Asset Forfeiture (split from the Trump thread)

[rauchman]

Appears to support asset forfeiture without conviction.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513976112/trump-jokes-of-state-senator-well-destroy-his-career

How this is legal is so beyond me. What happened to due process of law? This pisses me off majorly.......deleted the rest because of my own schmuckyness.....

[voodoo_man]

How this is legal is so beyond me. What happened to due process of law? This pisses me off majorly. And for the LE types who are going to chime in that it's a tool in the LE toolbox, my civil rights superscede your friggin toolbox.

Have you done research on this topic?

You should.

[rauchman]

I'd prefer that we save our outrage towards what certain "types" may or may not say until after they actually say it. Thanks. :)

Well said and edited / deleted

[rauchman]

Have you done research on this topic?

You should.

Apologies, some and will do.

[fishing]

lol fuck civil forfeiture.
its a legalized crime.

[voodoo_man]

lol fuck civil forfeiture.
its a legalized crime.

Again, do your research.

[fishing]

Again, do your research.

um about what particularly?

1 - i am against civil forfeiture (my opinion), hence the "fuck civil forfeiture"
2 - i believe it is legalized crime, as it is legal under the law but is tantamount to stealing (a crime) in many of the situations it is used and abused in.

[voodoo_man]

um about what particularly?

1 - i am against civil forfeiture (my opinion), hence the "fuck civil forfeiture"
2 - i believe it is legalized crime, as it is legal under the law but is tantamount to stealing (a crime) in many of the situations it is used and abused in.

So you are perfectly OK with criminals making money off illegal crimes (drugs, robbery/theft, extortion, vice, etc) and even though they get arrested/charged with said crime they could keep all their ill gotten gains? Specifically items like vehicles, houses, clothing, jewelry, etc? You have no problem with a drug dealer making enough money to buy a house somewhere and even though they go to jail, they would still be allowed to own it and everything/anything else they purchased with that money they made illegally? Because that's what would happen without asset forfeiture.

Furthermore, as I've stated numerous times, what the fake news media has put out on this topic is 100% stinking pile of bullshit. They hand pick a few cases that were poorly put together and make it seem as though that is the absolute truth and every single officer and their supervisors are doing that same thing.

When I worked narc we almost always seized an asset, sometimes every single arrest we made, and usually if it was someone who moved any amount of weight we could prove they paid for vehicles and/or homes/etc with that illegally gained money. Totally legit, totally on the up and up and never seen a day in federal court for it as we never got sued.

But I assume you are ok with criminals keeping their take, hence the "fuck civil forfeiture".

[ssb]

So you are perfectly OK with criminals making money off illegal crimes (drugs, robbery/theft, extortion, vice, etc) and even though they get arrested/charged with said crime they could keep all their ill gotten gains? Specifically items like vehicles, houses, clothing, jewelry, etc? You have no problem with a drug dealer making enough money to buy a house somewhere and even though they go to jail, they would still be allowed to own it and everything/anything else they purchased with that money they made illegally? Because that's what would happen without asset forfeiture.

Furthermore, as I've stated numerous times, what the fake news media has put out on this topic is 100% stinking pile of bullshit. They hand pick a few cases that were poorly put together and make it seem as though that is the absolute truth and every single officer and their supervisors are doing that same thing.

When I worked narc we almost always seized an asset, sometimes every single arrest we made, and usually if it was someone who moved any amount of weight we could prove they paid for vehicles and/or homes/etc with that illegally gained money. Totally legit, totally on the up and up and never seen a day in federal court for it as we never got sued.

But I assume you are ok with criminals keeping their take, hence the "fuck civil forfeiture".

Posting this "side with me or side with drug dealers" bullshit while conflating civil forfeiture with criminal forfeiture is laughable. LEOs in my state seized ~$90 million in cash (not counting additional real or personal property) over a five year period without a single criminal charge attached. But please, keep wrecking your credibility and pretend that's the same as seizing some dealer's car when you do a felony stop and find meth bagged for sale inside.

[voodoo_man]

Posting this "side with me or side with drug dealers" bullshit while conflating civil forfeiture with criminal forfeiture is laughable. LEOs in my state seized ~$90 million in cash (not counting additional real or personal property) over a five year period without a single criminal charge attached. But please, keep wrecking your credibility and pretend that's the same as seizing some dealer's car when you do a felony stop and find meth bagged for sale inside.

The only thing laughable here is the extent of your perceived understanding or experience with this topic.

How many cases have you worked relating to asset forfeiture? How many years have you spent having direct knowledge of this matter? Ever testified in court on this topic? Ever prepared a single affidavit?

Chances are your only source is news media and/or lies that you've been fed. But please, go on believing fake news as fact. That seems to be the flavor for half the country.

[blues]

The only thing I'll say about asset forfeiture is that I'm glad I no longer have to prepare the documentation and paperwork and then make sure that supporting departments and agencies got their share of the proceeds. It was a major pain in the ass but a legitimate tool when used properly and in support of our long term investigations. It's also true that it can lead to a lot of heartache when not administered judiciously.


ETA: Tom, please feel free to remove my comment above when you do so as I was composing my reply when you posted your intentions above. My apologies.

[ssb]

The only thing laughable here is the extent of your perceived understanding or experience with this topic.

How many cases have you worked relating to asset forfeiture? How many years have you spent having direct knowledge of this matter? Ever testified in court on this topic? Ever prepared a single affidavit?

Chances are your only source is news media and/or lies that you've been fed. But please, go on believing fake news as fact. That seems to be the flavor for half the country.

You go, Super Trooper. I'll be sure not to drive through your city with any pre-workout, lest my uninformed fake news-watching self fall victim to your vast sum of experience.

[voodoo_man]

You go, Super Trooper. I'll be sure not to drive through your city with any pre-workout, lest my uninformed fake news-watching self fall victim to your vast sum of experience.

Oh darn, did you just insult me?

That's just sad on so many levels.

edit; As for anyone else who is interested in actually learning something and not just brushing generally on a topic they know little about, do the research, and ask questions.

[ssb]

Oh darn, did you just insult me?

That's just sad on so many levels.

edit; As for anyone else who is interested in actually learning something and not just brushing generally on a topic they know little about, do the research, and ask questions.

edit 2; If anybody chooses to follow the suggestion in edit 1, be aware that -- no matter who you are or what your education and experience may be -- if you're not a cop, you're supposed to shut the fuck up and take voodoo_man's word for it, as you can't have a valid opinion on the things that he happens to enforce.

Just so they don't have to read between the lines.

[voodoo_man]

Just so they don't have to read between the lines.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/d5/e9/0ed5e933ef3a75a4ae79cea6e45ce9a4.gif

[blues]

Just so they don't have to read between the lines.

Hold on Baba Looey...one shouldn't take silence as tacit approval or acceptance. (At least not in the current instance.)

[ssb]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/d5/e9/0ed5e933ef3a75a4ae79cea6e45ce9a4.gif

No, just mildly amused at some cop who plays tactical dress up on the internet pretending he's an authority on things I happen to be very familiar with -- while getting it wrong.

But hey, I'm not the police and my source isn't writing a forfeiture affidavit after a seizure so that means I don't know what civil forfeiture is, the differences between criminal and civil forfeiture, the statutory requirements in my state for either, how either of those things work in the context of a state-level drug task force, the potential for abuse, the actual abuses that have occurred in my state, the legislative reports on the topic...

[voodoo_man]

No, just mildly amused at some cop who plays tactical dress up on the internet pretending he's an authority on things I happen to be very familiar with -- while getting it wrong.

But hey, I'm not the police and my source isn't writing a forfeiture affidavit after a seizure so that means I don't know what civil forfeiture is, the differences between criminal and civil forfeiture, the statutory requirements in my state for either, how either of those things work in the context of a state-level drug task force, the potential for abuse, the actual abuses that have occurred in my state, the legislative reports on the topic...

Your instant response in the form of a personal attack and not one on the substance of the topic is a clear indication that you are either trolling or do not know what you don't know.

I don't care what your state's legislative reports say, nor do they have any impact on what I have seen and done first hand. But you have a source right? So that Trump's what I experienced first hand, right?

Go ahead, make your case against asset forfeiture, cite sources and case law if you must.

I have years of first hand experience, you don't need to believe me, I don't frankly care what you think. But the member here who doesn't know anything else benefit from hearing a knowledgeable discussion on the matter and not the 10th grade personal attacks you resorted to when confronted with experience on a topic you clearly do not understand.

[fishing]

Your instant response in the form of a personal attack and not one on the substance of the topic is a clear indication that you are either trolling or do not know what you don't know.

I don't care what your state's legislative reports say, nor do they have any impact on what I have seen and don't first hand. But you have a source right? So that Trump's what I experienced first hand, right?

Go ahead, make your case against asset forfeiture, cite sources and case law if you must.

I have years of first hand experience, you don't need to believe me, I don't frankly care what you think. But the member here who doesn't know anything else benefit from hearing a knowledgeable discussion on the matter and not the 10th grade personal attacks you resorted to when confronted with experience on a topic you clearly do not understand.

for someone who says you don't care, you really really really like having extended internet arguments.

edit - saying this not meant as a personal attack, just something that really sticks out to me as i try to take a step back and read through all info presented in this thread on the subject, as well as peruse some more outside sources on the pros/cons of forfeiture.

[voodoo_man]

for someone who says you don't care, you really really really like having extended internet arguments.

edit - saying this not meant as a personal attack, just something that really sticks out to me as i try to take a step back and read through all info presented in this thread on the subject, as well as peruse some more outside sources on the pros/cons of forfeiture.

Did you read my last statement? I am not arguing, as arguing would mean I may be wrong, which is not possible as I have first hand experience on this topic and would like to educate people rather than allow ignorance to win.

Furthermore, there are plenty of members here who spend the time to educate people on things they may not understand, yet no one questions them on their knowledge or statements. Does this mean people want to troll me? Maybe. I enjoy discussion on topics as they allow for not only understanding but further knowledge on a topic which may otherwise be glossed over in ignorance.

[fishing]

http://media.mlive.com/saginawnews/photo/-811a8d4c433f0f65.jpg

[ssb]

Your instant response in the form of a personal attack and not one on the substance of the topic is a clear indication that you are either trolling or do not know what you don't know.

I don't care what your state's legislative reports say, nor do they have any impact on what I have seen and done first hand. But you have a source right? So that Trump's what I experienced first hand, right?

Go ahead, make your case against asset forfeiture, cite sources and case law if you must.

I have years of first hand experience, you don't need to believe me, I don't frankly care what you think. But the member here who doesn't know anything else benefit from hearing a knowledgeable discussion on the matter and not the 10th grade personal attacks you resorted to when confronted with experience on a topic you clearly do not understand.

You get personal attacks because that's what you give. You treat others like shit, you receive shit in response. Get off your pedestal, and drop your dumbass "I'm only here to educate" routine.

