That graph is always shocking to me. Not only in terms of the terrible irony in having the police steal more than the people they are protecting us from but because asset forfeiture has quintupled in just 10 years.
While it's shocking, is it really all "stolen"? The linked case is absolutely appalling but doesn't this graph include forfeiture of real drug money as well? For example, here's a quick $90M bust: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-milli...
Without a trial, it isn't "real" drug money. It's accused drug money. In the United States, we nominally presume innocence until guilt is proven. Since civil forfeiture uses kangaroo courts, there is no proof and so it isn't "real" drug money.
I don't understand. If a cop pulls over a drug dealer and happens to find drugs and $1M, isn't that still counted in the graph as forfeiture? Let's assume the drug dealer is convicted.
In that case it's likely justified. But then you can link the forfeiture to an actual person being tried in a court of law. Many, many, many of these cases are things like "State Court vs $12,348.45". In those cases there's no defense and the owner of the property has to interject as a third party to attempt to get their property back. In many cases it'll cost more to retrieve the property than the value of the property in the first place.
Also, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back.
I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
The problem with civil forfeiture isn't actual criminals, it is what happens to everyone who is profiled as a potential criminal.
Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction.
The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
Profiling is common and not a bad thing. The police profile, the feds profile more. They just have fancy new words for it to avoid the silliness that the word profile has somehow gotten the same meaning as discrimination.
Your example is already done today, you just don't hear about it in those terms.
Well, until they specify line-by-line in their statistics which is which, and then address the obvious issues/corruption, I'm comfortable with calling all of it stealing.
My understanding is that what happens is that the money is civil-forfeitured immediately after arrest in a separate proceeding from, in your example, the alleged drug dealer being charged.
That said, the fact is that your example's archetype accounts for a vanishingly small amount of civil forfeitures.
It's partly a gimmick, it includes huge fines related to the Madoff case and huge fines paid by Toyota (neither of which are particularly gross examples of law enforcement excess).
> A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers reported today represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, the institute says. "Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward,"
People always talk about the cost of the war on drugs.
The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)
> Shattuck says her marriage and birth certificates haven't been returned, and since the Task Force does not itemize seized documents in its paperwork, it has no record of taking them in the first place.
Maybe this provides a clue for how to curb civil forfeiture in a way that skirts the arguments for it. Make all government agencies that seize property responsible for very clearly logging and indicating where it was found, the condition it was in (photographically and by description), and to store it appropriately so it will not be damaged or deteriorate beyond what would be considered normal.
If there's a cost to seizing property, and it's not a situation of "grab everything and throw it into a box until later when we can have a fire-sale", then that might help this type of egregious abuse.
That's not to say there aren't other abuses of it where this wouldn't help much (cash seizure, for example), or that we don't need comprehensive, well thought out reform in this area, but it might be a simple, uncontroversial measure that could immediately help in some cases.
I'd rather a simpler solution. You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding. And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
> You can't accuse non-living property of a crime, you can only seize assets as part of a normal criminal proceeding.
Well, this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any. Civil forfeiture is also how they confiscate contraband, or anything that is itself illegal to own. I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc. I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
> And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
This is common sense, but is wrapped up on the idea of using CF to help fund police departments because the public doesn't want to. Personally, I would like to see the money go towards treatment and counseling for people with problems with drugs, addiction, criminal records and mental illnesses, and community building and outreach programs.
>>this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any
Good, there should not be.
> It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
Actually it is not, this is exactly what was intended when they passed the laws, I do not know where you get the idea this was about "taking a beer from a 16 year old"
Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft. Without it, the courts would need to be the ones to deal with this issue, and while I think most of us agree that would yield a fairer judgement, it wouldn't necessarily be timely, and time can matter. For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction?
For reasons for civil forfeiture, this[1] might be an interesting read. You don't have to agree with everything in it (I don't), but I believe there are some good points.
Here's an excerpt: Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. For example, if drug dealers are using a "crack house" to sell drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, the building is a danger to the health and safety of the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its use time and again for the same purpose. The same is true for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into Southern California, or a printing press used to mint phony $100 bills.
> Ah yes, thanks for invoking "save the children" and the farcical War on Drugs.
That's from an excerpt from a document I referenced. I already noted I didn't agree with everything in it, but there were more examples that just that in the excerpt.
> Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains.
That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that?
in 1986 reported civil forfeiture assets were $93.7M
in 2010 that figure was $2.5B
"Over 12 years, agencies have taken $20 billion in cash, securities, other property from drug bosses and Wall Street tycoons as well as "ordinary Americans who have not committed crimes."[31] One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime"
> One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime"
That needs more explanation, as large shipments of contraband that are seized would likely fall under that category. How do you charge the owner of a shipping container, or an abandoned boat, or illegal items left at the scene of a crime, when the owner is not present, or is in a location you have no jurisdiction, or you don't know who the owner is? You don't, you use Civil Forfeiture and seize the illegal goods without a criminal case, because that's the mechanism the law provides.
• In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net assets—that is, money forfeited from property owners and now available for federal law enforcement activities after deducting various expenses. A similar fund at the U.S. Treasury Department held more than $400 million in net assets in 2008. By contrast, in 1986, the year after the AFF was created, it took in just $93.7 million in deposits.
"• State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. This measure excludes cars and other forfeited property, as well as forfeitures from many states that did not make data available for those years, and so likely represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg.
• Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million.
Source: Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March 2010), p. 7.
I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband.
The problem is clearly that LE agencies are heavily incentivized to purse civil forfeiture as a means, in best case, to bolster budgets and support - in Generous Forfeiture states, public school budgets etc, and worst case, as slush funds. See Maricopa Country Sherriff's office. And Local PDs and Sheriff's depts nationwide.
The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. For every Madoff or HSBC or shipping container filled with coke or knockoff prada bags, there are a thousand people like the family in the OP.
> I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband.
Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said.
> The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul.
I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.
> Also, how can you explain the steady linear growth of forfeiture assets in the face of declining crime rates?
I can't. But I'm not saying it's not a problem, or that it hasn't been growing, just that I wasn't aware of the value of seizures that victimize people exceeding that of seizures that don't. I never refuted your claim, just pointed out a problem in the source of it that makes the specific number ambiguous for that claim. it's still entirely possible you are correct. It may even be likely.
> And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely.
And you ended with "The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul."
> You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread.
