- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Alabama tries to gut asset forfeiture, response from law enforcement is predictable
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:08 pm
LINK
The rest of the article is a, um, interesting read into why the War on Drugs is so profitable.
quote:
By Brian McVeigh, Calhoun County District Attorney and president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association; and Dave Sutton, Sheriff of Coffee County and president of the Alabama Sheriffs Association
quote:
The Alabama Legislature is considering legislation that would change the way civil asset forfeitures are handled in Alabama. While well-meaning, some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is an effective crime-fighting tool while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. The result would be more crime.
Unfortunately, several special interest groups have pushed a narrative that law enforcement - police, sheriffs and other authorities - are using civil asset forfeiture to unfairly take money and property from innocent Alabamians.
That narrative is false. Law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture only to go after criminals, and state law already guarantees a process that is clear and fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court. State law also provides built-in safeguards that protect the property of those who have committed no crime.
quote:
Here are some important facts to keep in mind.
Law enforcement and prosecutors can't go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime. Alabama law lays out a clear process that prosecutors must follow in going after a criminal's assets and an easy process for people to challenge the forfeiture.
More important, no asset can be forfeited in state court without the approval of a judge who weighs evidence both for and against forfeiture. Even in cases in which the property owner doesn't contest the forfeiture, a judge must still sign off on it. These proceedings begin with public document filings in circuit court and are disposed of in an open and public forum, with all proceeds subject to audit.
quote:
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement. Though these changes may sound good, they would hurt public safety and make civil forfeiture less fair.
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
The rest of the article is a, um, interesting read into why the War on Drugs is so profitable.
24
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
Thin Blue Lyin'
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
So its not about the public's safety and welfare?
I am shocked.
I am shocked.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement. Though these changes may sound good, they would hurt public safety and make civil forfeiture less fair.
This statement should be laughable if it wasn't such a serious issue.
"Two problems we have with CAF reform: 1) We don't want to prove it was obtained illegally and 2) We don't want to share the wealth that is CAF"
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
CAF is a fricking disgrace to our constitution.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:14 pm to magildachunks
Amazing that they aren’t even hiding the fact that it’s about making money.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:17 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
Bonus points for laying out the step-by-step racket that is pretrial diversion.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:18 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement. Though these changes may sound good, they would... make civil forfeiture less fair.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
The Alabama Legislature is considering legislation that would change the way civil asset forfeitures are handled in Alabama. While well-meaning, some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is an effective crime-fighting tool while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. The result would be more crime.
translation - some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is a way to steal property and assets without showing just cause while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their asserts unless they can be shown to be the product of ill-gotten gains. The result would be a return to constitutionally protected legal due process before assets can be seized.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:24 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
This study found that in half of the 1,110 cases examined in Alabama, the amount of cash involved was $1,372 or less.
Brilliant strategy. Take $1,400 knowing attorney fees and court costs are more than that and the owner will only fight it out of principle.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:24 pm to biglego
I have always wondered how they can claim with a straight face that someone not convicted of a crime deserves to be labelled a criminal and have everything taken from them.
Then they wonder aloud how if the officers involved cant take a share of the loot, why do they do it
.
Then they wonder aloud how if the officers involved cant take a share of the loot, why do they do it
.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:25 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Here are some important facts to keep in mind.
Law enforcement and prosecutors can't go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime. Alabama law lays out a clear process that prosecutors must follow in going after a criminal's assets and an easy process for people to challenge the forfeiture.
More important, no asset can be forfeited in state court without the approval of a judge who weighs evidence both for and against forfeiture. Even in cases in which the property owner doesn't contest the forfeiture, a judge must still sign off on it. These proceedings begin with public document filings in circuit court and are disposed of in an open and public forum, with all proceeds subject to audit.
Here's the thing, they seize it, unless you can get an attorney to get it back. Hopefully they dont take the money you were saving and might need for an attorney
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:27 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
The rest of the article is a, um, interesting read into why the War on Drugs is so profitable.
Sounds awfully familiar. Like Newell Normand literally screaming and cursing at the legislature over the medical marijuana bill that was passed in 2016.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:28 pm to slackster
quote:
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes
So frivolous arrest and prosecutions all in the name of stealing from citizens
Thats it gubment quote:
Bonus points for laying out the step-by-step racket that is pretrial diversion.
Hey if they cant make money from forfeiture, bilk it out of them in ridiculous monthly fees
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:29 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
But it is also important to prevent criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime. We know drug money as well as cash derived from the sale of stolen goods are used to buy vehicles, guns, houses, jewelry and other items. It makes no sense to allow those who traffic in crime to keep the proceeds of their crimes. That would reward criminality.
Forgets to mention that they aren’t convicted yet
quote:
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
This a-hole
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:30 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Hey if they cant make money from forfeiture, bilk it out of them in ridiculous monthly fees
It's a complete racket. Go to pretrial diversion, avoid jail time, and we'll just keep that $6,000 in cash we seized.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
This is yet another reason why expanding government is always a bad idea. They always find a reason to never cut back and if someone proposes it, it's the end of the world.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:32 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Here's the thing, they seize it, unless you can get an attorney to get it back. Hopefully they dont take the money you were saving and might need for an attorney
Funny you mention that... there was a whole supreme court case about exactly that, where prosecutors argued that the defendant wasnt entitled to have an attorney present, so by taking the money he would use for counsel, they were depriving no rights.
Kaley v. United States
quote:
When assets set aside to hire a lawyer are frozen, however, this regime implicates the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel of choice. Last Term, in Kaley v. United States, the Supreme Court held that defendants have no constitutional right to challenge a grand jury’s finding of probable cause of guilt for the purpose of defeating a pretrial asset freeze, even if this freeze results in an inability to hire one’s attorney of choice.
In other words, if they seize enough money they will always win.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:32 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
Forgets to mention that they aren’t convicted yet
They aren't even charged in a quarter of the cases.
quote:
•In 25 percent of the cases, the property owner was not charged with a crime linked to the civil forfeiture action. The state won 84 percent of disposed cases against property owners who were not charged with a crime. Those cases reaped $676,790 for law enforcement.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News