re: Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed All Burglaries in 2014

quote:

---

  

The case titled State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silveradois one of thousands of civil forfeiture suits each year in which the state faces off against “One Pearl Necklace” or “.39 acres” or “One Gold Crucifix.” A used-car salesman in Houston, Zaher El-Ali, had sold the Silverado, on credit, to another man, who was later arrested for drunk driving and cocaine possession. El-Ali held title to the vehicle while the man paid off the truck. He had nothing to do with the crimes. But that didn’t stop local law enforcement from seizing the vehicle as “contraband” and filing suit against the truck (thus the strangely titled lawsuit). If El-Ali wanted to keep the truck he would have to hire an attorney and prove that he was an “innocent owner”: a legal standard higher than the one faced by criminal defendants.

El-Ali found himself in the same preposterous situation as countless Texans every year—seriously, the record-keeping is so bad, we don’t know how many people are affected—ensnared in the state’s shamefully baroque civil-forfeiture laws. It’s been amply documented that some local prosecutors and cops use the laws to run sophisticated shakedown operations, seizing cash, cars, jewelry and other property from innocent people, especially black and Latino folks, and funding their operations with the profits. Some law enforcement agencies derive almost 40 percent of their revenue from civil forfeiture, with virtually no checks or oversight.

In the East Texas town of Tenaha, the district attorney oversaw a particularly Dickensian operation: Local cops would stop out-of-town drivers on the flimsiest of pretexts to look for cash, DVD players, cell phones, anything of value. The DA would threaten drivers with criminal charges, even promising to have state authorities remove kids from parents unless they waived rights to the property.

---

Pretty much sums up everything wrong with civil asset forfeiture...

I have no problem tightening forfeiture laws up.

Just not to the point where it cuts it out completely.

Police have to be able to seize money and property with a criminal nexus.

quote:

---

defendant has right to counsel

---

Agree

quote:

---

burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt

---

Agree

quote:

---

proceeds go to general fund.

---

Disagree.

Funds should go into a separate fund that is limited to what it can be spent on. Money should used for needed equipment, training, investigative tools, etc... not as a budget supporter. When you rely on forfeiture money to support budgets that is when it gets screwed up.

quote:

---

Also equitable sharing ends too.

---

Disagree.

Most of your biggest federal cases are the result of local, state, and federal agencies working together on Task Forces. Without Equitable sharing these agencies probably wouldn't work together to investigate large criminal enterprises or organizations.

The civil asset forfeiture by USAs doesn't really relate to burglaries tracked by the FBI, does it? I mean, the USAs aren't prosecuting burglars. They are going after much bigger fish.

quote:

---

The point that I made is that it is not covered in the Constitution.

---

The point we are making is that this is a retarded loophole where instead of accusing a person, they accuse property they want.
It's like me stealing a TV from your house. You get pissed and say it's illegal. But in return, I say, "I'm a cop, and I think your TV wanted to come live at my house because it didn't want you to get beat up by me."
Then you go home and look at a wall.

quote:

---

Funds should go into a separate fund that is limited to what it can be spent on. Money should used for needed equipment, training, investigative tools, etc... not as a budget supporter. When you rely on forfeiture money to support budgets that is when it gets screwed up.

---

So getting all those new toys, and having ADA's use it as their own slush fund doesn't bother you? Oklahoma even had their ADA's use the money to fund their student loans, and use the houses they seized as their primary residence- for years. That's blatant corruption.

quote:

---

Most of your biggest federal cases are the result of local, state, and federal agencies working together on Task Forces. Without Equitable sharing these agencies probably wouldn't work together to investigate large criminal enterprises or organizations.

---

Equitable sharing is simply a loophole local police use to get around local requirements thave more more stringent policies for seizure. For example, Montana requires a conviction to seize, but the feds don't, so local cops seize under the guise they are working with the feds because no conviction is needed federally. In return local cops get 80 percent of proceeds. Again, more corruption.

the blue gang is the most powerful gang in the country

quote:

---

Where did I defend civil forfeiture? The point that I made is that it is not covered in the Constitution. Criminal forfeiture is under the Fourth and fifth Amendment. People here are incredibly ignorant when they try to claim that civil forfeiture is in any way discussed in the Constitution. Civil forfeiture, as I said in an earlier post, involves proceedings against property, not against persons. In order to try to get your property back you must make a claim as a third party.

---

Most on the rant are not capable of a very nuanced thought process.

quote:

---

prove that he was an “innocent owner”: a legal standard higher than the one faced by criminal defendants.

---

What?

quote:

---

So getting all those new toys, and having ADA's use it as their own slush fund doesn't bother you? Oklahoma even had their ADA's use the money to fund their student loans, and use the houses they seized as their primary residence- for years. That's blatant corruption.

---

quote:

---

Equitable sharing is simply a loophole local police use to get around local requirements thave more more stringent policies for seizure. For example, Montana requires a conviction to seize, but the feds don't, so local cops seize under the guise they are working with the feds because no conviction is needed federally. In return local cops get 80 percent of proceeds. Again, more corruption.

---

All of the above. It's legalized theft under cover of law.