I have tried to be very clear on my position, from the very first comment. CF are a major problem. They either need a major overhaul, or to be repealed. If repealed, we should look at any valid, useful uses and make sure to account for them. As such, careful consideration of CF is more useful than a simple stance of "CF is bad. Abolish it." Do you see any statements from me that do not follow this?
I've assumed you've been carrying on your side of the conversation in good faith. I would hope you could extend me the same courtesy.
I inferred some equivocation which led me to believe that you find the institution of CF acceptable, despite the abundance of abuse. That the good outweighs the bad, or that seizures themselves are generally acceptable, and not an outright insult to the zombie corpse of the long dead 4A.
I'll admit though that this is my issue, not yours (perceiving your intent negatively). This has been a good discussion, and I should abstain from inference and address you on content alone. For that, I apologize.
As far as how we should proceed institutionally with altering CF to be more in line with the spirit of the rule of law - I'm a cynic, and a pragmatist.
If we're extremely lucky, we'll get a federal redress of CF and how it can be applied.
Clamoring for it to be thrown out is an outright fantasy.
Similar to my reply to your sibling comment, this does not break down (from what I could see) whether the the goods were seized as illegal goods or whether there actually was someone to charge. Under critical examination, I don't think the number mean what most people assume them mean, especially in the following statement:
Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner.
All contraband seized at port without a clear attributable own or person to prosecute falls under this. All drugs and drug money illegally transferring to and from the country that were intercepted without someone present to charge (or that they decide isn't the owner) fall under this.
To be fair, there may not be a lot of information around now to classify these things correctly, but that doesn't mean it's okay to take the entire amount and apply it towards one type of situation when it obviously doesn't apply.
I understand your appeal to emotions here but wouldn't it be better to go through a court process to seize that property? There could be a process like getting a search warrant to temporarily seize property, but it shouldn't be that the police can literally just snatch anything they want without due process. That is ridiculous and exactly the kind of thing the founders of the USA were upset about.
>>>For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction?
Easy fix; hold/freeze the bank robber's funds (or the crack dealers house, or whatever other property) temporarily - if they're convicted, take it permanently. If they're not convicted (be that acquitted, charges dropped, charges never laid, whatever) they should get the property back. Anything else is ridiculous.
That's still civil forfeiture, just an alteration for the rules in which it is allowed and how it must be carried out. Which is fine, and actually supports my position, which is that a critical look needs to be taken before we decide to just abolish it completely.
Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.
>>Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft
Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period
With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft.
>> For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner.
Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case.
>> It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction.
That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction.
>>For example, if drug dealers
I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
> Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period
Is it? If you've stolen the goods form someone else, is it theft? Maybe it is theft, but we condone it because it rights the initial wrong.
> With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft.
I've used almost those exact words elsewhere here at least once.
> Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case.
The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits -- and any property traceable to it -- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims -- like carjacking or fraud -- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.[1] I've referenced it multiple times at this point.
> That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction.
That's one side of it, and it's definitely a problem in some instances. What about someone using the money they've stolen from you to defend themselves? What about people in organized crime using money from that enterprise to defend themselves?
> I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
Can you not come up with a single other group that you don't agree with? What about contract killers? Or embezzlers? Or con men? I expect if you disagree you should be able to come up with a general rebuttal to what is obviously meant as a general example.
Keep in mind my assertion here is not that civil forfeiture is good, but that there are some useful aspects, and before abolishing it outright, we owe it to ourselves to at least rationally examine the pros and cons, and see if we can mitigate the downsides or possible change the law instead of abolish it.
no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, Until then they are innocent and any taking of their property it immoral theft.
Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF.
Any Freezing of Assets or property at a minimum should be directly and irrevocably linked to a criminal prosecution of some kind
I see no reason the government should be allowed to cease assets with out even charging a persons with crime
I also see no reason why when those assets are seized the burden is upon me to prove my innocence
CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. Period, End of Discussion
> Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF.
Yes, and it also requires time.
> CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices.
CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible.
> Period, End of Discussion
Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.
> Civil forfeiture is also how they confiscate contraband, or anything that is itself illegal to own.
If something is illegal to own, then there should be no difficulties charging the owner with a crime.
> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you.
Exactly.
> I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away
Just like an officer can choose not to write up a ticket, they can tell a first-time offender "Throw away the beer right now and I'll let your parents deal with this; otherwise I'll have to charge you." That doesn't require civil forfeiture.
> If something is illegal to own, then there should be no difficulties charging the owner with a crime.
Do we want the law to be this inflexible? It sounds good initially, but I would rather the starving man have the bread he stole gently taken by the police and returned to the owner, and sent on his way (hopefully with some help), than to be arrested. Without civil forfeiture, this turn of events would require the police to either arrest the starving man, or break the law themselves to take the bread. CF is a way for the police to use their discretion to right situations, and to prevent additional harm to victims (such as preventing property from being destroyed, used or spent after the criminal is apprehended but before conviction).
What about the case of stolen property, and the misuse of hiding of it prior to conviction but after arrest? It does the victim little good if the property stolen is disposed of or hidden after arrest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massive reform for the law in these cases, I just think there are cases where it's useful, and careful consideration should be given as to whether we need to keep some portion of it intact, or remove it altogether, and the consequences of that choice.
Edit: Okay, ignore the stolen bread and kid with beer examples. They aren't well thought out, and are distracting from the other examples and and points, which I think deserve attention. I'm only leaving it here because I'm loathe to remove something people are responding to, even if it reflects poorly on me. :/
> Without civil forfeiture, this turn of events would require the police to either arrest the starving man, or break the law themselves to take the bread.
Or tell him he'd be arrested if he didn't hand over the bread...
I would rather the laws be inflexible enough to prevent abuse then rely on the goodwill of the the police to not just use the law for personal gain, which they have proven willing to do repeatedly in the past.
>If something is illegal to own, then there should be no difficulties charging the owner with a crime.
Owning cash and fancy cars aren't illegal. These laws were suppose to make it easier to stop drug dealers where large amounts of cash were common place.
> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you.
CF isn't generally used to take illegal goods, but to take otherwise legal goods. For example in a drink driving stop, they may charge the car with a drink driving offence.
That's not true. CF is how assets are seized prior to conviction, including stolen good to be given back to the rightful owner[1]. CF has a lot of problems, but let's not ignore that it can, and has been used to good effect in the past as well. I doubt doing so will lead us to a better outcome.
