Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111

Thread: Asset Forfeiture: Taking Bad Guys' Things

  1. #21
    People respond to incentives. If you setup the incentives such that it makes sense for otherwise-honorable people to push the boundaries until they're essentially stealing shit, eventually they're going to steal shit. If you don't want that to happen, don't setup the incentives that way.

  2. #22
    My take from both sides is super simple....This is why we can't have nice things. Asset Forfeiture is an awesome tool when used properly......and one of the most horribly abused processes I have ever seen. There are many issues in LE that people love to assume are normal that I never saw in a couple decades of cop work. Unfortunately, I have seen the AF system horribly abused and was fairly disgusted. The number one reason I never went to narcotics division was the disturbing things I saw some individuals do in complete conflict to every oath we every took, and because of the money involved it abuses were not only overlooked at the executive level, but were initiated at that level. "Profit" should never be part of LE work. Seized monies and assets should be an IRS type thing outside of the investigating agency. Of course.....IRS Has its own set of horrendous issues, so this is one I have very few solutions for but do know it is a heavily abused tool.
    Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".

  3. #23
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Having been involved peripherally or otherwise in some of the biggest asset forfeiture cases back in the late 80's through the 90's I can only concur.

    It's an awesome tool that requires awesome responsibility and oversight.

    The state and local agencies that worked with the federal gov't too often saw it as a place at the trough and a means of funding vehicles, overtime, weapons etc. Such "corporate" avarice could cloud judgment when it came to the judicious use of a very powerful tool.

    The lure became so great that some highly respected agents (whose names will go unmentioned) ended up leaving their respective agencies to establish a task force comprised of former agents and their informants in order to work on the bounty system...selling their expertise and info for their (contractual) share of millions in seized "ill gotten gains". When I would have occasion for meetings with colleagues I once had great respect for and either plied them for info or threatened that they needed to stand down, it became an event that left one feeling the need for a shower afterward.

    To say it created a climate of anger, finger pointing and distrust would be to understate the situation to an order of magnitude difficult to clearly articulate.

    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n911.a01.html
    Last edited by blues; 08-01-2017 at 06:09 PM.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  4. #24
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    And, just to dogpile on the last 3 comments.....

    ....the purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the USG so that citizens are not at the whim of government officials and whether they choose to be benevolent or not. Government, to include police, should not have that unilateral authority to begin with, hence the bill of rights.

    The Constitutional standard for civil forfeiture is absurd. Whether you guys have better protections in your state constitution or state legal precedents is irrelevant to the fact that the SCOTUS needs to readdress the issue.
    Last edited by TGS; 08-01-2017 at 06:10 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  5. #25
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Or to state that a little differently, the purpose of the Constitution is to make it so the people are not dependent on the goodness of those in power. If people in power could be depended upon to always be good, then there would be no need of a Constitution. We could get by just fine with a benevolent monarch and a bunch of ministers of his or her choosing.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  6. #26
    We all seem to be in agreement and that's pretty awesome.
    #RESIST

  7. #27
    Site Supporter Odin Bravo One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the back of beyond
    Bring a lunch.....
    Last edited by Odin Bravo One; 08-01-2017 at 08:46 PM.
    You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.

  8. #28
    Revolvers Revolvers 1911s Stephanie B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    East 860 by South 413
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
    We all seem to be in agreement and that's pretty awesome.
    No kidding!


    Sent from my NSA-approved tracking device using Tapatalk
    If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI
    Used as originally intended, it's a great tool against organized criminal activity. Used incorrectly, and there are plenty of cases where it has truly become all about the revenue for some agencies, then it's a black stain on law enforcement in general.

  10. #30
    Hypothetical subject hypothetically is travelling with an amount of cash in excess of $90,000 bagged in trash bags on a hypothetical highway in a hypothetical place sometime hypothetically earlier this year (allegedly). Hypothetical subject is stopped for a traffic violation and placed under arrest for that violation. During an inventory search of our hypothetical defendant's vehicle, officers uncover that cash along with an amount of marijuana consistent with personal use and a small amount of prescription medication (prescribed to the defendant) that is commonly abused because "back pain" equals a no-questions-asked scrip for high strength opiates from some places the DEA really ought to consider investigating. Officers see the cash, think big-time drug dealer, and seize that cash; a forfeiture proceeding is instituted separate from the criminal proceedings (the prosecuted offenses are wholly unrelated to drugs, etc. unless you want to argue that a joint + lots of cash = drug trafficker).

    Our hypothetical defendant later settles to receive approximately $85,000 hypothetical dollars back after demonstrating a lawful source for those funds, because the defendant would rather hypothetically have $85,000 now than $90,000 a year and a half from now (hypothetically). The State hypothetically gets to keep money that it reasonably knows isn't the proceeds of unlawful activity (as evidenced by the written settlement agreement demonstrating a lawful source for those funds) because common practice is that it's better to let the State get its pound of flesh and get most of your shit back now, rather than spend several thousand dollars to litigate the issue in civil court and drag the process out.

    Should our hypothetical defendant be travelling around with $90K bagged in trash bags stashed under his back seat? Probably not, because see above. Is that behavior in and of itself unlawful? No. Is the defendant partially to blame for not vigorously litigating the matter (settling to get $85,000 now)? Yes. Is it right for the State to keep that $5,000? In my opinion, no.

    My personal, wholly uninformed, ignorant, and completely devoid of any personal experience in the matter opinion is that a whole lot of problems could be avoided by the following setup:
    a) Tie the forfeiture to a valid, arrestable offense. The property should have a tangible relationship to the arrested offense. I'd hazard a guess and say that most officers already do this the overwhelming majority of the time. Some officers obviously do not, as evidenced by the eighty-bajillion hits you get when googling the practice.
    b) Once the property is seized, it is detained -- but not forfeited (transfer of title/ownership) -- based upon a probable cause standard. The defendant can have a preliminary determination in order to demonstrate the absence of probable cause to detain the property. If no probable cause, they get the property back; if probable cause, the State keeps the property in its possession pending disposition of the criminal case.
    c) Upon disposition, the State at a hearing must show by clear and convincing evidence that the property to be forfeited has a tangible relationship to the charged crime (proceeds, property used in the facilitation, etc.).

    I believe this would solve the issue of criminals keeping the proceeds and/or tools of crime, while in my opinion reigning in the abuses that have made headlines in my state and elsewhere. In practice, if it's drug money, the defendant doesn't get to use it to (for example) pay for an attorney on the drug case because the State has shown to a probable cause standard there's a valid reason to detain the money. In a situation such as the totally made up hypothetical above, the guy -- who hypothetically committed three misdemeanor criminal offenses -- who is guilty of something other than being a drug trafficker who, through his own poor judgment and criminal behavior, lands in the civil forfeiture playhouse also gets to keep lawfully owned property.

    There is the issue of individuals transporting large amounts of cash which is obviously drug money. Happens all the time along major interstates. The answer to that problem is amending the money laundering/etc. statutes to reflect current realities (cartels), rather than playing the civil forfeiture absent criminal charges game.
    Last edited by ssb; 08-01-2017 at 10:43 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •