How to create the feeling that the authorities are a bunch of ------- theives.
Asset forfeiture cases like this reduce respect for all law and create enemies.
How to create the feeling that the authorities are a bunch of ------- theives.
Asset forfeiture cases like this reduce respect for all law and create enemies.
Last edited by 1slow; 11-30-2018 at 12:04 AM.
I’ll bite. I work in Indiana and have worked both federal and state asset forfeiture cases. Asset forfeiture really should be marketed as more of a resource rather than a tool. In the above mentioned case a suspect sold $400 worth of heroin. This could be anywhere from a ball (3.5 grams) to a half an ounce (14 grams) in my part of the state. He did it more than once, which is typical to overcome predisposition, and used his Range Rover to do it. Here in Indiana we have an opioid epidemic with state and local resources poorly funded. Narcan is expensive and jails are overcrowded so sentences are getting light and addicts are not getting the help they need. A $40,000 car, sold at auction, pays for a lot of rehab and Narcan for LEO’s, more community resources, and possibly commmunity correction programs, etc...
I think there is a world of difference between seizing someone’s car for possession of a cocaine and someone who is actively dealing to a CI, and very likely multiple persons. Officers and Prosecutors should have to paint a picture of the crime and the impact before seizing assets, but if you play silly games, you shouldn’t win awesome prizes. A light sentence and the loss of your dealing dope paid vehicle? Dude you won, go away! Your doper boyfriend borrowed your high school graduation car and dealt cocaine out of it? Ding the bad guy, not the girl sitting back at their apartment while he slung drugs.
Common sense rules apply here. If it’s abused, go after that specific office. Isn’t that what the DOJ/Attorney Generals are there for? Legal oversight? Applied properly, it helps,lessen the burden on a community and maybe, just maybe, hits dealers where it hurts. I’m a fan, but only if used appropriately.
Someone will eventually unconstitutionally seize assets, especially cash, without due process from the wrong citizen(s) and the ensuing events will be newsworthy. The fact that when pursued in court there is like a 90% (heard that number on the news, so don't know how calculated or whether actually accurate) return rate not only shows how civil forfeiture is abused but the award of whatever back doesn't mean much when the citizen is not reimbursed time/court/atty costs. There should be complete restitution plus triple damages awarded until they come to their senses.
You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius
You mean, WHEN it is abused, not if. Human nature, lack of oversight and all.Originally Posted by Chipster
I have no interest in being the subject of abuse of a broken system that may, or more likely may not, police itself in a timely and retroactive manner.
By the time the system polices itself, how many have have been unjustly wronged?
That’s not how our system is supposed to work and it GREATLY diminished my faith in and support for the system.
I suspect I am far from alone and I am a little dismayed by the support for this.
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Doodie Project?
Sounds like BS to me. I’ve never lost a seizure in court, ever. I’m unaware of anyone that works for me losing a case in court that resulted in money/cars being returned.
It does happen, of course, but no way it’s 90%.
According to state law, if an administrative law judge rules that we did not have PC to make a seizure, the law enforcement agency has to pay out for the defendant’s attorney fees (based on a percentage of the currency seized or the value of the vehicle).
I appreciate the strain the opioid epidemic has caused on the law enforcement community. Indiana is likely to lose this cased based on the excessive fines clause in the 8th amendment. My understanding is the criminal penalty in Indiana for the crime of selling drugs to and undercover agent is a max of $10,000, so tacking on an additional civil penalty that is 4X the criminal fine is going to be a hard sell.
I would be more sympathetic to your legal oversight argument if the Indiana solicitor general hadn't made an argument for civilly seizing peoples car for traffic tickets. To me, that attitude seems to indicate that this pendulum has swung WAY too far.
Actually that’s not what I mean. I don’t subscribe to the fact that everyone or every entity is guilty of abuse in these circumstances. I happen to appreciate the constitution as do the people I work with. I believe we are held to a high level of proof and don’t feel in my 22 years that it’s ever been abused in cases I have knowledge of. And I am not blind to the fact that it can and has been abused but don’t lump everyone into that. That’s in large part what’s wrong with our society today. Not everything has to be when, there are good and honest applications of this law.
And this is how we got here. What percentage of overreach/mistakes is acceptable? I suspect in the beginning asset forfeiture what very expertly applied by competent members of the law enforcement community, but in what percentage of cases is that still true today?
By openly turning this into revenue generation, mostly targeted on continuing to fund the war on drugs, there is lots of incentive to grow the use of this practice. The more common the practice, the more likely that someone is going to apply it poorly intentionally or otherwise.
Personally, I don’t think any type of corruption when it comes to seizing property, money, whatever is acceptable. However, we are human beings, and we do make mistakes. Just like sometimes innocent people get arrested, though their arrests are made with probable cause.
What is the incentive to grow the use of civil forfeiture? The bean-counters that want the money aren’t the ones out there on the street. I could make a six figure seizure today, might get an “atta boy”, and it would be forgotten by my department next week (literally). I’ve never had any incentive for seizing money or property, other than knowing it hurts bad guys and their organizations. And frankly, that’s the only incentive I need.
I teach a class on asset forfeiture. I teach it at my department, and I’ve taught it to officers from various departments from my half of the state. I use examples of bad/abusive seizures, videos, etc. Some that disgust everyone that watches them. With that being said, in my experience, I do not see the abuses being widespread at all.
In the end, though, it’s probably all a moot point. I fully expect civil asset forfeiture to be non-existent in my state in the next 3-5 years.
ETA: I am aware of a few drug task forces in my state that use seized money to pay the agents’ salaries. This obviously is incentive to make seizures and is totally wrong. From what I understand, that way of doing things is going away.
Last edited by TC215; 11-30-2018 at 12:03 PM.
I should have been more clear regarding the incentive to grow, I don't mean to suggest that the ones on the street are being incentivized, but rather as the state sees seizure as a viable stream of revenue the state has incentive to protect and grow that revenue. The result of which seems to have been some playing fast and loose with the law as seen in some of the example seizure videos you referred to. I tend to agree with you that these abuses are not widespread, but as they say a few bad apples spoils the bunch.
I also think civil asset forfeitures days are numbered, but I would guess closer to 3 years than 5, and depending up finding of this particular supreme court case it might be faster than that.
Reply With Quote