While easy to reason about morally and with common sense, the law is a bit more strict in that in defining when something is or is not a possession, and until proven otherwise by a court, if someone claims property is theirs, to remove it without consent is theft.
There may be plenty of cases where it's obvious who owns what, but it would be illegal to rectify prior to judgement if the perpetrator continues to claim ownership. For example, a bike with a serial number and documentation. If the thief claims the bike was thrown away, and you claim it was locked up and there were no witnesses, then without CF you might have to wait for a judgement before the bike is removed from the perpetrator and given back to you. With Cf, the police might make a judgement that you deserve the bike until judgement. Of course even this situation is open to abuse and mistakes...
> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc.
I see no problem with guns, illegal substances, and explosives being a separately-delineated legal category, allowing them to be seized while not allowing cars, computers and other private property to be seized.
> I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out.
> I see no problem with guns, illegal substances, and explosives being a separately-delineated legal category, allowing them to be seized while not allowing cars, computers and other private property to be seized.
That would be a refinement to CF, where it only applies to specific items, not the complete abolishment of it. There is the problematic case of money, and being able to return it to the rightful owner.
> I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out.
It's a poor example. I'll freely admit that. The point was to show that any time the police take something from you without a conviction and without CF, it would be real theft, under the law, not theft in all but name, which we have now. In some cases that's good, and in some I think it's not.
I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree.
Why confiscate the beer? Dump it out and return the bottles. The officer is just helping the kid to come into compliance with the law.
under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
That's how it used to be. Once upon a time, if I recall, the money went to the federal justice department. But in 1984 the law was tweaked to "equitably share" the proceeds with the enforcement departments that made the bust.
I'll make this even simpler, no VICTIM, no CRIME.
Unless you can produce a victim no crime has been committed. Follow this simple rule and most of this illegal, immoral tyrannical shit stops.
So, for example, DUI should be legal unless someone gets hurt? What about tax evasion? Can the government itself be counted as a victim? If so, then I think this exception might well swallow your rule...
"The People" (as represented by the government) would be a victim in a tax evasion case; they're harmed because tax revenues that would be put toward civic services were not paid.
As noted taxation is theft. Doubly so if it's not a voluntary contract. For instance, sales tax is voluntary. I choose wether or not to make a purchase. I decide if I want to pay that tax.
Income tax, is not. It's pure theft. We never had one for the first 100 years.
"The people" are a group. Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. There is no such thing as group rights. That's why we have a lot of the problems we have because we keep putting people into groups.
It seems to me that theft is the unlawful, involuntary taking of property. Just like how murder is not just killing, but an unlawful killing. So, while you might think that taxation is the moral equivalent of theft, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that they are literally the same thing. And it certainly adds nothing useful to a discussion with people who, as you surely are aware, have heard this tired phrase many times before and have good reason for disagreeing with it.
What do you make of these examples? Let's say that I run over your leg with my car, and you successfully sue me for damages. I have no liquid assets with which to pay your judgment. Therefore, you obtain a lien against my boat, seize it, and sell the boat to help satisfy the judgment. Is this theft? Should this be legal? Or what about confiscations of property for reasons other than taxation or the satisfaction of judgments? For example, it seems to me it would be a sensible policy to confiscate automatic firearms from people who have been convicted of multiple violent felonies. Would that be theft? Or what if the state can prove, at trial, that your private jet was purchased with the proceeds of a protection racket. Can it be seized and sold to compensate your victims, or would that be theft?
I should add that I also don't see how your distinction between sales tax and income tax makes any sense. The sale and the income are both voluntary--the tax is not. If your point is that the underlying behavior is voluntary, I'm not sure how that distinguishes the cases. Earning an income is no less voluntary than making a purchase (though surely some purchases are more voluntary than others -- just like income).
How about if we made it a condition on any purchase that you agreed to pay an income tax? Would that resolve your concern? I'm guessing it wouldn't, though I'm not sure I can see why, except that you like sales taxes for some reason but don't like income taxes.
yes.. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.
> which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment.
One is impairment by situation (kids, or some other occurrence) which you can't conceivably protect against all instances of prior to driving. That is, it's caused by outside forces. The other is willful disregard for the law and the safety of others by initiating the situation when you know it's against the law.
> Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer.
It's a disincentive because it's seen as both more problematic and disruptive.
> Taxation is theft
No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know it is not actual theft, and all you are doing is avoiding the question, which could have been done just as easily by leaving it out.
>No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know it is not actual theft, and all you are doing is avoiding the question, which could have been done just as easily by leaving it out.
Theft is the Involuntary Taking of a persons property, Taxation is most certainly theft
The fact that is is approved by government, or legal, does not transform it into something else.
And as I mentioned earlier if it's not voluntary there is no enforceable contract between the two parties.
Might does not make right. You can pass all the laws you wish to state otherwise but it doesnt change the facts.
Taxation is an exchange of goods for services. Services you've received your entire life. If you want to reclassify it as theft, then every use of a public road by you is theft of services, and you and the government are just stealing from each other.
It's the contract you were born under, or chose to accept if you immigrated. If you don't like it, you are allowed (encouraged even!) to get involved and try to change it, or you can shop around for a different location that has better terms, or no terms at all (good luck, you might find a place, but I doubt it would be a desirable place to live).
That's the reality of the situation, rejecting it will only work for so long until it is forcible reasserted. It may not always be the case, but it's the case now.
> The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face.
That's what being born as a citizen is. The "contract" in question is not a legal construct, but a societal one. It's the same as your relationship to your parents. You both have obligation to each other, but that can be reassessed if one side does not held up. Being born into a contract is not inherently unfair, it's only unfair if the contract itself is unfair and does not allow for change.
I just watched the first video. It's laughably one sided, presents starting conditions to prime you for later arguments, and uses visuals that look to be eyes to specifically tailored to prime your response through emotion rather than rational thought. I am not impressed.
> The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you
It's relative, and I am, by nature, a relativist. For example, I do not believe ownership is an inherent right, but a societal construct, and as such when discussing something as large as changing that way in which our society functions at a core level, you can't use ownership as the basis to justify the legality of an action of that society without first justifying ownership. That is, there exist systems where there is no ownership, and they are not inherently bad, or wrong, as much as I do not want to live within them.
As such, I'm forced to state a goal of the system, and which system I think is best at getting there while maximizing efficiency. My goal in this case would be a mixture of the least suffering most most happiness per person, while trying to minimize extreme suffering. I think our current mixture of socialism and capitalism is a decent choice for efficiently achieving this goal. I believe straying too far towards either libertarianism or communism provides unacceptable levels of either suffering or overall unhappiness.