I don't give a damn if every last seizure affidavit you've ever put your name on stemmed from pulling over Pookie and Ray Ray whom you caught red-handed selling heroin to middle schoolers. You doing the right thing when you're not busy expecting people to not store their preworkout in anything but its original container doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the state of the law and what it allows for, and it doesn't change the reality that my state's highway patrol has a tendency to seize millions of dollars of cash per year absent any accusation of wrongdoing because, in the words of one officer dumb enough to allow himself to be interviewed, "The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," rather than on your person in your vehicle.

And by the way, there was a period of my life where I did nothing but work on property forfeitures related to drug crimes as well as evictions of dealers from their apartments. So yes, I have a tiny bit of experience with this matter -- and, to be frank, a hell of a lot more understanding of the legal structure surrounding this practice than you do. I also watched my boss go through the same "side of the drug dealers" routine you pulled here. There is nothing in your initial post that cannot be achieved with a restraining order on the property stemming from a criminal charge, and not wanting some dude who bought a car on eBay to have his shit stolen because "training and experience" tells a local officer that drug dealers sometimes also carry large sums of cash doesn't make me want drug dealers to keep their money.

[LockedBreech]

Well, it's probably stupid to wade into thls thread, so I'll quietly give two cents and then rapidly retreat while using a pine branch to sweep away my tracks.

As an attorney, I have no conceptual problem with the idea of civil asset forfeiture. If you got something unlawfully, you don't deserve to keep it. That's a pretty well-settled concept in law. You can find examples in contract law, such as unjust enrichment, or tax law, such as the consequences of unreported taxable income. You're not allowed to have stuff unlawfully.

My problem is practical. My (actually considerable) research into the topic suggests that as the process is currently implemented, there is insufficient due process to make sure the right people are having their things taken in the right way. This was my opinion before I was a defense attorney, actually before I was a prosecutor as well. When I learned about and researched this topic in law school, and stayed abreast of it over the last few years, it has continued to trouble me.

Are most law enforcement agencies using the process properly? Probably, yes. In most cases, assets are probably being taken from people who committed a crime to obtain them. However, the ends cannot justify the means here. Are there law enforcement agencies that use them as a cash cow? Absolutely. As a prosecutor, I once negotiated a complex plea deal that involved the release back to the defendant of $5,000 or so in cash that was almost certainly obtained in the performance of acts of prostitution. In the deal, I was able to secure convictions for two major precursor offenses, as well as stipulate that cash be directed first to roughly $3,100 in restitution for an associated property damage charge as a condition of the probation. The police department was furious with me. I received angry calls from the evidence chief, two sergeants, and a lieutenant, as well as an angry email from the attorney in our office who helped the local law enforcement agencies carry out civil forfeiture. I stood behind my deal, it was a just result. It made a victim whole, and it secured significant precursor convictions to allow for possible felony-level charges on any further same or similar drug offenses or property offenses. Still, I was excoriated. That tells that at least for that one agency, doing justice wasn't the issue, getting spending money in the coffers was the issue.

That troubled the hell out of me, and should trouble the hell out of anyone. Take things away from people who have obtained them unlawfully, but provide a high standard to make sure those systems aren't ripe for abuse or seen as "bonus" sources of funding that would incentivize overly aggressive forfeiture tactics at the expense of just results.

Okay, fleeing now.

[TC215]

I've worked drugs for the last 7 years, so obviously asset forfeiture is something I'm pretty familiar with.

In my state, we have to have probable cause to seize anything. We then have five days to have a hearing before a judge, who determines if PC exists or not. If the judge finds PC, the matter gets turned over to the state and we go from there. If the judge decides that PC didn't exist, the property gets returned to the owner.

Taking a drug dealer's money hurts them- maybe more than taking their actual product. I will say this, though-- As many times as I've seized money throughout my career, I've never had a single person protest the seizure in court and try to get their money back. That's just the cost of doing business to them.

I am quite confident that I've never seized anything from an innocent person. Has the process ever been abused? Of course it has, including in my state, where some incidents have caused several new laws in recent years. But, overall, I think most people do it the right way, and it's a good tool.

I do see how people unfamiliar with the process or the law would think of it as being wrong, though.

ETA: My state also strengthened the money laundering law, because of money being seized without anyone being charged. It used to be about impossible to charge someone with money laundering, but it's a little easier now.

[fishing]

I've worked drugs for the last 7 years, so obviously asset forfeiture is something I'm pretty familiar with.

In my state, we have to have probable cause to seize anything. We then have five days to have a hearing before a judge, who determines if PC exists or not. If the judge finds PC, the matter gets turned over to the state and we go from there. If the judge decides that PC didn't exist, the property gets returned to the owner.

Taking a drug dealer's money hurts them- maybe more than taking their actual product. I will say this, though-- As many times as I've seized money throughout my career, I've never had a single person protest the seizure in court and try to get their money back. That's just the cost of doing business to them.

I am quite confident that I've never seized anything from an innocent person. Has the process ever been abused? Of course it has, including in my state, where some incidents have caused several new laws in recent years. But, overall, I think most people do it the right way, and it's a good tool.

I do see how people unfamiliar with the process or the law would think of it as being wrong, though.

it is kind of difficult to pay for a good lawyer who'll atleast have a chance of getting property back, after your money and other things have been seized...

are you equally certain that anything you have participated in seizing is directly and completely from whatever criminal activity caused the pc standard to be met?

[fishing]

That troubled the hell out of me, and should trouble the hell out of anyone. Take things away from people who have obtained them unlawfully, but provide a high standard to make sure those systems aren't ripe for abuse or seen as "bonus" sources of funding that would incentivize overly aggressive forfeiture tactics at the expense of just results...

in an era of generally diminishing funding/resources - forfeiture clearly incentives some behaviors on the part of the "collectors" that are quite self-serving and may not be to the benefit of the broader population.

[fishing]

Did you read my last statement? I am not arguing, as arguing would mean I may be wrong, which is not possible as I have first hand experience on this topic and would like to educate people rather than allow ignorance to win.

Furthermore, there are plenty of members here who spend the time to educate people on things they may not understand, yet no one questions them on their knowledge or statements. Does this mean people want to troll me? Maybe. I enjoy discussion on topics as they allow for not only understanding but further knowledge on a topic which may otherwise be glossed over in ignorance.

is it possible then that while all cases involving forfeiture that you have been involved in or contributed to are on the up and up (i'd like to believe that they are), those cases represent a small fraction of the overall instances of use of this tactic?

its clear that you are defending forfeiture as a whole, but are specifically providing evidence only for forfeiture when conducted by or involving you in a professional capability.

[TC215]

it is kind of difficult to pay for a good lawyer who'll atleast have a chance of getting property back, after your money and other things have been seized...

are you equally certain that anything you have participated in seizing is directly and completely from whatever criminal activity caused the pc standard to be met?

First, you don't have to have an attorney to file to get your money/property back. It's a pretty simple process. I've had numerous people file to get their vehicles back, but never money.

Second- Yes.

You're showing your ignorance of the whole process. Obviously it differs from state to state.

[Hambo]

Why do you people hate me?

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, it's because you're getting super rich off of Glock owners and I'm jealous.

[voodoo_man]

@ssb - the only routine I have is to freely post knowledge which members here would otherwise not have. If that is a personal attack on you then I highly recommend you put me on ignore and not respond to my posts or read them.

Your experience is not my experience. It is not what I am or have been talking about and it is the same thing as calling an ADA a law enforcement officer. Sure they sorta do the same thing but only one carries a gun for a living and responds to calls the other only learns about in writing or by testimony. Your experience is inapplicable and therefore not relevant to the topic.

If that offends you I suggest you refer to my suggestion above.



is it possible then that while all cases involving forfeiture that you have been involved in or contributed to are on the up and up (i'd like to believe that they are), those cases represent a small fraction of the overall instances of use of this tactic?

its clear that you are defending forfeiture as a whole, but are specifically providing evidence only for forfeiture when conducted by or involving you in a professional capability.

Not really sure what you are getting at?

[fishing]

Not really sure what you are getting at?

you are defending the practice based on your personal experiences with it as well as your claimed in-depth knowledge of how it works.
i am saying here that i genuinely hope and believe that the instances of forfeiture involving you were for the right reasons, done the right way and produced the right effects.

that does not = the entire practice in all it's forms and variations without your involvement or control being a good thing. good on paper and conceptually is one thing, good in terms of actual implementation and results is another.

[fishing]

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, it's because you're getting super rich off of Glock owners and I'm jealous.

did you see his new McLaren?

[MistWolf]

What checks and balances are in place to prevent abuses? If there are no charges brought, no trial and no conviction, what is in place to ensure that only monies, assets and properties obtained through illegal means are seized?

[TC215]

What checks and balances are in place to prevent abuses? If there are no charges brought, no trial and no conviction, what is in place to ensure that only monies, assets and properties obtained through illegal means are seized?

It will differ from state to state, but as I posted earlier, we have to have probable cause, and have a hearing in front of a judge within five days.

[PearTree]

are you equally certain that anything you have participated in seizing is directly and completely from whatever criminal activity caused the pc standard to be met?

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever on forfeiture? If so, why would you ask this?

Now just to clarify my experience is from Florida, so to be fair laws are different from state to state.

[fishing]

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever on forfeiture? If so, why would you ask such a stupid question like this?

Please educate me on my stupidity good sir.

[PearTree]

Please educate me on my stupidity good sir.
Edited my post to be less snarky, it's a requirement in Florida.

[voodoo_man]

you are defending the practice based on your personal experiences with it as well as your claimed in-depth knowledge of how it works.
i am saying here that i genuinely hope and believe that the instances of forfeiture involving you were for the right reasons, done the right way and produced the right effects.

that does not = the entire practice in all it's forms and variations without your involvement or control being a good thing. good on paper and conceptually is one thing, good in terms of actual implementation and results is another.

Again not sure as to what you are referring to. Obviously I have no control over things that happen without my influence and obviously not all people are equal.

What happens in other states with other laws is something I simply do not care about, statehood allows those people to fight laws in ways they are allowed. This is similar to DUI check points in this respect.


What checks and balances are in place to prevent abuses? If there are no charges brought, no trial and no conviction, what is in place to ensure that only monies, assets and properties obtained through illegal means are seized?

From my experience:

One officer can sieze items which they believe are fruits of a crime or illegal (drugs etc) and money if associated with a intent to deliver charge.

For any serious asset seizure it requires at the minimum an officer, a supervisor, a dozen forms, IA to get a copy and keep a file, then at least two ADAs one who receives it then a supervisor to sign off, sometimes getting a judge's signature for an order or not depending on the circumstances. Then and only then will a final check be done by a supervisor of a narc asset officer/supervisor someone who know deals with this type of stuff and then those items can be taken - ranges from cars to houses to bank accounts.

Can abuses happen ? Only if all the people in the chain either miss something or intentionally disregard obvious safeguards. All of which opens everyone to exposure of prosecution under our state laws.

The vast majority of people do not fight the seizure. When given the opportunity to hand over items they do so to escape prosecution of a particular crime when they are facing numerous charges.

[Hambo]

did you see his new McLaren?

And he bought a Brit car instead of a Weismann. The hits just keep on coming.

