. The only time I have ever been involved in seizing anything that was not loaded was a $5 million dollar ranch and a bunch of vehicles and guns, but the 1400 lbs of coke in the motor home floor and 12 lbs of left over grass in the semi trailer false compartment were pretty much a tip off that the whole lot was a criminal enterprise. Any dept. that uses it as a major revenue stream without owners tied directly to something criminal, other than SWAG and hunches as your proof, needs to really take a look at the meaning of integrity in the dictionary IMHO.

[GratefulCitizen]

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."

Hmmm...

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

So what is the problem of holding the assets until AFTER the trial then taking possession when found guilty? I have NO problem with that. My issue is agencies taking possession before the trial begins and selling it a auction etc.

So, I buy a sailboat and lease it to a sailing club in order to get a small monetary return on my investment and free maintenance. Another member rents it and has a run in with Bay Watch or the CG. During the search, they find marijuana in a drawer and arrest them and confiscate my boat. No problem, right?

Pat

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by PSM

So, I buy a sailboat and lease it to a sailing club in order to get a small monetary return on my investment and free maintenance. Another member rents it and has a run in with Bay Watch or the CG. During the search, they find marijuana in a drawer and arrest them and confiscate my boat. No problem, right?

Pat

The legal question is if you knowingly possessed the substance. You don't discuss amounts or packaging, so possession with intent is a fact to be found AT TRIAL. The State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you knew the drugs were there and that you maintained control over them for resale. If so, then yeah, you will have to win on wheel of fortune . . . again. So . . . legal problems abound. Maybe enough that the state does not try to take the boat. Depending on the actual amount of the gange, taking the boat may, in itself, be excessive punishment. Maybe the state's attorney decides to exercise discretion and not pursue forfieture. OMFG!!! If you are a member of the refer madness crowd, it is the end of the world as we know it. Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice . . . MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

The legal question is if you knowingly possessed the substance. You don't discuss amounts or packaging, so possession with intent is a fact to be found AT TRIAL. The State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you knew the drugs were there and that you maintained control over them for resale. If so, then yeah, you will have to win on wheel of fortune . . . again. So . . . legal problems abound. Maybe enough that the state does not try to take the boat. Depending on the actual amount of the gange, taking the boat may, in itself, be excessive punishment. Maybe the state's attorney decides to exercise discretion and not pursue forfieture. OMFG!!! If you are a member of the refer madness crowd, it is the end of the world as we know it. Dogs and cats living together, human sacrifice . . . MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

All the while, I'm paying lawyers and the boat payments, while the boat sits idle, impounded.

No thanks.

Pat

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by PSM

All the while, I'm paying lawyers and the boat payments, while the boat sits idle, impounded.

No thanks.

Pat

What we MIGHT have here is . . . a . . . failure to communicate. You write your fact pattern as an innocent 3rd party (see Chubs "those aren't my pants") who gets caught up during a legitimate business arrangement. You point out all the costs you would run up and end by saying "no thanks".

To what. To entering into the leasing contract in the first place. Good for you. To having your property encumbered for an unspecified time? Not your choice. No thanks, I don't want forfeiture laws on the books that could result in this happening to me? Well, then we agree. OR, less likely, but in response to the OP, no thanks, just sell it right away so I don't have to spend money on lawyers.