I'm open to this situation changing in the future, due to new systems being developed, old systems being tweaked, or reassessment through new realities enabled by technology. I don't think we're there yet. As such, I think "taxation is theft" is working at a level that completely misses the point. Theft is a construct of society, not a moral certitude, and if it works against society, and humanity, to consider taxation theft, then I don't care whether you think it is or isn't. It's irrelevant. I believe that's the most moral stance I can take, the one that helps the most people living now and in the future. You may believe something different, that's fine. I try to live by my beliefs, I only expect you to try to live by yours.
> WOW, Just wow...
> Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you...
I wish I could say that at least you kept it classy, and didn't resort to pure condescension. But I can't.
Not to end up on the same side as the anti-taxation guy, but:
If I go drive 50mph through a 30mph residential street while I'm talking on my cell phone with one hand, eating a cheeseburger with the other, and steering with my knees, I'll get charged with speeding and pay a ~$130 fine.
If I go drive 25mph through a 30mph residential street with both hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road but I've had two glasses of wine, I'll be assessed ~$1k in "administrative penalties". If I've had three glasses of wine, it's $10k just to plead guilty and avoid all the lawyer's fees. That's life-ruining money for a lot of people.
Drive through a stop sign? $220. Stop at a stop sign and proceed when safe to do so, but had three glasses of wine? $10k.
Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I agree that "let the drunks drive around until they hit someone" isn't necessarily the best solution, but you have to admit that the way we're dealing with it is nonsensical.
Part of the problem is the nature of alcohol, and how it changes perception. Alcohol, by it's nature, makes you less able to correctly assess your own state of mind. We punish drunk driving to help counteract this effect, to change the question from just whether you are capable of driving safely to additionally whether you will get in trouble even if you can, This is useful since your opinion of your ability will most likely be inflated, so we as a society have adopted rules that reduce the influence of ability in the positive decision process.
Now, I agree that the punishment has gotten out of hand. That's likely because it didn't have the impact it was hoped it would have, and so the punishment has been slowly ratcheted up over the decades to try to counteract this. That's an unfortunate side effect, and worth its own conversation as I agree it can literally ruin people's lives, but I think it's a distinct issue from whether drunk driving should be punished at all.
> Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I'm not sure, but in whatever calculations we make about this, we need to keep in mind a few additional points when considering driving while intoxicated. First, intoxication does not cease when the problem situation starts. That is, a distracted person may notice a pending accident too late to prevent it, but they still have a chance, under full control of their faculties, to try to mitigate the problem. Second, a driver distracted through their own fault may alter that behavior at any point, while an intoxicated person cannot (a person distracted from outside stimuli is not something you can really guard against).
Guys. You see that these are just two examples of "victimless" crimes, right? There are a lot more, especially if the government doesn't count as a victim. What about receipt of stolen property? Treason? Espionage? Bribery? Failure to pay a bunch of parking tickets? Trespassing on government land?
> Make all government agencies that seize property responsible for very clearly logging and indicating where it was found, the condition it was in (photographically and by description)
That might be difficult to enforce... Maybe some kind of inventory management system for personal possessions? Institutions have been doing it for a while, it seems like the biggest hurdle is initially entering all the items.
That hurdle is the point. Hopefully it would prevent grabbing more than they actually need for the case (such as a marriage license...). Unfortunately it wouldn't help the seizure of unrelated but high-value items, such as cash where it's unrelated.
This is a common way of bypassing the courts. US police departments have gradually ratcheted up the amount of punishment they can inflict on people without court consent, with a combination of civil forfeiture, pre-trial detainment and destruction of property. They get away with it because the courts have neither the will nor the resources to push back effectively. The practical result has been a loss of faith in the US criminal justice system, which is a threat to the innocent, not a defender of it.
Why did they even need that, the couple called them up told them they planned to sell mary jane and the hours they planned to do it, "Come on down, check it out", yet the police still needed to contrive an anonymous tip for some reason.
The problem is they only talked to the cops. They should have talked to the people with the real power, the prosecutors. Rich people hire a lawyer who knows the prosecutors, and have them get assurances (possibly in writing) before doing anything close to illegal.
For all the reasonable concerns about government overreach & abuse of power, (and without getting into the principles underwriting their power, i.e., that they work for us) government incompetence it just as compelling to me as a reason for strong checks and legal constraints. One agency saddled up for war while another gave its blessing? Eyeroll.
As far as I can tell, law enforcement is not penalized for executing a search warrant that doesn't pan out. Same goes for the courts that approve them, often ignoring a lack of true probable cause and/or being misled by the agents who write these warrants. This is a very bad incentive for all involved that creates innocent victims and hoards of wasted time.
I wouldn't really call this a warrant that didn't pan out. They were breaking the law and if they hadn't been working with the local government all this time the Shattuck's would probably be in jail.
Civil forfeiture is terrifying. I haven't even done anything wrong and I'm terrified that someone might accuse me, and then the police come in and take and/or smash all of my stuff and/or confiscate my bank accounts and investments.
What do you mean your terrified that someone might accuse you? It doesn't even take that much. Get pulled over for no real reason on the interstate with a few hundred bucks in the car and it's "drug money".
There is so much about this case that is so fucked up I don't even know where to begin, but I believe there is one simple reform we could all agree on:
Police have an obligation to fully return, restore, and compensate citizens who have been inconvenienced, had their assets seized, and their property damaged, by the investigation and cleared of wrongdoing by the PD, had charges dropped, or found not guilty by a jury of their peers.
No more asset forfeiture to line cops' pockets, no more Baghdad raids for families that pose no immediate risk to anyone, no more citizens and families financially ruined to pay for the costs of the PDs mistakes.
When my brother was in middle school someone stole his phone. The right kid was arrested and the cops took the phone into evidence. My brother is 19 now. We could never get the phone back.
Try dealing with any of these "mandatory XYZ" crimes. In Colorado, for instance, when couples fight and the police are called, someone goes to jail, a mandatory order of protection is issued, you lose the ability to collect anything that you own in person (you must go through "mutual friends"), and if you live with your girlfriend/wife/fiance, you've also just lost the right to go to your own house.
So, having a fight that triggers a call to the police (even a verbal one, or slamming a door) will result in the XY going to jail for the night, paying for it, losing their house and most of their belongings, losing their job, being arrested (which is never expunged, even if innocent), and being homeless while you get a new job, house, clothes, etc.