[ssb]

@ssb - the only routine I have is to freely post knowledge which members here would otherwise not have. If that is a personal attack on you then I highly recommend you put me on ignore and not respond to my posts or read them.

Your experience is not my experience. It is not what I am or have been talking about and it is the same thing as calling an ADA a law enforcement officer. Sure they sorta do the same thing but only one carries a gun for a living and responds to calls the other only learns about in writing or by testimony. Your experience is inapplicable and therefore not relevant to the topic.

If that offends you I suggest you refer to my suggestion above.

You really don't get it, do you?

You (I hope) do the right thing with your seizures. You are (I hope) using the procedure to target items used in the commission of, or received as proceeds from, some sort of illegal activity. When you articulate whatever showing is required in Pennsylvania for a forfeiture warrant, (I hope) you have specific crime in mind that the property to be forfeited is tied to. That's great! Contrary to what you sometimes post on the internet, it sounds like you've done your job well and with integrity.

None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the state of the law and what it, in practice, has allowed for. You carrying a gun and a badge is absolutely irrelevant here. You have experience in how you (and vicariously, your coworkers) have used the tool. I have experience in seeing not just you (figuratively), but hundreds of officers from the Highway Patrol, several Sheriff's Departments, and city police from several major (or, at least what counts for "major" in my part of the country) local departments write up, along with more than a passing familiarity with the statutory requirements and governing case law for the procedure. I saw what they articulated as cause for the forfeiture, and along with others I prepared what I needed to prepare to make it happen later on. And I'll be honest in saying that I cannot recall a single piece of paper which crossed my desk and suggested any sort of ulterior motive on the part of the officer. I was assigned to an organization which dealt with drug trafficking. They locked up drug traffickers, took their cars, drugs, guns, and money, sold the cars or used them for UC vehicles, and kicked them out of apartment complexes in the hope that removing the problem children would allow the honest people who lived there to lead a better life -- all in addition to bringing my office case work which led to a steady stream of convictions. Except for a handful of isolated incidents, it seems like they did a great job.

I shouldn't need a caveat of "I really, really, really respect law enforcement and cannot even begin to suggest that any LEO would ever do a bad job, ever" to discuss this issue. Your expectation that such a thing -- combined with experience as an LEO (which I don't claim to be or consider myself to be, by the way) -- is required to discuss this issue intelligently is, frankly, insulting. I've got plenty of experience in the matter (you assumed, incorrectly, that I do not). Nevertheless, even if I didn't get the experience of doing a stint with a regional drug and violent crime task force, I would be fully capable of discussing the issue intelligently. Field experience is not a prerequisite here. Somebody doesn't have to be a cop to voice a complaint. You, as a cop, can sometimes (but not always) add a valuable perspective to an issue. That doesn't make you the be-all, end-all authority on it, contrary to what you seem to believe.

Furthermore, I'm not against civil forfeiture. As LockedBreech noted, it's well enshrined in our legal system that you don't get to keep ill-gotten gains, whether they be the proceeds from a drug transaction or the movie rights to your life of crime biopic. I am, however, against how the process has at times been used in my state and, apparently, across the country. I do think that critical due process elements are lacking, that in certain cases it incentivizes "policing for profit" and leads to a sort of soft corruption, and that fairly straightforward reforms ought to be implemented. I also don't think it's mutually exclusive to advocate for those reforms yet still want LEOs to have the tools necessary to take the tools of crime and proceeds of crime away from criminals.

A short list:
1) Probable cause for the forfeiture must include an articulation of a specific criminal offense, rather than generalities (in my state, there are patterns of judges signing off on "PC" that appears to be mere generalities). I would greatly prefer that the forfeiture come with an arrest attached, but I realize that this is unlikely. The current system has allowed cases of people who happen to fit a pattern of wrongdoing having their property seized, despite no articulation of what specific offense the property is tied to (one example included a large sum of cash in a backpack, found during a consent search during a stop for speeding -- no illegality apart from the speeding was ever alleged, with the PC largely being made of "he fit the profile of a trafficker:" out of state tags, large sum of cash concealed in the vehicle. The person was coming from a neighboring state to buy a vehicle he'd found on eBay).
2) After PC for the forfeiture has been established, an adversarial hearing must be available as a matter of right within a specified time period.
3) I believe the burden of proof for going forward at that forfeiture hearing ought to be higher than it is (currently, preponderance of the evidence in my state -- 50.1%; would prefer clear and convincing evidence standard here).
4) Cash seized under civil forfeiture and the proceeds from the sale of property should be passed on to the state, rather than remaining in the seizing municipality. Make a "Fund filled with forfeited stuff that we're going to use exclusively for providing resources to local LE agencies" if you like -- I have no problem with that, any more than I have a problem with the fines from DV cases going to fund shelters and social programs. What I want is to remove the incentive for the local agency (think: town of <10,000 with a highway that happens to run through a half-mile wide finger of the city limits [which may or may not have been re-drawn specifically to include the highway], not just your own city) to seize something with the expectation of, "that's a new light set for our cruisers." If property is to be used for law enforcement purposes (locally, seized vehicles are often used for UC vehicles for a time prior to being sold), that's fine with me.

[Josh Runkle]

But I assume you are ok with criminals keeping their take, hence the "fuck civil forfeiture".

Are we discussing "criminals" or "alleged criminals"?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

You really don't get it, do you?

You (I hope) do the right thing with your seizures. You are (I hope) using the procedure to target items used in the commission of, or received as proceeds from, some sort of illegal activity. When you articulate whatever showing is required in Pennsylvania for a forfeiture warrant, (I hope) you have specific crime in mind that the property to be forfeited is tied to. That's great! Contrary to what you sometimes post on the internet, it sounds like you've done your job well and with integrity.

None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the state of the law and what it, in practice, has allowed for. You carrying a gun and a badge is absolutely irrelevant here. You have experience in how you (and vicariously, your coworkers) have used the tool. I have experience in seeing not just you (figuratively), but hundreds of officers from the Highway Patrol, several Sheriff's Departments, and city police from several major (or, at least what counts for "major" in my part of the country) local departments write up. I saw what they articulated as cause for the forfeiture, and along with others I prepared what I needed to prepare to make it happen later on. And I'll be honest in saying that I cannot recall a single piece of paper which crossed my desk and suggested any sort of ulterior motive on the part of the officer. I was assigned to an organization which dealt with drug trafficking. They locked up drug traffickers, took their cars, drugs, guns, and money, sold the cars or used them for UC vehicles, and kicked them out of apartment complexes in the hope that removing the problem children would allow the honest people who lived there to lead a better life -- all in addition to bringing my office case work which led to a steady stream of convictions. Except for a handful of isolated incidents, it seems like they did a great job.

I shouldn't need a caveat of "I really, really, really respect law enforcement and cannot even begin to suggest that any LEO would ever do a bad job, ever" to discuss this issue. Your expectation that such a thing -- combined with experience as an LEO (which I don't claim to be or consider myself to be, by the way) -- is required to discuss this issue intelligently is, frankly, insulting.

Furthermore, I'm not against civil forfeiture. As LockedBreech noted, it's well enshrined in our legal system that you don't get to keep ill-gotten gains, whether they be the proceeds from a drug transaction or the movie rights to your life of crime biopic. I am, however, against how the process has at times been used in my state and, apparently, across the country. I do think that critical due process elements are lacking, that in certain cases it incentivizes "policing for profit" and leads to a sort of soft corruption, and that fairly straightforward reforms ought to be implemented. I also don't think it's mutually exclusive to advocate for those reforms yet still want LEOs to have the tools necessary to take the tools of crime and proceeds of crime away from criminals.

A short list:
1) Probable cause for the forfeiture must include an articulation of a specific criminal offense, rather than generalities (in my state, there are patterns of judges signing off on "PC" that appears to be mere generalities). I would greatly prefer that the forfeiture come with an arrest attached, but I realize that this is unlikely. The current system has allowed cases of people who happen to fit a pattern of wrongdoing having their property seized, despite no articulation of what specific offense the property is tied to (one example included a large sum of cash in a backpack, found during a consent search during a stop for speeding -- no illegality apart from the speeding was ever alleged, with the PC largely being made of "he fit the profile of a trafficker:" out of state tags, large sum of cash concealed in the vehicle. The person was coming from a neighboring state to buy a vehicle he'd found on eBay).
2) After PC for the forfeiture has been established, an adversarial hearing must be available as a matter of right within a specified time period.
3) I believe the burden of proof for going forward at that forfeiture hearing ought to be higher than it is (currently, preponderance of the evidence in my state -- 50.1%; would prefer clear and convincing evidence standard here).
4) Cash seized under civil forfeiture and the proceeds from the sale of property should be passed on to the state, rather than remaining in the seizing municipality. Make a "Fund filled with forfeited stuff that we're going to use exclusively for providing resources to local LE agencies" if you like -- I have no problem with that, any more than I have a problem with the fines from DV cases going to fund shelters and social programs. What I want is to remove the incentive for the local agency (think: town of <10,000 with a highway that happens to run through a half-mile wide finger of the city limits [which may or may not have been re-drawn specifically to include the highway], not just your own city) to seize something with the expectation of, "that's a new light set for our cruisers." If property is to be used for law enforcement purposes (locally, seized vehicles are often used for UC vehicles for a time prior to being sold), that's fine with me.

The above post is in direct contrast with your original post on this topic:


Posting this "side with me or side with drug dealers" bullshit while conflating civil forfeiture with criminal forfeiture is laughable. LEOs in my state seized ~$90 million in cash (not counting additional real or personal property) over a five year period without a single criminal charge attached. But please, keep wrecking your credibility and pretend that's the same as seizing some dealer's car when you do a felony stop and find meth bagged for sale inside.



So you are scaling yourself back because you know you came off like a complete tool, that's fine. Personal insults aside, you assumed too much and did not and maybe still do not, understand the level of experience I am referring to.

You did a lot of reading in this topic. That's fine. Everything you read someone like me wrote, even more so someone like me initiated the entire investigation. Then followed very detailed guidelines in order to make it effective in court.

Want to get upset at something? I've seen how the FBI and DEA do their long term investigations and that's completely different from how we do it, especially asset forfeiture. I do not like their system at all.

Back to the fact that the majority of the time, 98% at least, I have an arrest to go with my requests for seizure. This makes everything very smooth as I am not doing anything based on a person's patterns or whatnot, while that may be allowed I do not like that generally and only under specific circumstances should that avenue be used. Most know this and those who don't get taught quickly.

Furthermore, other than confiscated vehicles we use for a bit then sell, we get nothing. No money, no assets, nothing. We get to use a house once in a while to do some surveillance. Every time I hear people talking about PDs getting money I am really surprised because I wouldn't be driving the same shit box I am if we were doing that. We would also have a shit ton of new equipment.

That's a per state issue and that's something which each state has the ability to change through the proper protocols.

