re: Alabama tries to gut asset forfeiture, response from law enforcement is predictable

quote:

---

In other words, if they seize enough money they will always win.

---

Yup, you are considered guilty until the criminal trial is over

quote:

---

Alabama tries to gut asset forfeiture

---

I usually try to view things with an open mind, and never jump quickly to be anti-cop/law enforcement, but civil forfeiture is one of the most disgusting and deceitful things I've ever seen. It's borderline criminal (and in some cases, just plain criminal). That shite needs to be massively gutted.

quote:

---

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

---

Pre trial diversion is a conviction of guilt.

I've never heard of a non guilty person being placed in pre trial diversion.

quote:

---

The state won 84 percent of disposed cases against property owners who were not charged with a crime

---

fricking modern day tyranny. Our forefathers would have taken up arms and killed people over this.

quote:

---

Pre trial diversion is a conviction of guilt.

I've never heard of a non guilty person being placed in pre trial diversion.

---

PTD has its own issues(mostly with cash going to the DA rather than the state...), but aside from those, asset forfeiture often affects people not signed up for PTD.

A good example of how fricked up it has become...

quote:

---

The nightmare began when police showed up at the house and arrested their 22-year-old son, Yianni, on drug charges -- $40 worth of heroin. Authorities say he was selling drugs out of the home. The Sourvelises say they had no knowledge of any involvement their son might have had with drugs.

A month-and-a-half later police came back -- this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case.

Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself. It was being forfeited and transferred to the custody of the Philadelphia District Attorney. Authorities said the house was tied to illegal drugs and therefore subject to civil forfeiture.

In two years, nearly 500 families in Philadelphia had their homes or cars taken away by city officials, according to records from Pennsylvania's attorney general.

---

LINK

quote:

---

I've done it for 2 MIPs where I wasn't holding or in possession of any alcohol. But I had to get them off my record and its cheaper and easier than fighting in court

---

Right. I understand the process.

I agree in the article where they speak to a person on a drug charge, having gone through PTD, and not really feeling the effects of their crime through monetary loss gained through criminal activity.

Someone who is pushing pounds of drugs, and gaining big money, will not be eligible for PTD. Someone pushing small amounts and lesser monies, probably will be. That smaller person, can almost positively prove through financial documents, where their non criminal money is coming from.

It's not as if person B is having their total earned wealth stripped away from them for dealing 3 ounces of weed.

25% of cases in 2015 had no criminal charges filed. 41% of cases had marijuana related charges only.

Sure you hear about an erroneous case here and there, but at the end of the day..is it not the same for most laws in the USA?

How many of those 500 were with merit?

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.

---

what a bunch of authoritarians

quote:

---

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?

---

a bunch of greedy authoritarians at that