Even if you're acquitted (I was completely acquitted of the lowest charge possible, which is a 3rd degree misdemeanor), it's not like your things magically show up, you still went to jail and lost your job, and the state doesn't care at all. The records should be expunged, the money that I paid to stay in jail ($35) should be refunded, and I should be given a police escort to force her to relinquish my things (thousands of dollars of things, photos, etc).
The system in CO is just a race to call the cops. Whoever goes first, wins. Slamming a door will immediately tag you as a "Domestic Abuser" and any guns (and ammo) must be kept at a friend's for the duration of the trial (which takes 6 months).
I won, and it certainly doesn't feel like "winning". :(
In TX, I called the cops on my (insane, belligerent, beating down my front door) ex and all she had to do was lie to get me arrested. The police are dumber than rocks and I had to wage a credible threat to prosecute my lying ex for perjury and false statements to police to get my case dropped.
I get that it's easy to bury your head in the sand when it comes to these things, but there is a major league problem with the police here in SF. They are accountable to nobody and continue to harass and intimidate everyone, not just minorities.
I get that it's easy to bury your head in the sand when it comes to these things, but there is a major league problem with the police here in SF. They are accountable to nobody and continue to harass and intimidate everyone, not just minorities.
A lot of people don't understand this.
It starts off with minorities because, being minorities, they don't have the political clout to do anything about it.
The downtown decision makers don't care if some black or brown kid gets his head split open for not moving fast enough when the police ordered him to leave.
They don't care until it's someone that is important to them. When it's John Q MiddleClassSuburbanWhiteTeen who gets arrested for a made up offense, it's too late to fix the problem. At that point, the machinations are already in place to abuse everyone.
What they do to the minorities, they'll eventually do to you.
Citing the Mario Woods shooting does nothing for your case. For those who haven't been following along, Woods had just stabbed a total stranger on the street and police showed up to apprehend him. He would not drop his knife after repeated orders and use of less lethal force like pepper spray and bean bag rounds. After a few minutes, he tried to break through the perimeter the cops had set up around him. At that point, the police could have either let a dangerous man escape, they could put themselves in great peril by physically stopping a charging man with a knife, or they could shoot him and end the threat to the public and themselves.
I'm not saying that the police couldn't have handled this better, but characterizing this incident as "shoot first and ask questions later" is mendacious.
Edit: And Ian Murdock? What evidence is there that police killed him?
Well, people have been shot with far less obvious things on their hands mistaken (or "mistaken") for guns.
Besides, what phone camera has a light on it that's visible?
None that I can think of in day/noon/afternoon time. Some have a focus assist light and/or flash at night time -- but taking out of one's pockets and pointing a small object at a US policeman at nighttime, and especially in an aggressive scenario as the one we're discussing, that I would advise even less.
A light might not help you. The police might think that it's a laser sight, and be even more likely to shoot you:
The officers claim that the Taser projected a red light, which they assumed was the laser sight of a handgun, and feared for their lives. At 7.18:43pm, Schiff and Sawyer began barraging Nieto with .40-calibre bullets.
Yeah I think most states are like that now. Here in Kansas I think that's how they roll as well. Doesn't matter who did what ONE of you is going to jail. Cops don't give a shit. "We're just doing our jobs and the law says...."
That's the problem, as a mandatory law, there is no discretion, which makes the legal system too inflexible to be just. The problem with civil forfeiture is the opposite, as there is too much discretion, which allows it to be abused and used unjustly.
Agreed. But again I say produce a victim or there is no crime.
What individual is the victim in civil forfeiture? No one but the owner of the property in question. That individual is the one harmed by the state. And should have redress for the states theft of his/her property. CF my $50,000 in gold bars? I'll sue for the return of my property AND ten million in damages. No cap in damages. Make the state bleed. CF is a crime.
> But again I say produce a victim or there is no crime.
To all laws are criminal, and not all crimes have a singular, discrete victim. Laws are also used as disincentives.
> CF is a crime.
CF is used in a lot more instances than the simplistic example you are putting forth. For example, CF is what is used to justify seizure of contraband at the border (imagine a shipping container full of guns with no known owner). Grouping all usages under a simplistic, unrealistic reading of the law doesn't lead anywhere useful.
they are basically gangsters at this point and they know it. They are protected by law from any recourse, worst that can happen is the victim sues the city or county and tax payer foot the bill. The actual police officer or even department cant be punished in anyway and they know this, with how strong unions are they cant even be fired.
You must live in a more civilized locale. Most USA police in fact are fairly decent human beings. The system is set up to encourage them to act as gangsters, which many of them do. It was set up that way by a different group of gangsters. Does this not make much sense? That's intentional; voters don't understand it either.
I can tell you whats it like for personal experience.
It beyond sucks, and should be something police truly fear doing due to lawsuit exposure.
I was arrested on a completely bogus felony "destruction of evidence" charge about a decade ago while driving my car though a "bad part" of town (think how discriminatory that is at face value, btw) by a totally crooked cop who eventually was thrown off the force for illegal activities.
I was arrested and would have been held for months in jail if I didn't have the resources to bond out, which cost somewhere around $400 to do.
I lost a really great job a few days later as my small town publishes all arrests in the newspaper and my boss or his boss saw my name in it I'm sure.
The first thing I told my PD was "under no circumstances was I going to take a plea in this case!" and explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past.
I could tell he understood my resolve. In the end, the cop was thrown off the force and one day I showed up to court ready to battle and he told "great news...you've been null-processed and its over."
I didn't know to feel ecstatic or furious over what had happened. I still don't.
Oh it's ok for a totally crooked cop to charge me with a completely bogus felony, cost me 100's if not 1000's of dollars, and destroy my job because I had proir weed and MDMA charges from a decade earlier?
Well ok I guess if that's how you feel about things.
There are kinds of corruption and abuse. I believe that he's looking to gauge which kind happened here.
For example, if you have past convictions for drug possession and the corruption in this case was that the officer saw you, knew your history, just assumed you were guilty and refused to back down when he realized that you were clean. Alternately, you were driving along and (From your account name, I'm going to assume that you're brown) he sees a brown guy driving through a "bad area" and decides to make a bust, regardless of your guilt or innocence.
Both are misconduct. Both are wrong but I believe that the other poster was just trying to get a mental image.