What my issue is, as I've stated repeatedly is that there is so much fake news and bullshit out there on this topic that people knee jerk hate it. I've never once seen an improper drug related seizure. When one seemed like it was on the line a supervisor would step in and either stop it completely or explain the right way of doing it, #1 issue has always been miseducation. Bad training sucks, no training is worse. This is LE after all and not all PDs or states are equal.

At the end of the day, asset forfeiture is absolutely required and absolutely misrepresented in the media.

[voodoo_man]

Are we discussing "criminals" or "alleged criminals"?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a thread on this already.

[ssb]

The above post is in direct contrast with your original post on this topic:

Wrong. You chose to whitewash the entire issue of civil forfeiture (an action against the property alone, rather than a seizure of assets as part of a criminal case) because you use it to lock up drug dealers and take their stuff, ergo, it must be great and fuck anybody who disagrees. I called that bullshit, because that's what it is.


So you are scaling yourself back because you know you came off like a complete tool, that's fine. Personal insults aside, you assumed too much and did not and maybe still do not, understand the level of experience I am referring to.

Do they teach this bullshit at Sayoc or something? You are not some sort of enlightened monk walking the earf handing out knowledge bombs. This is a big part of your presentation problem. This attitude determines how I treat you.


You did a lot of reading in this topic. That's fine. Everything you read someone like me wrote, even more so someone like me initiated the entire investigation. Then followed very detailed guidelines in order to make it effective in court.

I can promise you that the people who wrote what I read, and taught me what I know, had a lot more experience, education, and depth of understanding on the matter than you. None of them were members of your profession at the time of those writings, lectures, training sessions, and informal guidance/counseling/mentorship/whatever. Don't flatter yourself. Again: I don't need to walk around with a gun and a badge to know how a court proceeding (see also: my job...) works. Your job is a part of the process, but not its entirety. That limits the usefulness of your observation, which is something you seem unable to grasp here and elsewhere.


Want to get upset at something? I've seen how the FBI and DEA do their long term investigations and that's completely different from how we do it, especially asset forfeiture. I do not like their system at all.

Good for you.


Back to the fact that the majority of the time, 98% at least, I have an arrest to go with my requests for seizure. This makes everything very smooth as I am not doing anything based on a person's patterns or whatnot, while that may be allowed I do not like that generally and only under specific circumstances should that avenue be used. Most know this and those who don't get taught quickly.

Good for you. Somebody wrote good policies and you did your job by following them. Unfortunately, that's not universal and it's a big enough problem in enough states to draw outcry and attempts at reform.


Furthermore, other than confiscated vehicles we use for a bit then sell, we get nothing. No money, no assets, nothing. We get to use a house once in a while to do some surveillance. Every time I hear people talking about PDs getting money I am really surprised because I wouldn't be driving the same shit box I am if we were doing that. We would also have a shit ton of new equipment.

That's a per state issue and that's something which each state has the ability to change through the proper protocols.

Which is what I'm advocating, nevermind your assumption prior to me even stating my actual position that I am "against forfeiture."


What my issue is, as I've stated repeatedly is that there is so much fake news and bullshit out there on this topic that people knee jerk hate it. I've never once seen an improper drug related seizure. When one seemed like it was on the line a supervisor would step in and either stop it completely or explain the right way of doing it, #1 issue has always been miseducation. Bad training sucks, no training is worse. This is LE after all and not all PDs or states are equal.

At the end of the day, asset forfeiture is absolutely required and absolutely misrepresented in the media.

No, at the end of the day your very limited field of experience doesn't match up with the horror stories. Neither does mine, frankly. The difference between us? I'm not naive enough to believe that my experience is universal, and an appropriate basis to make such pronouncements. I also have sufficient understanding of things you seem to know (or care) very little about, again because you are taking your very limited field of experience (no, it isn't your years on the job that I'm calling limited...) and assuming that all must be well because of that.

[blues]

Madge!

[TR675]

I was the asset forfeiture attorney for a mid-sized county in Texas about 10 years ago. My take on asset forfeiture, limited by my experience at that time and place:

Our system sucked. The law allowed officers to seize property that was used in the commission of certain (many) felonies. Once seized the DA's office (i.e., me) would file a civil lawsuit to keep that property. Being a prosecutor whose day job was running a misdemeanor court by myself at the time, having an additional 60-80 civil cases on my docket at any given time was a hassle and a low priority.

The way it usually worked out was that I would get a default judgment or, if the defendant's attorney was paying attention, would "settle" with him and keep half of the property or its proceeds at sale. None of these cases actually went to trial, and that is a good thing - for most of the drug cases the judges were setting our trial dates were well before the backed-up lab was returning results so we wouldn't have met our burden of proof, which was only a preponderance of the evidence in any event.

Other than those procedural problems, the whole system was a screwing for the defendants. We mainly filed to forfeit cash money and cars. Poor people, even those committing drug felonies, don't really have the nicest cars in the world, and typically they need them to get around and buy groceries. I had one exception to this, an Escalade with a primo sound system that our narcotics guys really liked slumming around in for a year or so. But for the most part, we were forfeiting Granma's Delta 88, or 5 year old Tauruses, or $10,000 Hondas, etc. The pressure from the police agencies to keep this up, even if the ownership of the vehicle was in question, or if there was a question regarding whether the actual owner knew of the defendant's felonious use of the vehicle, was intense. One dipshit constable insisted that I file an action on some dork's Yamaha bike after he got charged with felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, which was a giant waste of time given the value of the bike. Generally, the officers, especially in the smaller agencies in our area, were mad for the proceeds of the sales because their agencies got a cut. The owners of the cars, even if they had a meritorious defense, didn't have the money to fight a civil lawsuit in addition to the criminal charges.

All in all, I thought it was a corrupting and nasty business. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth and was a minor factor in me leaving the office for greener pastures.

A bill has now been introduced in Texas to turn civil asset forfeiture into criminal asset forfeiture, requiring a felony conviction before the property can be forfeited. I support this 100%.

Asset forfeiture can be a good thing if done right, but in my neck of the woods - it wasn't.

[Willard]

I am not arguing, as arguing would mean I may be wrong, which is not possible as I have first hand experience on this topic .

Let your local judge know you can't possibly be wrong because you have first hand experience and maybe you can save your agency overtime for court. Good news for taxpayer.

I hope this was not a serious statement, as it is an extremely self deluded and aggrandizing one, and indicates difficulty with critical reasoning. Most of us could possibly spend the rest of our lives going through the history books, personal experiences, day to day, etc and typing about people who have "first hand experience" with topics and get it wrong. Including things we all have personally screwed up. I have first hand experience with military and police "stuff" for a couple of decades, and I still got things wrong. Based on your rationale, people with first hand combat experience don't get it wrong (fog and friction will do you in no matter your experience), your Chief never gets anything wrong because he has first hand experience with being a chief (no more complaints about the brass)....news folks never get anything wrong because they have first hand experience with being news folks..doctors never make a misdiagnosis because they are "first hand experiencing" doctors (forget the malpractice insurance or even personal liability of that matter), politicians of any stripe must be correct because they have "first hand," etc. May want to rethink that.



@ssb - the only routine I have is to freely post knowledge which members here would otherwise not have.

I'd venture if neither of us ever posted anything, the forum wouldn't want of knowledge. I'd never make that post. Do you maybe see how you come across as a special know it all snowflake or no?

[Willard]

bill has now been introduced in Texas to turn civil asset forfeiture into criminal asset forfeiture, requiring a felony conviction before the property can be forfeited. I support this 100%. As do I.

[Paul Sharp]

... A bill has now been introduced in Texas to turn civil asset forfeiture into criminal asset forfeiture, requiring a felony conviction before the property can be forfeited. I support this 100%..

Whoa... Guys were or are able to start asset forfeiture on misdemeanor cases?!

[TR675]

Whoa... Guys were or are able to start asset forfeiture on misdemeanor cases?!

Very rarely, IIRC. Haven't looked at the statute for a while. I think it would have require multiple offenses if misdemeanors were eligible. Even if so the vast majority of forfeitures were felonies - the bill would now require a conviction before forfeiture instead of in a civil suit before or even regardless of a conviction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Willard]

Very rarely, IIRC. Haven't looked at the statute for a while. I think it would have require multiple offenses if misdemeanors were eligible. Even if so the vast majority of forfeitures were felonies - the bill would now require a conviction before forfeiture instead of in a civil suit before or even regardless of a conviction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like misdemeanors of certain types: Link http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.59.htm

[TR675]

Looks like misdemeanors of certain types: Link http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.59.htm

Looks like offbeat stuff - illegal dumping, dog fighting, identity theft. They may have added them since I was doing that work. In any event, I never did one of those cases and I'd guess they are not worth pursuing for the most part. Better uses of attorney time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LockedBreech]

Whoa... Guys were or are able to start asset forfeiture on misdemeanor cases?!

In at least some places, yes. The $5,000 situation I laid out in my post was a large series of charges, all misdemeanors.

Oh god, what am I doing back here, it's a free-fire zone! BRIDGE, ONE TO BEAM UP!

[HCM]

Looks like offbeat stuff - illegal dumping, dog fighting, identity theft. They may have added them since I was doing that work. In any event, I never did one of those cases and I'd guess they are not worth pursuing for the most part. Better uses of attorney time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thred drift: Dog Fighting ? Yeah... fuck those guys, any thing to put the screws to them.

OK, back to squabbling.

[voodoo_man]

Thanks ssb and your friends for not only continuing to personally attack me instead of talking substance but repeatedly proving yourselves to be incapable of having a mature conversation.

It doesnt matter how you think I come off, your statements do not change my experience nor does it have any effect on how things are done. You guys spent time posting bullshit and attacking me for absolutely zero purpose which doesn't help anyone here in any way. Good luck to you if you believe that is the proper way to have a conversation. I will refrain from responding to your comments from here on out as they provide no benefit to anyone.

Just to add, taking my posts out of context is going to win you any awards. It is tantamount to telling someone they did not experience something when they clearly did, as if you know what they know or experienced. That's not only a weak way to address someone who is informing you of something you have no concept of but it also drives home the point you aren't here for knowledge but to throw personal attacks.

And of course I'll leave this very fine nugget as it's very clear you guys are getting butthurt about something you are creating. You guys reference attitude? How exactly do you see the inflection of my posts? How can you tell if I am being sarcastic or completely positive in my statements? You cannot. You are adding that inflection. As I've stated repeatedly on here when people like you decide to throw a toddler styled temper tantrum over something out perceived to be an "attitude* type post. You either add the negativity yourself, because you have no ability to actually provide any form of technical conversation or you are butthurt to such a high degree that it makes you incapable of distinguishing from your anger and the neutrality of an online post.

Looks like you guys learned several things today.

[rauchman]

Why do you people hate me?

Sir, you are a model of patience and maximum kudos to you for doing the job you do.

After letting my emotions get the better of me and unwittingly starting this thread, I'll say it this way.

