re: Minnesota tries to end asset forfeiture, with predictable pushback from LEO

quote:

---

That's bad and they're not the only ones affected.

I've already said, CAF should be applied subjectively.

When applied objectively, LEO can do this. Anyone with a brain on their shoulders can see this house wasn't owned by heroin traffickers and was only lived in by a dumbass kid selling heroin.

---

I don’t think you understand the terms subjective and objective.

quote:

---

Far cry from $40

---

I am glad you brought that up...

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.
Authorities use a civil forfeiture law that allows them to seize people's property when that property is connected to the sale of illegal drugs.
CNN legal analyst and consumer attorney, Brian Kabateck, says the law is intended to protect the public. "It discourages crime and it takes the ill-gotten gains away from the bad people."
But not all people who have their property taken away are charged with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, the civil law allows authorities to seize property without the owner ever being convicted or even charged.

---

LINK

quote:

---

ThatMakesSense

---

I think you’re conflating two separate issues. Yes, the ultra-wealthy have a better chance at defending themselves because they can afford great representation. Yes, public defenders are overworked and underpaid. But when the burden of proof is on the defense in these cases, it doesn’t solve the problem - it exacerbates it. Now the rich crime boss with overseas bank accounts can still afford to pay his lawyers, but the single mom whose son got arrested on drug charges cannot because there’s this entirely separate process to go through and it’s guilty until proven innocent.

To your point about using CAF selectively: sure, folks wouldn’t be as up-in-arms if CAF were only used against millionaires. But a) you’re putting a lot of faith in the very departments that get to enjoy the rewards of extra funding and b) we aren’t just talking about the FBI/DOJ.. we are talking about local governments. St. Mary Parish ain’t prosecuting Pablo Escobar.

quote:

---

I'm not. It sucks and CAF still works. Not abandoning something because a few get raked over while the betterment being served is American as it gets.

---

No, it’s authoritarianism and it is unfortunate (though not terribly surprising) that it’s been normalized enough to get this kind of reaction.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling..

quote:

---

But when the burden of proof is on the defense in these cases, it doesn’t solve the problem - it exacerbates it.

---

I agree that having to prove innocence sounds crazy and at the same time I think it would be well warranted in CAF cases. Streamline it. If you did nothing wrong, here is the info on it, done.

I don't like innocent people having to pay tens of thousands to prove innocence.

There is definitely room for making CAF work correctly.

quote:

---

There is definitely room for making CAF work correctly.

---

Agreed. For example, the law could be changed such that

quote:

---

the person and property are part of the same criminal proceeding

---

or

quote:

---

requiring a criminal conviction before a person’s property could be forfeited in civil court

---

while also

quote:

---

still allowing property used for illegal purposes to be seized for evidence

---

Glad we are on the same page. That’s also what the people in support of this MN bill think.

quote:

---

Not abandoning something because a few get raked over while the betterment being served is American as it gets.

---

quote:

---

I'm not. It sucks and CAF still works. Not abandoning something because a few get raked over while the betterment being served is American as it gets

---

So again, guilty till proven innocent.
That’s what you stand for?

Good for Benjamin. He lived with 4MM people in America. I live with 330MM.

quote:

---

.and the obvious criminals typically are convicted. I think we agree on that.

---

Yes and at the same time CAF can help further that.