Technically, Shattuck's dispensary should not have been approved by the town planning commission, because the law does not provide for selling marijuana in dispensaries
This is a great lesson for everyone. I grew up assuming that people in charge of regulations and laws would know them. They could tell you what's legal and what's not.
After interactions with different gov't agencies and law enforcement, I've come to realize that's not true at all. I would be shocked if even 10% of the people in charge of enforcing laws have even read the laws themselves.
Don't be surprised if a police officer arrests you for something completely legal or if a gov't agency tells you can/can't do something even though the opposite is true.
It's pretty disheartening when the people chosen to enforce a law aren't even informed enough to do it correctly. It's not that hard to get up to speed.
It's the theory that if you write enough laws then everybody is a criminal. Then the authorities can just pick and choose who they wish to prosecute. This an example of that, so many laws on the books that the people in charge of them have no idea what the laws on the books are.
There have been stories recently of police arresting someone for a legal act because the officer thought it was illegal. If I remember correctly a lawsuit was started in one of these cases and it determined the officer's ignorance of the law was not a suitable reason for the lawsuit. Or something to that point.
What's even worse is that it's not a problem for those enforcing the law, it's a problem for you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse as an average citizen, but if an enforcer makes a mistake and dishevels an honest person's life? Much more often than not, the victim just has to take it and move on, and there are no consequences for the mistake.
>Everyone is already a criminal if someone wants to look carefully enough
This is a pretty good quote. It reminded me of two more:
"Honest men have nothing to fear from the police" (said, presumably, by the prolific Anonymous), and
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" (said, presumably, by Cardinal Richelieu but possibly by the Roman philosopher Quintilian)
I haven't read it, but I'm aware of the book. But I disagree with the title of three felonies a day, I just doubt that. I suppose it's possible the book covers that in some way though.
I think there should be limits on the police's ability to take people's stuff. Maybe add something to the constitution that something along the lines of:
> ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That way, the police can't just seize your stuff without considering the damages that inflicts on a person.
The only thing I can see as a viable target of asset forfeiture is illegal items (e.g. the drugs themselves). Any other asset that the government wants to seize needs to follow a criminal conviction and a separate trial on the asset itself. This funding our police through stealing (see Philadelphia) is beyond wrong.
I also believe that no money from fines should go to the police department. It should end up in the state's (not the city, etc.) general fund. That will end the incentive to be a bunch of buccaneers.
It would actually be better if it ended up in a segregated budget category that could not be used to fund policing or courts, and which could not be conditionally reduced based on the amount of funding provided via forfeiture.
If you stick it in the general fund, it is just one spending bill away from ending up in police coffers anyway.
The issue is that if cash or other valuable items are seized, they can be used to fund a legal defense. This is, at times, undesirable: if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers).
CF in general is a troublesome idea; a better system would be the court overseeing and holding in escrow any funds or items that are seized by the police and disbursing it as necessary once the trial is over or a plea is reached.
> if someone robs a bank, that money shouldn't be used in criminal defense because it's the property of someone else (either the bank or it's customers).
That is provably not the person arrested money, just as a car thief shouldn't keep the car. Drug money is tougher, and the government should have to prove it came from criminal activity. Allowing the government to seize money just because it could have been from illegal activity is bull.
>They worked to ensure every last detail was in full compliance with the law as they understood it
They were lucky. Aereo did the same, specifically falling court rulings and the law and their efforts were successfully held in court to be clear demonstration of an attempt to break the law!
Most of these cases strike me as being quite worrying with regard to 'just following orders'.
A police officer must, must have discretion. The individual, the team, that steps into a home must be able to decide whether taking items is the best course of action and be free to do so without coercion.
Otherwise, you have robots acting on instructions from higher ups. That's not a reasonable model for society.
134 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 253 ms ] threadAlso, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back.
I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction.
The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
Your example is already done today, you just don't hear about it in those terms.
That said, the fact is that your example's archetype accounts for a vanishingly small amount of civil forfeitures.
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/20...
The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)
Maybe this provides a clue for how to curb civil forfeiture in a way that skirts the arguments for it. Make all government agencies that seize property responsible for very clearly logging and indicating where it was found, the condition it was in (photographically and by description), and to store it appropriately so it will not be damaged or deteriorate beyond what would be considered normal.
If there's a cost to seizing property, and it's not a situation of "grab everything and throw it into a box until later when we can have a fire-sale", then that might help this type of egregious abuse.
That's not to say there aren't other abuses of it where this wouldn't help much (cash seizure, for example), or that we don't need comprehensive, well thought out reform in this area, but it might be a simple, uncontroversial measure that could immediately help in some cases.
Well, this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any. Civil forfeiture is also how they confiscate contraband, or anything that is itself illegal to own. I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you. This might be problematic in the case of guns, illegal substances, explosives, etc. I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
> And under no circumstances can the proceeds from a seizure be given to anybody in the decision-making chain.
This is common sense, but is wrapped up on the idea of using CF to help fund police departments because the public doesn't want to. Personally, I would like to see the money go towards treatment and counseling for people with problems with drugs, addiction, criminal records and mental illnesses, and community building and outreach programs.
Good, there should not be.
> It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
Actually it is not, this is exactly what was intended when they passed the laws, I do not know where you get the idea this was about "taking a beer from a 16 year old"
For reasons for civil forfeiture, this[1] might be an interesting read. You don't have to agree with everything in it (I don't), but I believe there are some good points.
Here's an excerpt: Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. For example, if drug dealers are using a "crack house" to sell drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, the building is a danger to the health and safety of the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its use time and again for the same purpose. The same is true for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into Southern California, or a printing press used to mint phony $100 bills.
1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...
Throw the baby out with the bathwater r.e. civil forfeiture.
Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains.
In fact, I'd say that the bad actors using the ill-gotten gains are overwhelmingly LE itself.
That's from an excerpt from a document I referenced. I already noted I didn't agree with everything in it, but there were more examples that just that in the excerpt.
> Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains.
That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
in 1986 reported civil forfeiture assets were $93.7M
in 2010 that figure was $2.5B
"Over 12 years, agencies have taken $20 billion in cash, securities, other property from drug bosses and Wall Street tycoons as well as "ordinary Americans who have not committed crimes."[31] One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime"
emphasis mine.
That needs more explanation, as large shipments of contraband that are seized would likely fall under that category. How do you charge the owner of a shipping container, or an abandoned boat, or illegal items left at the scene of a crime, when the owner is not present, or is in a location you have no jurisdiction, or you don't know who the owner is? You don't, you use Civil Forfeiture and seize the illegal goods without a criminal case, because that's the mechanism the law provides.
• Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million.
Source: Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March 2010), p. 7.
http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu...
_______________________________
I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband.
The problem is clearly that LE agencies are heavily incentivized to purse civil forfeiture as a means, in best case, to bolster budgets and support - in Generous Forfeiture states, public school budgets etc, and worst case, as slush funds. See Maricopa Country Sherriff's office. And Local PDs and Sheriff's depts nationwide.
The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. For every Madoff or HSBC or shipping container filled with coke or knockoff prada bags, there are a thousand people like the family in the OP.
Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said.
> The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul.
I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.
It's an abomination.
You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread.
I can't. But I'm not saying it's not a problem, or that it hasn't been growing, just that I wasn't aware of the value of seizures that victimize people exceeding that of seizures that don't. I never refuted your claim, just pointed out a problem in the source of it that makes the specific number ambiguous for that claim. it's still entirely possible you are correct. It may even be likely.
> And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely.
And you ended with "The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul."
> You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread.
I have tried to be very clear on my position, from the very first comment. CF are a major problem. They either need a major overhaul, or to be repealed. If repealed, we should look at any valid, useful uses and make sure to account for them. As such, careful consideration of CF is more useful than a simple stance of "CF is bad. Abolish it." Do you see any statements from me that do not follow this?
I've assumed you've been carrying on your side of the conversation in good faith. I would hope you could extend me the same courtesy.
I'll admit though that this is my issue, not yours (perceiving your intent negatively). This has been a good discussion, and I should abstain from inference and address you on content alone. For that, I apologize.
As far as how we should proceed institutionally with altering CF to be more in line with the spirit of the rule of law - I'm a cynic, and a pragmatist.
If we're extremely lucky, we'll get a federal redress of CF and how it can be applied.
Clamoring for it to be thrown out is an outright fantasy.
I don't think we'll get either.
http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner.
All contraband seized at port without a clear attributable own or person to prosecute falls under this. All drugs and drug money illegally transferring to and from the country that were intercepted without someone present to charge (or that they decide isn't the owner) fall under this.
To be fair, there may not be a lot of information around now to classify these things correctly, but that doesn't mean it's okay to take the entire amount and apply it towards one type of situation when it obviously doesn't apply.
Easy fix; hold/freeze the bank robber's funds (or the crack dealers house, or whatever other property) temporarily - if they're convicted, take it permanently. If they're not convicted (be that acquitted, charges dropped, charges never laid, whatever) they should get the property back. Anything else is ridiculous.
Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.
Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period
With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft.
>> For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner.
Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case.
>> It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction.
That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction.
>>For example, if drug dealers
I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
Is it? If you've stolen the goods form someone else, is it theft? Maybe it is theft, but we condone it because it rights the initial wrong.
> With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft.
I've used almost those exact words elsewhere here at least once.
> Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case.
The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits -- and any property traceable to it -- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims -- like carjacking or fraud -- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.[1] I've referenced it multiple times at this point.
> That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction.
That's one side of it, and it's definitely a problem in some instances. What about someone using the money they've stolen from you to defend themselves? What about people in organized crime using money from that enterprise to defend themselves?
> I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
Can you not come up with a single other group that you don't agree with? What about contract killers? Or embezzlers? Or con men? I expect if you disagree you should be able to come up with a general rebuttal to what is obviously meant as a general example.
Keep in mind my assertion here is not that civil forfeiture is good, but that there are some useful aspects, and before abolishing it outright, we owe it to ourselves to at least rationally examine the pros and cons, and see if we can mitigate the downsides or possible change the law instead of abolish it.
1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...
no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, Until then they are innocent and any taking of their property it immoral theft.
Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF.
Any Freezing of Assets or property at a minimum should be directly and irrevocably linked to a criminal prosecution of some kind
I see no reason the government should be allowed to cease assets with out even charging a persons with crime
I also see no reason why when those assets are seized the burden is upon me to prove my innocence
CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. Period, End of Discussion
Yes, and it also requires time.
> CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices.
CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible.
> Period, End of Discussion
Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.
If something is illegal to own, then there should be no difficulties charging the owner with a crime.
> I imagine without CF law enforcement would be forced to charge you with a crime to remove illegal property from you.
Exactly.
> I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away
Just like an officer can choose not to write up a ticket, they can tell a first-time offender "Throw away the beer right now and I'll let your parents deal with this; otherwise I'll have to charge you." That doesn't require civil forfeiture.
Do we want the law to be this inflexible? It sounds good initially, but I would rather the starving man have the bread he stole gently taken by the police and returned to the owner, and sent on his way (hopefully with some help), than to be arrested. Without civil forfeiture, this turn of events would require the police to either arrest the starving man, or break the law themselves to take the bread. CF is a way for the police to use their discretion to right situations, and to prevent additional harm to victims (such as preventing property from being destroyed, used or spent after the criminal is apprehended but before conviction).
What about the case of stolen property, and the misuse of hiding of it prior to conviction but after arrest? It does the victim little good if the property stolen is disposed of or hidden after arrest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massive reform for the law in these cases, I just think there are cases where it's useful, and careful consideration should be given as to whether we need to keep some portion of it intact, or remove it altogether, and the consequences of that choice.
Edit: Okay, ignore the stolen bread and kid with beer examples. They aren't well thought out, and are distracting from the other examples and and points, which I think deserve attention. I'm only leaving it here because I'm loathe to remove something people are responding to, even if it reflects poorly on me. :/
Or tell him he'd be arrested if he didn't hand over the bread...
Owning cash and fancy cars aren't illegal. These laws were suppose to make it easier to stop drug dealers where large amounts of cash were common place.
CF isn't generally used to take illegal goods, but to take otherwise legal goods. For example in a drink driving stop, they may charge the car with a drink driving offence.
1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...
There may be plenty of cases where it's obvious who owns what, but it would be illegal to rectify prior to judgement if the perpetrator continues to claim ownership. For example, a bike with a serial number and documentation. If the thief claims the bike was thrown away, and you claim it was locked up and there were no witnesses, then without CF you might have to wait for a judgement before the bike is removed from the perpetrator and given back to you. With Cf, the police might make a judgement that you deserve the bike until judgement. Of course even this situation is open to abuse and mistakes...