There is either due process of law or there isn't. VoodooMan and the other LE folks here see civil forfeiture through the lens of LE and see it as an asset for LE and in their experience it's justified. I haven't walked in their shoes and don't know the in's and out's of their experience. Having said that, in my view....it is wrong. It gives LE the potential to arbitrarily steal from people. I could sort of (but not fully) buy that after a person has been convicted through due process of law of whatever crime that there assets are seized. But to have your property taken because of being suspected of something, in my mind that is breaking the covenant of trust that is granted to law enforcement from the public. It is giving LE way too much power. If there is suspicion of someone doing something outside the bounds of the law, then get a warrant, arrest and have a trial.

There is either due process of law, or there isn't.

[GuanoLoco]

Read Freakonomics. If there is an incentive that drives asset forfeiture - and there most assuredly is - then human nature will drive the use and inevitable abuse of it.

For convicted criminals - no brainer. However, placing the burden of proof reclaim forfeited assets after-the-fact for those merely suspected of crime is IMHO too much. Even a very low % of well-meaning but incorrect forfeitures and inevitable abuse is more that I care to accept.

Also, it's not just impropriety but the appearance of impropriety that erodes the public trust.

[TR675]

Also, it's not just impropriety but the appearance of impropriety that erodes the public trust.

This is a really important point.

[blues]

There is either due process of law or there isn't. VoodooMan and the other LE folks here see civil forfeiture through the lens of LE and see it as an asset for LE and in their experience it's justified.

I think that your remark should be amended to "some" other LE folks instead of painting with such a broad brush. I have stood up in open court on behalf of defendants under investigation by me and by extension my agency, (and whom I suspected "might" be guilty), because I felt the U.S. Attorney's Office was overzealous in indicting and jumped the gun by bringing the case to trial without sufficient evidence of guilt.

Any law or tool of law enforcement can be abused or misused if not applied judiciously. It is up to the LEOs themselves, their agency, the attorneys for the government, the attorneys for the defense, and the courts to ensure that that does not happen. And yet it still sometimes does. I have seen it and I have railed against it when I have become aware of it. We are not all marching in lockstep with programs and decisions that we find untenable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the tool itself is evil...but if it is employed outside both the letter and / or spirit of the law it is cause for grave concern. And in that regard I feel your concerns are fully warranted.

I know it's an archaic concept but there is still a case for justice to be served via the prudent use of the tools afforded law enforcement...and not just petty departmental "wish lists" at the cost of turning a blind eye toward that lofty goal. It can be done because I've seen it done...as well as its opposite.

[voodoo_man]

As has been stated repeatedly, it is the media which contributes to the improper appearance of this valid tool. As was already conceded here, being able to keep something a person gained through illegal means is not just wrong it goes counter to the way the law works. The difference here is that there is a stigma because people who are otherwise completely ignorant of the topic believe it's stealing.

If you believe so adamantly about it, lobby your politicians to change it in your area. In other areas, like mine, there have been a handful of really bad examples of abuse, the majority of which were litigated in favor of the state.

[rauchman]

I think that your remark should be amended to "some" other LE folks instead of painting with such a broad brush. I have stood up in open court on behalf of defendants under investigation by me and by extension my agency, (and whom I suspected "might" be guilty), because I felt the U.S. Attorney's Office was overzealous in indicting and jumped the gun by bringing the case to trial without sufficient evidence of guilt.
.

Totally agree and my mistake (hands type too fast for the brain sometimes....intended to write the post with something similar to your phrasing). For some reason, I'm not able to edit my post, but will assuming edit capability comes back.

[blues]

I'd like to bring up a situation that is parenthetical to this discussion but which illuminates that the government is also capable of doing something noble...

Very early in my federal career I was a Revenue Officer for a couple of years and charged with finding delinquent taxpayers and ensuring that they either filed their returns or paid what they owed. (Oftentimes these matters could be simply resolved by the taxpayer agreeing to a payment plan over a period of months or years. No need for lawyers, court cases or gnashing of teeth.)

In a matter that will always be close to my heart I was assigned the case of an elderly Jamaican woman who was herself the caretaker of an even older woman in her charge for which she was compensated monetarily.

Well, it turns out that over a period of many years she had been sending what little money she had to a variety of televangelists, some of whom were fairly notorious if not nefarious. This (unsophisticated) woman barely had a pot to piss in but this is where her money went based upon her faith...while she lived barely above the poverty line. Yet her tax liability was deemed to be in the range of $50,000.00 due to the number of years this had been going on.

I was in a fix. As a government employee I was hardly in a position, (ethically or legally), to counsel her on faith or who she gave her money to. On the other hand I was charged with making sure that she not only filed but paid her legal debt. I tried to explain things to her as gently and carefully as I could (without going too far outside the lines of proper conduct).

In the end I went to my bosses and told them that I could not in good conscience pursue the collection of the debt as I felt it would impose undue hardship on a woman that barely understood how or why she owed the money. And you know what? The bosses agreed with me and wrote it off.

It was a day I felt particularly proud of the actions of the federal government and it is an event which to this day reminds me that good people can get it right by using the law in a way that serves the best interest of the country as a whole...even if the government doesn't necessarily get its pound of flesh.

[blues]

Totally agree and my mistake (hands type too fast for the brain sometimes....intended to write the post with something similar to your phrasing). For some reason, I'm not able to edit my post, but will assuming edit capability comes back.

Not necessary brother. Your saying so is more than enough.

[TC215]

There is either due process of law or there isn't. VoodooMan and the other LE folks here see civil forfeiture through the lens of LE and see it as an asset for LE and in their experience it's justified. I haven't walked in their shoes and don't know the in's and out's of their experience. Having said that, in my view....it is wrong. It gives LE the potential to arbitrarily steal from people. I could sort of (but not fully) buy that after a person has been convicted through due process of law of whatever crime that there assets are seized. But to have your property taken because of being suspected of something, in my mind that is breaking the covenant of trust that is granted to law enforcement from the public. It is giving LE way too much power. If there is suspicion of someone doing something outside the bounds of the law, then get a warrant, arrest and have a trial.

There is either due process of law, or there isn't.

I see it differently. Obviously, I can only speak to my experience and my own state. When we seize something, and go to a judge within 5 days, the person has a right to be there and present their side of the story. If the judge finds probable cause exists, the matter gets sent to my state's Department of Safety. The person then has the right to another hearing in front of an administrative law judge. We don't just take things with no oversight, and with no opportunity for the person to get their property back.

As to taking someone's property because they are suspected of something, well....We take away peoples' freedom because they are suspected of something, under the same legal threshold (probable cause).


Read Freakonomics. If there is an incentive that drives asset forfeiture - and there most assuredly is - then human nature will drive the use and inevitable abuse of it.

What is the incentive?

I have no other incentive for taking money other than to hurt drug dealers/traffickers. I do not benefit at all from seizing money. I could go out right now, make a six-figure seizure, and it would be forgotten about by the end of the week (seriously). Our drug unit has begged for new vehicles for over 5 years, which could easily be purchased out of the drug fund, with no luck. We simply don't benefit from the seizures (by "we", I mean my own agency. Other places may work differently).

When I teach drug interdiction classes, I do a block of instruction on asset forfeiture. We always end up talking about the morality/ethics of seizing property. I also play an hour long news special on "policing for profit" which shows some good seizures, and some really bad seizures. So I know the process does get abused, either from misunderstanding the law or even malice.

I know of drug task forces out there that pay their agents salaries through money from asset forfeiture. I am 100% against this, and feel like it is only asking for trouble.

I am also not against going to some type of criminal forfeiture system, instead of civil. We had a bill proposed a few years ago that was going to make it to where we could not seize anything until after a conviction. The trouble was, we could not seize or hold the property until that time came. So, under those circumstances, the property we would want to seize would be long gone before a conviction.

For the last few years, on search warrants, I've just seized any money as part of the warrant and not gone through the civil forfeiture process. That way, we can hold the money in evidence, and it gets awarded to us upon a conviction or guilty plea.

[rauchman]

I see it differently. Obviously, I can only speak to my experience and my own state. When we seize something, and go to a judge within 5 days, the person has a right to be there and present their side of the story. If the judge finds probable cause exists, the matter gets sent to my state's Department of Safety. The person then has the right to another hearing in front of an administrative law judge. We don't just take things with no oversight, and with no opportunity for the person to get their property back.

As to taking someone's property because they are suspected of something, well....We take away peoples' freedom because they are suspected of something, under the same legal threshold (probable cause).


What is the incentive?

I have no other incentive for taking money other than to hurt drug dealers/traffickers. I do not benefit at all from seizing money. I could go out right now, make a six-figure seizure, and it would be forgotten about by the end of the week (seriously). Our drug unit has begged for new vehicles for over 5 years, which could easily be purchased out of the drug fund, with no luck. We simply don't benefit from the seizures (by "we", I mean my own agency. Other places may work differently).

When I teach drug interdiction classes, I do a block of instruction on asset forfeiture. We always end up talking about the morality/ethics of seizing property. I also play an hour long news special on "policing for profit" which shows some good seizures, and some really bad seizures. So I know the process does get abused, either from misunderstanding the law or even malice.

I know of drug task forces out there that pay their agents salaries through money from asset forfeiture. I am 100% against this, and feel like it is only asking for trouble.

I am also not against going to some type of criminal forfeiture system, instead of civil. We had a bill proposed a few years ago that was going to make it to where we could not seize anything until after a conviction. The trouble was, we could not seize or hold the property until that time came. So, under those circumstances, the property we would want to seize would be long gone before a conviction.

For the last few years, on search warrants, I've just seized any money as part of the warrant and not gone through the civil forfeiture process. That way, we can hold the money in evidence, and it gets awarded to us upon a conviction or guilty plea.

Appreciate the insight and info. Regarding the bolded above, would it be more accurate to say, "We take away peoples' freedom because they broke the law and have been convicted in a court of law"?. The way your statement is currently worded makes me think Gestapo, Stazzi and the like. Also, while it does sound like some provision is made for the person suspected of some crime to come forward into court and make a case for their property to returned, isn't that flipping the whole burden of proof of guilt from the state to now being the burden of innocence for the accused? I'm in agreement with you in that criminal forfeiture would be more palatable, but civil forfeiture .......is wrong. Again, there is either due process of law, or there isn't. In civil forfeiture, it certainly sounds to me like there isn't.

[TC215]

Appreciate the insight and info. Regarding the bolded above, would it be more accurate to say, "We take away peoples' freedom because they broke the law and have been convicted in a court of law"?. The way your statement is currently worded makes me think Gestapo, Stazzi and the like. Also, while it does sound like some provision is made for the person suspected of some crime to come forward into court and make a case for their property to returned, isn't that flipping the whole burden of proof of guilt from the state to now being the burden of innocence for the accused? I'm in agreement with you in that criminal forfeiture would be more palatable, but civil forfeiture .......is wrong. Again, there is either due process of law, or there isn't. In civil forfeiture, it certainly sounds to me like there isn't.

No, I meant what I said. We put people in jail, and take away their freedom, when probable cause exists that they broke the law. Just like we use P.C. for civil forfeiture. I'm sure we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the merits of civil forfeiture....I believe it is a good tool, overall.

