re: OK Sheriff indicted for bribery, extortion after traffic stop

quote:

---

That isn't true in any case I've read. The money can be seized first, but in order for it to be kept the state/feds/IRS have to prove with a preponderance of evidence that is laundered/illegally obtained.

---

quote:

---

(d)Innocent Owner Defense.—

(1)

An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2)

(A)With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term “innocent owner” means an owner who—

(i)

did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or

(ii)

upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.

---

18 U.S. Code § 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings



True for those that make it to trial, I believe for those that don't make it to trial, it goes to a default judgement. Every state is different though. The above is only for federal.

quote:

---

(d)Innocent Owner Defense

---

I should have been clearer in my original statement - in every case I've read, the asset was kept if and only if the court believed it was used in a criminal manner. It is not as if they pull you over, take $10k from you if they feel like it. The first legal test is that the police must have a preponderance of evidence in order the seize the asset in the first place. Once it is seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner of the property, but even then, the state must continue to make their case. It would be disingenuous to act as if they get to keep it without presenting evidence to support their seizure.

Also, many of these horror stories involve police simply breaking the law. I think we can all agree that an officer can ruin your life if they want to, but I'm not sure it is fair to use those examples as an indictment on CAF.

At the end of the day, I hate it, and always will. We both agree on that.

quote:

---

The frick they can't. Not only can they take whatever they want, it happens every single day across the US. It's such a huge problem that some departments depend on Civil Asset Fortitude to fund aspects of their department.

---

They cannot legally take the money. They can do whatever the hell they want if they're willing to break the law as it is written, but legally they're required to determine that it is more likely than not that the funds were/are illegal.

quote:

---

In many cases as shown in this thread that's (most if you believe sthe stats) the case because it never goes to a hearing

---

My original point is about the nature of the seizure in the first place. They can break the law if they want, but legally they're required to have the preponderance of evidence before they can seize the assets. Once they've done so, the burden of proof shifts.

I hate the whole damn thing because there is no check and balance on the original seizure and a dirty cop can create a situation where the owner is now guilty until proven innocent.

quote:

---

? If someone says give us $10k or spend years in fmita prison, you choose to be locked up?

---

No clown. If there were NO drugs and I could show the money was legit and mine, frick yes I wouldn't let them bribe me.

quote:

---

If there were NO drugs and I could show the money was legit and mine, frick yes I wouldn't let them bribe me.

---

And you think they would just let you go after you telling them they were wrong and the money was legit? Then you have to hire an attorney for two items- one to fight felony criminal charges to keep you out of prison for a long time, the other to fight the civil asset forfeiture, so you can afford to keep your attorney for item number 1.

I feel like you haven't thought this through.

Scary, huh?

quote:

---

Scary, huh?

---

Why does common sense have to go out the window whenever we both agree the law is abhorrent? The law needs to go, but that doesn't change the fact that being unable to validate the source of your money raises many red flags, and rightfully so.

Does it mean they should take it from you? No, of course not, but lets not act like people are getting envelopes from the bank stolen with their receipt still in it.

shite, one of the faces of the anti-CAF movement is the case in Nebraska from 2003:

quote:

---

In May 2003, a Nebraska trooper stopped Gonzolez for speeding. After learning from a dispatcher that Gonzolez had a previous arrest for speeding that he did not disclose, troopers asked to search the car and discovered $124,700 in cash in a cooler in the back seat.[1] Gonzolez, who was not fluent in English, told police he pooled cash from friends and their relatives in order to buy a refrigerated truck in Chicago. When he got to Chicago, the truck he intended to buy for a produce business had already been sold. He was driving home when he was stopped.

Troopers seized the cash pursuant to federal forfeiture and controlled substances laws, in essence alleging that the money was involved in a drug crime.

Gonzolez initially told police that he did not have large amounts of cash. He later testified that he was scared carrying so much money was illegal, and he had concealed the money in a cooler to avoid having it stolen. The trial court found that his story was “plausible and consistent” and denied the forfeiture. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the trial court’s decision.

In so doing, the court held that the government established by a “preponderance of the evidence” (the federal civil forfeiture standard of proof) a “substantial connection” between the money and a drug trafficking offense.

---

That except is from the Institute for Justice and they cleverly left out the fact that a drug dog alerted offices to the scent of drugs in the vehicle and on the money.

Look, if that guy wasn't guilty of a crime, the money should never have been taken. However, there is no need to exaggerate this situations any more than they already are. The truth is bad enough - a man had his stuff taken without being convicted of a crime - but I'm going to call bullshite when people decide to ignore common sense.

quote:

---

That except is from the Institute for Justice and they cleverly left out the fact that a drug dog alerted offices to the scent of drugs in the vehicle and on the money.

---

That anyone takes these dogs seriously when they "alert" on command from their handlers is laughable. They are walking and furry probable cause on demand.