[rauchman]

No, I meant what I said. We put people in jail, and take away their freedom, when probable cause exists that they broke the law. Just like we use P.C. for civil forfeiture. I'm sure we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the merits of civil forfeiture....I believe it is a good tool, overall.

Appreciate your perspective on this and your civility. I'm sitting here really digesting what you said and the taking away of freedom....and I guess, yes, when going through the motions of the process of arresting someone, it's based on probable cause. Trials and all of that come later. Got it. Still can't get there on civil forfeiture, but as you say, we will respectfully agree to disagree. Again, appreciate the civility and insight in your response.

[ssb]

Appreciate the insight and info. Regarding the bolded above, would it be more accurate to say, "We take away peoples' freedom because they broke the law and have been convicted in a court of law"?. The way your statement is currently worded makes me think Gestapo, Stazzi and the like. Also, while it does sound like some provision is made for the person suspected of some crime to come forward into court and make a case for their property to returned, isn't that flipping the whole burden of proof of guilt from the state to now being the burden of innocence for the accused? I'm in agreement with you in that criminal forfeiture would be more palatable, but civil forfeiture .......is wrong. Again, there is either due process of law, or there isn't. In civil forfeiture, it certainly sounds to me like there isn't.

Part of the problem -- or at least the disconnect between people watching from the outside and people who do the work -- is that it's an issue most people see as criminal (taking the proceeds of crime) being litigated in a civil court. The burden of proof is lower (nobody's being found guilty), the "defendant" is somebody called "Five Hundred and Sixty Dollars and Thirty One Cents of U.S. Currency" rather than the guy selling pills in the club bathroom, and many of the presumptions and protections applicable in criminal court aren't present.

What I don't understand, however, is the resistance of many LE administrators in tying the procedure to a conviction. Have a PC threshold for temporarily detaining the property pending resolution of the case, forfeiture to be made upon conviction. That would likely solve much of the public angst surrounding the process while accounting for practical LE needs. That proposal got shot down in my state, largely due to the "drug dealers are gonna keep their Escalades" argument from LE and senior DAs.

[GuanoLoco]

>> What us the incentive?

Forfeiture by definition means that soem entity receives the forfeited money or goods. That entity, even if removed from the people performing, processing and approving the forfeiture will almost assuredly have a way of influencing the process. Perhaps by setting priorities, staffing, adjusting budgets or whatever. The possibilities are endless.

[Josh Runkle]

As was already conceded here, being able to keep something a person gained through illegal means is not just wrong it goes counter to the way the law works.

Again:

I'm totally cool with Due Process and a person being convicted by a jury of their peers who decide that the person gained an asset through illegal means, and then those assets being seized.

However, that is not what you are discussing. You are calling people criminals and saying that they gained those assets through illegal means, yet, what we are discussing are "alleged criminals" that "allegedly gained assets from illegal means".

That's quite a different thing. In your examples, who decided that they were a criminal that gained those assets through illegal means? A court? If so, then we've got no issue. On the other hand, if an entity that gains funds through the process of seizing said funds can simply declare someone a criminal or declare something illegal and then gain money from the allegation (when the accused might not want to pay $10,000 and a bunch of time to get $10,000 back), then there's a massive problem. Would the amounts seized change (even by 1%) if ALL of the money went to charity instead of the seizing agencies? If so, then there is a problem, and I would rather see 99 bad guys go free if it means 1 good guy doesn't get accidentally stomped. Our justice system allows murderers and the like to go free because of mistrials, or even mild doubt, simply because we believe it more important to be "absolutely 100% sure that the crime was committed and that the accused got the fairest possible trial". I believe that to be our system of government, and I do not believe asset forfeiture to be in line with those goals of a fair trial, the option of a jury of your peers and blind justice.

ETA: I stand opposed to your opinion on this singular topic, VDM. However, personal attacks from others are quite out of line. Hopefully people can disagree without becoming vicious.

[TC215]

What I don't understand, however, is the resistance of many LE administrators in tying the procedure to a conviction. Have a PC threshold for temporarily detaining the property pending resolution of the case, forfeiture to be made upon conviction. That would likely solve much of the public angst surrounding the process while accounting for practical LE needs. That proposal got shot down in my state, largely due to the "drug dealers are gonna keep their Escalades" argument from LE and senior DAs.

Even as a proponent of civil forfeiture, I would be 100% on board with this.

The issue in the past, at least in my state, was that there was really no way to charge someone you traffic stopped and found with hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in a trap or purpose-built hidden compartment, someone that was obviously trafficking drug proceeds. As I said earlier, the money laundering statute has been updated and given more "teeth" in the last couple of years, for this reason.

[voodoo_man]

Again:

I'm totally cool with Due Process and a person being convicted by a jury of their peers who decide that the person gained an asset through illegal means, and then those assets being seized.

However, that is not what you are discussing. You are calling people criminals and saying that they gained those assets through illegal means, yet, what we are discussing are "alleged criminals" that "allegedly gained assets from illegal means".

That's quite a different thing. In your examples, who decided that they were a criminal that gained those assets through illegal means? A court? If so, then we've got no issue. On the other hand, if an entity that gains funds through the process of seizing said funds can simply declare someone a criminal or declare something illegal and then gain money from the allegation (when the accused might not want to pay $10,000 and a bunch of time to get $10,000 back), then there's a massive problem. Would the amounts seized change (even by 1%) if ALL of the money went to charity instead of the seizing agencies? If so, then there is a problem, and I would rather see 99 bad guys go free if it means 1 good guy doesn't get accidentally stomped. Our justice system allows murderers and the like to go free because of mistrials, or even mild doubt, simply because we believe it more important to be "absolutely 100% sure that the crime was committed and that the accused got the fairest possible trial". I believe that to be our system of government, and I do not believe asset forfeiture to be in line with those goals of a fair trial, the option of a jury of your peers and blind justice.

ETA: I stand opposed to your opinion on this singular topic, VDM. However, personal attacks from others are quite out of line. Hopefully people can disagree without becoming vicious.

As another LEO here stated, we seize items based upon P.C. So the most blatantly obvious/simple version of this entire thing is the random car stop which ends up in a lawful seizure of a large amount of narcotics, large enough to warrant a felony distribution type charge (will be different per state obviously) and whatever money that person may have on them. This is all going to go to court, obviously and based solely on what happens in court will be the deciding factor as where the items seized went. The drugs, obviously, are processed as they will never be returned. The money and or vehicle we seize will sit until the end of the possible appeal process. A lot of times the people/defendants do not want to fight for the items back. In fact I've only had one person take a case to court to get their $8000ish dollars back even though he was found guilty, even though he had no tax returns for three years and even though he had been on public assistance and been housed in a "project" for his entire adult life. He didn't get his money back.

I think we can agree that while a judges ruling or a juries decision may be absolute at times, it may not be 100% correct. The fact remains that this tool is in existence because LE needs to be able to take items from criminals (especially after conviction) which are proceeds of crimes against the people of that area. This is something that must exist and due to the statehood, we have the disconnect from state to state. One state does it one way, one does it another way. This is really one of the core issues which needs to be addressed, the other obviously being the issue of fake information or blatantly wrong information given out freely which is accepted as doctrine.

As I've said before, where I work we do not get a penny from this process. No one benefits from it in any tangible way other than the state. We even have rules where the interest of the accounts cannot be used other than to deposit back into the account and accounted for. We have a ton of rules and the vast majority of the items seized are from "guilty" parties, if they are not guilty then they are given the opportunity to get back their personal items.

[Josh Runkle]

As another LEO here stated, we seize items based upon P.C. So the most blatantly obvious/simple version of this entire thing is the random car stop which ends up in a lawful seizure of a large amount of narcotics, large enough to warrant a felony distribution type charge (will be different per state obviously) and whatever money that person may have on them. This is all going to go to court, obviously and based solely on what happens in court will be the deciding factor as where the items seized went. The drugs, obviously, are processed as they will never be returned. The money and or vehicle we seize will sit until the end of the possible appeal process. A lot of times the people/defendants do not want to fight for the items back. In fact I've only had one person take a case to court to get their $8000ish dollars back even though he was found guilty, even though he had no tax returns for three years and even though he had been on public assistance and been housed in a "project" for his entire adult life. He didn't get his money back.

I think we can agree that while a judges ruling or a juries decision may be absolute at times, it may not be 100% correct. The fact remains that this tool is in existence because LE needs to be able to take items from criminals (especially after conviction) which are proceeds of crimes against the people of that area. This is something that must exist and due to the statehood, we have the disconnect from state to state. One state does it one way, one does it another way. This is really one of the core issues which needs to be addressed, the other obviously being the issue of fake information or blatantly wrong information given out freely which is accepted as doctrine.

As I've said before, where I work we do not get a penny from this process. No one benefits from it in any tangible way other than the state. We even have rules where the interest of the accounts cannot be used other than to deposit back into the account and accounted for. We have a ton of rules and the vast majority of the items seized are from "guilty" parties, if they are not guilty then they are given the opportunity to get back their personal items.

What I'm hearing is: "We have good motives and it works and we get it right 99% of the time". That still doesn't make it right or Constitutional. Yet, your disagreement doesn't make you a bad guy, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

What I'm hearing is: "We have good motives and it works and we get it right 99% of the time". That still doesn't make it right or Constitutional. Yet, your disagreement doesn't make you a bad guy, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I stated earlier in the thread, this topic is on par with the DUI checkpoint issue each state has to figure out for themselves.

Without getting into that topic, the country try is split on the laws. Some people take it out on the LEOs by way of protests and signs saying they won't put the window down. This topic is in the same boat as it changes sometimes drastically from state to state but the end goal is the same, righting the wrong done against the people.

It's also the reason bail hearings exist and sometimes the people trying to bail other out have to prove where the money comes from. This is primarily aimed at drug dealers and/or other types of criminals who have access to a lot of money.

[Rich@CCC]

I've been purposely staying out of this discussion as I don't really have a dog in the fight. I do have to ask one simple question though;

voodoo_man, Are you saying that all of the stories I have heard over the last 10-15 years about large amounts of cash being seized from people traveling to do face to face purchases of classic cars or the like are false? None of these ever happened? I have heard, though granted never witnessed far to many different stories to believe that every one of them is false. I'll admit it's possible, but not likely.

I am absolutely, 100% for forfeiture of ill gotten gains, be they cash, real or tangible assets. But the seizure had better be combined with a conviction for the alleged criminal activity.

[LockedBreech]

RE: Comparison to DWUI checkpoints / Bond hearings

I'm not sure the situations are fully analogous due to the potential depth of the harm.

A DWUI checkpoint, regardless of a person's position on those, places a relatively minimal burden on drivers. Take a PBT, let 'em look at your eyes, you're on your way. A few minutes. A hassle, but not a significant burden. Doesn't mean there aren't arguments against them, but I won't stir that pot.

Bond and bail hearings have the purpose of ensuring Defendants do not flee or cause harm before their guilt or innocence is ascertained. The burden here is quite a bit larger, but still designed to be temporary in nature.

Forfeiture seeks to permanently deprive people of property, often very valuable amounts and types of property, not temporarily hold them.

Of the three, from my position forfeiture requires a greater degree of both procedural and substantive due process for the same reason a Sentencing hearing has a higher degree of those than a Bond hearing. One is designed to be a temporary state of affairs until the truth is ascertained. The other is designed to take something permanently.

[voodoo_man]

I've been purposely staying out of this discussion as I don't really have a dog in the fight. I do have to ask one simple question though;

voodoo_man, Are you saying that all of the stories I have heard over the last 10-15 years about large amounts of cash being seized from people traveling to do face to face purchases of classic cars or the like are false? None of these ever happened? I have heard, though granted never witnessed far to many different stories to believe that every one of them is false. I'll admit it's possible, but not likely.

I am absolutely, 100% for forfeiture of ill gotten gains, be they cash, real or tangible assets. But the seizure had better be combined with a conviction for the alleged criminal activity.

I do not know every single instance in the time frame you have given. I will say that the majority of those which I have researched were not as egregious as the media has made them out to be. Those instances which I have researched have proven to be a few cases of actual wrong doing by the officers, mostly because they are either uneducated on the matter or lacked any training at all. This is a big part of the real issue.

The cases that people's money were taken and they had to prove where they got it have not been as common as the media would have you believe. Just like the protein scenario I had to explain here before, it is not common for the average person to drive around with 50k cash on their person and not have any proof of where they got it or where they are going. In some states with some loose regulation that would warrant the officer to take that money into their possession. That is there and I have never done so, unless it was accompanied by an arrest and other illegal items (drugs guns etc).

Furthermore when these situations do allegedly occur there has to be a court hearing and if the person can prove the legit source of the money then they get it all back no issues. What legimate person with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash will not be able to prove where the money came from? It just isn't reasonable to believe people would have that much money which they never had a single record of, especially in 2017.

The media never follows up with what happens on these cases because it isn't sexy. "Man has 50k stolen from him by police!!!!". "But gets it all back after proving he withdrew it from his account." That won't sell papers or get hits.


RE: Comparison to DWUI checkpoints / Bond hearings

I'm not sure the situations are fully analogous due to the potential depth of the harm.

A DWUI checkpoint, regardless of a person's position on those, places a relatively minimal burden on drivers. Take a PBT, let 'em look at your eyes, you're on your way. A few minutes. A hassle, but not a significant burden. Doesn't mean there aren't arguments against them, but I won't stir that pot.

Bond and bail hearings have the purpose of ensuring Defendants do not flee or cause harm before their guilt or innocence is ascertained. The burden here is quite a bit larger, but still designed to be temporary in nature.

Forfeiture seeks to permanently deprive people of property, often very valuable amounts and types of property, not temporarily hold them.

Of the three, from my position forfeiture requires a greater degree of both procedural and substantive due process for the same reason a Sentencing hearing has a higher degree of those than a Bond hearing. One is designed to be a temporary state of affairs until the truth is ascertained. The other is designed to take something permanently.

I referenced checkpoints and bail source hearings primarily because they are contested, debated and vary widely throughout the country, especially state to state.

Checkpoints and bail hearings are still designed to allow the police to interject themselves into a person's life based on protections for the general public. Hence the rules behind checkpoints and the requirements for a positive bail hearing. The general public, the people, are the reason for these tools being developed and given to LE. If there wasn't a need they wouldn't exist.

[Patrick Taylor]

The general public, the people, are the reason for these tools being developed and given to LE. If there wasn't a need they wouldn't exist.

That is so special .....

Seizure without a conviction is theft , seizure with a conviction but no proof of it being illegally gained is theft , seizure with a conviction and proof of illegal gain is ...asset forfeiture.

Nothing wrong with being proud of what you do but when a person starts spelling COP as GOD there is a problem.

[State]

Then I must be committing a lot of theft. I seize a lot of items when drafting and executing search warrants, the standard of which is PC. Have I always gotten a conviction based on those seizures of evidence? Yes but that's not always the case for everyone due to various reasons. Still doesn't mean the LEO committed theft.

[Patrick Taylor]

What person could not get a conviction after they take away the persons ability to defend themselves before it goes to court ? The theft is to keep a person from mounting a defense along with monetary gain for government. Hiding behind a badge does not make it right no matter how legal it looks or how much the original intent of the founders is twisted.

Read the document you took an oath to honor.

[voodoo_man]

What person could not get a conviction after they take away the persons ability to defend themselves before it goes to court ? The theft is to keep a person from mounting a defense along with monetary gain for government. Hiding behind a badge does not make it right no matter how legal it looks or how much the original intent of the founders is twisted.

Read the document you took an oath to honor.

Indulge us for a moment, show us where asset forfeiture is in the Constitution?

While you are at it, show us where it says anything you just posted is written in the Constitution?

Before you look, I'll give you a hint, these are tools development afterwards, based on case law, court precedence and legislation by the people you elected. Directing your anger and frustration over things you cannot change on the people who actually swore an oath to do good and not just complain about it online, is not helping your cause.

[GuanoLoco]

Amendment IV
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.

...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

[voodoo_man]

Amendment IV
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.

...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

Bold and underlined for educational purposes.

[State]

Patrick, I'm a fed so I can't speak to how things are done at the state and local level so I answer your question from that perspective. A search and seizure warrant for evidence just requires PC as does an arrest warrant, which is a seizure of a person. My statement was only in regards to your IMO imprecise wording (or is it understanding?) regarding how a seizure (which I'm defining to be of any type from property to people and evidence) is theft without a conviction. There are instances albeit rare in fed land where cases are dropped by the AUSA after search warrants have been executed. For example, and I won't get into details, one reason could be due to local politics. The items unless contraband are generally returned to their owner if the case is ultimately declined for prosecution. Does that mean the agents committed theft? The courts and USAO certainly don't think so.

I rarely post here and have no idea who you are just like you have no idea who I am but your "advice" for me to read the document I took an oath to honor is a bit presumptuous. I work within the confines of that document daily, in the 9th circuit of all places. I'm very familiar with con law and as others have mentioned, there are professional and sometimes personal consequences when we fail to adhere to the constitution.

[blues]

What person could not get a conviction after they take away the persons ability to defend themselves before it goes to court ? The theft is to keep a person from mounting a defense along with monetary gain for government. Hiding behind a badge does not make it right no matter how legal it looks or how much the original intent of the founders is twisted.

Read the document you took an oath to honor.

Patrick, I had my say yesterday on the subject of seizures and forfeiture so I simply want to address the portion highlighted above.

No one is deprived of the right or ability to defend themselves in court either by their own retained counsel or one provided by the court.

In federal court, which is where I spent the vast majority of my time, the counsel provided by the court when someone did not have the means to pay for representation ordinarily proved quite as competent as the high priced shiny attorneys that those with deep pockets would frequently turn to.

Also, it is beyond my experience to have ever witnessed or participated in any seizure of property motivated by monetary gain for the government.

I offer this to you with all due respect and as plainly and honestly as I can based upon my own years of experience in this arena.

[luckyman]

...
The cases that people's money were taken and they had to prove where they got it have not been as common as the media would have you believe. Just like the protein scenario I had to explain here before, it is not common for the average person to drive around with 50k cash on their person and not have any proof of where they got it or where they are going. In some states with some loose regulation that would warrant the officer to take that money into their possession.

...
Furthermore when these situations do allegedly occur there has to be a court hearing and if the person can prove the legit source of the money then they get it all back no issues. What legimate person with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash will not be able to prove where the money came from? It just isn't reasonable to believe people would have that much money which they never had a single record of, especially in 2017.
...
.


Even as a proponent of civil forfeiture, I would be 100% on board with this.

The issue in the past, at least in my state, was that there was really no way to charge someone you traffic stopped and found with hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in a trap or purpose-built hidden compartment, someone that was obviously trafficking drug proceeds. As I said earlier, the money laundering statute has been updated and given more "teeth" in the last couple of years, for this reason.

I'm confident that 100% of the officers posting here and 99% of officers throughout the US are behaving the way most of us would desire. To me, this debate isn't about the behavior of individual officers, it is about the potential of the law to be abused. To put it in second amendment related terms, I'm not worried about the current state of things so much as what things could turn into given the wrong people get into power in the future.

I've personally never carried more than probably 1000$ in a car with me. And I fully admit the chances of someone carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in a car being above-board are vanishingly slim. Having said that, I worry mightily about the concept of punishing someone for an otherwise non-illegal based on the logic of "well there is no way he could have gotten to this point legally, especially 'this day in age' ". You used to hear about "misers" who would die with a fortune stuffed in their mattress. The fact that one would have to go way out of their way to legally amass large sums of money without an electronic trail doesn't mean to me that we should assume guilt. I have sympathy for the people that don't want electronic trails just because they are uncomfortable with "big brother" and potential hackers knowing everything about them.

Plus there is the question of where do you stop? Let's say millions is ridiculous and authorities should be able to confiscate that much. Well, why shouldn't I be allowed to carry around enough money to purchase a house or plot of land with cash? Or more likely, say a nice used RV? Or money for a high stakes poker game? (although I personally don't gamble, so I have no idea what I'm talking about on this one.)
And please, there should be no logic connected to a person hiding the money! If I was legally carting around $10k+ in my car you better believe I would hide it to the best of my ability.

[Wondering Beard]

I think an important way to look at any law is to imagine its application in the hands of your enemies.

[ssb]

I think an important way to look at any law is to imagine its application in the hands of your enemies.

This.

When I said earlier in the thread something to the effect of, "I don't give a shit if everything you've ever done has been above board," I meant that. The issue here isn't about what the guys I know and respect are going to do, or even the LEOs here are going to do. It's about whether and how the law enables a good ol' boy in a twelve-man department whose job description has in practice become revenue generation to apply the tool. You don't have to be the police to understand that.

---

"You can get it back if it's legit" misses the point also. You shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars of your own money on counsel in order to make that happen because the practice allows for seizures based on dubious reasoning. Spending $2K to get back $2.5K isn't a good deal for the guy in the right, and to Joe Six Pack, you may has well have stolen that $2K from him; in effect, you're telling him, "I think you're a criminal; I'm not going to arrest you, but I am going to take your stuff, and if you want you can come prove to us that you got it legally." Yes, you can represent yourself. Most people have, in some capacity, dealt with that guy -- whether in a traffic stop or in a bar -- who "knows what the law says." An ADA six months out of law school will curb stomp that guy because Joe Six Pack doesn't know procedure and the ADA does. Joe Six Pack probably isn't getting court-appointed counsel in a civil matter, either; the PD's office works criminal cases, not civil matters (generalizing).

[TC215]

Plus there is the question of where do you stop? Let's say millions is ridiculous and authorities should be able to confiscate that much. Well, why shouldn't I be allowed to carry around enough money to purchase a house or plot of land with cash? Or more likely, say a nice used RV? Or money for a high stakes poker game? (although I personally don't gamble, so I have no idea what I'm talking about on this one.)
And please, there should be no logic connected to a person hiding the money! If I was legally carting around $10k+ in my car you better believe I would hide it to the best of my ability.

Like this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPg0Ak0ryxI

There is case law saying that carrying large sums of currency can be used as an "indicator" of drug trafficking. It cannot be the only indicator. In fact, it takes many of these court-recognized indicators to add up to probable cause for a seizure. Just having a bunch of money won't do it.

Now, has that ever been used as the only reason to take money? Of course, and it's wrong


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM9jvog18FQ

[Kukuforguns]

So, my research indicates that there are jurisdictions where the filing fee (e.g., $175) to recover seized property is significantly larger than the amounts of cash frequently seized. That appears to be a recipe for abuse.

My research also indicates that there are jurisdictions where unsuccessful petitioners for recovery are required to pay the expenses incurred defending the seizure, but not vice versa. Again, a recipe for abuse.

My research indicates that many agencies get to keep the cash seized. Again, a recipe for abuse. For example, my research indicates that there have been agencies that allow traffickers to sell contraband before arresting the trafficker in order to seize the cash in preference to interdicting the contraband.

My research indicates that the vast majority of jurisdictions allow the jurisdiction to seize and keep property using a lower level of proof (e.g., probable cause) than for a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt).

My research indicates that in most jurisdictions, the property owner has the burden of proving that the property is not the fruit of illegal behavior. In other words, the property owner is considered guilty until the property owner spends the money to successfully establish innocence. This is especially troubling when combined with the standard of proof enjoyed by "probable cause" jurisdictions. The property owner has to effectively prove that there is no basis for the jurisdiction's belief that the property is fruit of illegal activity. See United States v. $124,700, 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006) for an example of this situation.

My research indicates that multiple jurisdictions that are legally required to keep data regarding seized property but refused to disclose the data pursuant to freedom of information requests.

All of the above are systemic problems with civil forfeiture and not anecdotal evidence. There are, of course, extensive examples of abuse arising from the systemic problems reflected above. Google is your friend if you want to see some of the truly egregious abuses committed by various jurisdictions/agencies. I mean, how can you defend a jurisdiction trying to seize the home of a dying person because drug dealers dumped contraband in the home while fleeing law enforcement officers?

I don't want criminals to keep their ill gotten gains. I do want some level of confidence that the seized property actually is actually an ill gotten gain. Andy by some level of evidence, I don't mean that a drug dog alerted to cash.

[luckyman]

Like this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPg0Ak0ryxI

There is case law saying that carrying large sums of currency can be used as an "indicator" of drug trafficking. It cannot be the only indicator. In fact, it takes many of these court-recognized indicators to add up to probable cause for a seizure. Just having a bunch of money won't do it.

Now, has that ever been used as the only reason to take money? Of course, and it's wrong


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM9jvog18FQ

Like that? Absolutely, assuming it was only cash. Assuming you could figure out how to access it without damaging your car, the more hidden the better. The point being I support people's right (eh "right" isn't the proper word) to be distrustful of others and distrustful of "institutions"; even though I am the guy that wants to use credit card to buy a new car and has autopay set up to make sure I pay zero interest on that.

Also note the the items I was quoting were implying to me that presence of undocumented cash was the only indicator. If any drugs (well other than some minuscule amount) were found I fully support taking all the cash too.

Plus I'll have to admit "court recognized indicators" sounds suspiciously like "some citizen somewhere ended up in an expensive court case exploring just where the boundaries lay on this subject"

Hypothetical situation: let's say an illegal alien ( I hate "undocumented immigrant") comes over with his wife and child, and his life savings of say $2000, because they are fleeing from a drug-lord-controlled town or something. I'm fine seeing them deported, but I'd hate to think we took their life savings along the way.

[voodoo_man]

Just so that we are all on the same level of conversation and understanding here, you guys are talking about the .0000001% of this concept. The literal hypothetical situation that materializes in reality.

Before anyone asks, no of course I would not to be the target of this type of situation, but I am not going about my business doing something that a drug dealer or other types of criminals do on a daily basis and I can prove everything in a court of law, then sue for any damages if incurred.

The legal system works and if you do not like the system where you live, move. If you don't want to move, do something about it other than complain on the internet.

[fishing]

Just so that we are all on the same level of conversation and understanding here, you guys are talking about the .0000001% of this concept. The literal hypothetical situation that materializes in reality.

Before anyone asks, no of course I would not to be the target of this type of situation, but I am not going about my business doing something that a drug dealer or other types of criminals do on a daily basis and I can prove everything in a court of law, then sue for any damages if incurred.

The legal system works and if you do not like the system where you live, move. If you don't want to move, do something about it other than complain on the internet.

source please

[ssb]

Just so that we are all on the same level of conversation and understanding here, you guys are talking about the .0000001% of this concept. The literal hypothetical situation that materializes in reality.

Before anyone asks, no of course I would not to be the target of this type of situation, but I am not going about my business doing something that a drug dealer or other types of criminals do on a daily basis and I can prove everything in a court of law, then sue for any damages if incurred.

The legal system works and if you do not like the system where you live, move. If you don't want to move, do something about it other than complain on the internet.

Setting aside your unsubstantiated claim in the first line, so what if that were actually true (it isn't)? So what if it is really less than half of a percent of all forfeitures that aren't tied to any arrest? Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed to prohibit such activity if it can be done without impeding legitimate LE objectives.

Your second and third lines show your divorce from reality. For almost every lawsuit, you aren't getting your legal fees back. You aren't getting your time back. You aren't getting interest on that money while it's in limbo. If you settle to speed things up, you'll waive your right to sue for damages as part of that settlement. You might possibly be compensated for physical damage that occurred to the property while in storage, but that's unlikely. You'll fail at a civil rights action because your burden of proof will basically require you to prove there was no reasonable basis whatsoever to seize the property, and as you know and likely benefit from, the police get very wide deference in a reasonableness analysis. And you, as an individual, don't have the same influence on a legislature as, say, a group of police chiefs telling the legislature that the state's going to turn into a haven for drug traffickers overnight if you take away their toys. You know -- or should know -- all of that, and yet you continue to post this sort of drivel.

"Don't act like a drug dealer," in particular, is never the answer that should be coming from people in your profession (or mine, for that matter).

[Kukuforguns]

If you don't want to move, do something about it other than complain on the internet.
http://ij.org/press-release/california-governor-signs-major-civil-forfeiture-reform/
'Cuz all I does is talk on the interwebz. I don't donate time to civil rights organizations and projects. I don't give money to civil rights organizations. I don't contact my elected representatives. I'm not actively involved in my city government. Except, that I do. You don't know what anyone does when we're not posting here. Your comment lacked foundation and did nothing more than reveal your own preconceptions.

[voodoo_man]

source please

Show me your source that it's the opposite.


http://ij.org/press-release/california-governor-signs-major-civil-forfeiture-reform/
'Cuz all I does is talk on the interwebz. I don't donate time to civil rights organizations and projects. I don't give money to civil rights organizations. I don't contact my elected representatives. I'm not actively involved in my city government. Except, that I do. You don't know what anyone does when we're not posting here. Your comment lacked foundation and did nothing more than reveal your own preconceptions.

Right. That is exactly what I did.

Congratulations, you have proven to be involved, yet you are here, still complaining and arguing on the internet over something that you cannot change in this format.

As I've stated in other, past, threads - I am simply giving you information, much like other LEO's here, it is not speculation or opinion, it is fact based on personal experience with this topic.

You can kick, scream, point fingers and call me names, nothing will change and you have done nothing other than display your own ignorance on the matter.

[fishing]

Show me your source that it's the opposite.

i have no source either confirming or denying the figure you claim ("you guys are talking about the .0000001% of this concept") , so i would like to see your source backing it up.
it's a simple request...




Right. That is exactly what I did.

Congratulations, you have proven to be involved, yet you are here, still complaining and arguing on the internet over something that you cannot change in this format.

As I've stated in other, past, threads - I am simply giving you information, much like other LEO's here, it is not speculation or opinion, it is fact based on personal experience with this topic.

You can kick, scream, point fingers and call me names, nothing will change and you have done nothing other than display your own ignorance on the matter.

why are you so anti-free speech?

edit - do you ever consider the irony in your statements?

[Kukuforguns]

Show me your source that it's the opposite.

You made the claim that it was .000001 percent of the cases. That's bullshit because there is no way of quantifying the level of abuse given available data. And when you were called on it, your response was "Your mutha." When you're testifying, do you routinely make up bullshit like you do here?

[voodoo_man]

Oh look, two non-site supporters continue to troll on something that has already been put to bed several times.

How about posting some videos of you guys shooting? Maybe some photos of your pistols?

I won't be responding to your posts on this matter anymore either. You both have proven, well beyond any doubt, that you cannot hold a mature conversation on this topic.

[fishing]

Oh look, two non-site supporters continue to troll on something that has already been put to bed several times.

How about posting some videos of you guys shooting? Maybe some photos of your pistols?

I won't be responding to your posts on this matter anymore either. You both have proven, well beyond any doubt, that you cannot hold a mature conversation on this topic.

lol wut?

[voodoo_man]

lol wut?

You see, this is a pistol forum. About, you know, pistols. Shooting, firearms.

Yet, based on your history and your troll companions post histories, neither one of you have ever posted a single photo of a firearm, not a single video of you shooting, nor have you once posted anything that has anything relating to shooting...pistols. All you seem to do is troll site supporting, content contributing members, for some reason.

So, as I stated above, I won't be responding to you on this matter, but I will gladly converse about the prime objective of this forum.

[Kukuforguns]

As I've stated in other, past, threads - I am simply giving you information, much like other LEO's here, it is not speculation or opinion, it is fact based on personal experience with this topic.


You stated: "you guys are talking about the .0000001% of this concept" Just so we're clear, 1% would be 1 case of abuse every 100 seizures. Now that we have that basic math out of the way . . .

You are claiming that, based on your own personal experience, that in every BILLION seizures that there is one case of abuse. In other words, you are literally claiming to have personally observed a minimum of one BILLION seizures and in that BILLION seizures you observed a single case of abuse.

Your new nickname is Billionz Boy.

[fishing]

You see, this is a pistol forum. About, you know, pistols. Shooting, firearms.

Yet, based on your history and your troll companions post histories, neither one of you have ever posted a single photo of a firearm, not a single video of you shooting, nor have you once posted anything that has anything relating to shooting...pistols. All you seem to do is troll site supporting, content contributing members, for some reason.

So, as I stated above, I won't be responding to you on this matter, but I will gladly converse about the prime objective of this forum.

you really enjoy doubling down when you're wrong - quite amusing.

[voodoo_man]

you really enjoy doubling down when you're wrong - quite amusing.

Just making sure you are actually reading my posts instead of skimming them.

Now that I have your attention and it isn't fixated on none sense, lets move on to the point of the forum and not what you guys think should be and its disconnect from reality.

[ssb]

Seek help...

[fishing]

Just making sure you are actually reading my posts instead of skimming them.

Now that I have your attention and it isn't fixated on none sense, lets move on to the point of the forum and not what you guys think should be and its disconnect from reality.