I see no problem with guns, illegal substances, and explosives being a separately-delineated legal category, allowing them to be seized while not allowing cars, computers and other private property to be seized.
> I'm not sure about requiring a 16 year old to be charged with a crime for a police officer to take him beer away, so I understand this argument to some degree. It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be.
I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out.
That would be a refinement to CF, where it only applies to specific items, not the complete abolishment of it. There is the problematic case of money, and being able to return it to the rightful owner.
> I don't think that would be handled through civil forfeiture law, either. They'd just pour it out.
It's a poor example. I'll freely admit that. The point was to show that any time the police take something from you without a conviction and without CF, it would be real theft, under the law, not theft in all but name, which we have now. In some cases that's good, and in some I think it's not.
Officer: "Pour out that beer immediately or I will arrest you"
Why confiscate the beer? Dump it out and return the bottles. The officer is just helping the kid to come into compliance with the law.
That's how it used to be. Once upon a time, if I recall, the money went to the federal justice department. But in 1984 the law was tweaked to "equitably share" the proceeds with the enforcement departments that made the bust.
Income tax, is not. It's pure theft. We never had one for the first 100 years.
"The people" are a group. Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. There is no such thing as group rights. That's why we have a lot of the problems we have because we keep putting people into groups.
What do you make of these examples? Let's say that I run over your leg with my car, and you successfully sue me for damages. I have no liquid assets with which to pay your judgment. Therefore, you obtain a lien against my boat, seize it, and sell the boat to help satisfy the judgment. Is this theft? Should this be legal? Or what about confiscations of property for reasons other than taxation or the satisfaction of judgments? For example, it seems to me it would be a sensible policy to confiscate automatic firearms from people who have been convicted of multiple violent felonies. Would that be theft? Or what if the state can prove, at trial, that your private jet was purchased with the proceeds of a protection racket. Can it be seized and sold to compensate your victims, or would that be theft?
I should add that I also don't see how your distinction between sales tax and income tax makes any sense. The sale and the income are both voluntary--the tax is not. If your point is that the underlying behavior is voluntary, I'm not sure how that distinguishes the cases. Earning an income is no less voluntary than making a purchase (though surely some purchases are more voluntary than others -- just like income).
How about if we made it a condition on any purchase that you agreed to pay an income tax? Would that resolve your concern? I'm guessing it wouldn't, though I'm not sure I can see why, except that you like sales taxes for some reason but don't like income taxes.
yes.. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...
>>Can the government itself be counted as a victim?
No
>>What about tax evasion?
Taxation is theft
One is impairment by situation (kids, or some other occurrence) which you can't conceivably protect against all instances of prior to driving. That is, it's caused by outside forces. The other is willful disregard for the law and the safety of others by initiating the situation when you know it's against the law.
> Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer.
It's a disincentive because it's seen as both more problematic and disruptive.
> Taxation is theft
No, it's legal. Your soundbite has no place in a serious discussion. Feel free to say it's equitable to theft, or you see it as no different, but we both know it is not actual theft, and all you are doing is avoiding the question, which could have been done just as easily by leaving it out.
Theft is the Involuntary Taking of a persons property, Taxation is most certainly theft
The fact that is is approved by government, or legal, does not transform it into something else.
And as I mentioned earlier if it's not voluntary there is no enforceable contract between the two parties. Might does not make right. You can pass all the laws you wish to state otherwise but it doesnt change the facts.
It's the contract you were born under, or chose to accept if you immigrated. If you don't like it, you are allowed (encouraged even!) to get involved and try to change it, or you can shop around for a different location that has better terms, or no terms at all (good luck, you might find a place, but I doubt it would be a desirable place to live).
That's the reality of the situation, rejecting it will only work for so long until it is forcible reasserted. It may not always be the case, but it's the case now.
The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you... Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you...
Maybe one day you will see the light of liberty, but I doubt it
The entire concept of being "born into" a contract is laughable on its face..
I will leave you with a few Links
http://georgeoughttohelp.com/
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index
The Philosophy of Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ
Have a nice evening
That's what being born as a citizen is. The "contract" in question is not a legal construct, but a societal one. It's the same as your relationship to your parents. You both have obligation to each other, but that can be reassessed if one side does not held up. Being born into a contract is not inherently unfair, it's only unfair if the contract itself is unfair and does not allow for change.
> http://georgeoughttohelp.com/
I just watched the first video. It's laughably one sided, presents starting conditions to prime you for later arguments, and uses visuals that look to be eyes to specifically tailored to prime your response through emotion rather than rational thought. I am not impressed.
> The Authoritarian Statism is Strong with you
It's relative, and I am, by nature, a relativist. For example, I do not believe ownership is an inherent right, but a societal construct, and as such when discussing something as large as changing that way in which our society functions at a core level, you can't use ownership as the basis to justify the legality of an action of that society without first justifying ownership. That is, there exist systems where there is no ownership, and they are not inherently bad, or wrong, as much as I do not want to live within them.
As such, I'm forced to state a goal of the system, and which system I think is best at getting there while maximizing efficiency. My goal in this case would be a mixture of the least suffering most most happiness per person, while trying to minimize extreme suffering. I think our current mixture of socialism and capitalism is a decent choice for efficiently achieving this goal. I believe straying too far towards either libertarianism or communism provides unacceptable levels of either suffering or overall unhappiness.
I'm open to this situation changing in the future, due to new systems being developed, old systems being tweaked, or reassessment through new realities enabled by technology. I don't think we're there yet. As such, I think "taxation is theft" is working at a level that completely misses the point. Theft is a construct of society, not a moral certitude, and if it works against society, and humanity, to consider taxation theft, then I don't care whether you think it is or isn't. It's irrelevant. I believe that's the most moral stance I can take, the one that helps the most people living now and in the future. You may believe something different, that's fine. I try to live by my beliefs, I only expect you to try to live by yours.
> WOW, Just wow...
> Sadly I have no desire tonight to try to purge that immoral belief from you...
I wish I could say that at least you kept it classy, and didn't resort to pure condescension. But I can't.
If I go drive 50mph through a 30mph residential street while I'm talking on my cell phone with one hand, eating a cheeseburger with the other, and steering with my knees, I'll get charged with speeding and pay a ~$130 fine.
If I go drive 25mph through a 30mph residential street with both hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road but I've had two glasses of wine, I'll be assessed ~$1k in "administrative penalties". If I've had three glasses of wine, it's $10k just to plead guilty and avoid all the lawyer's fees. That's life-ruining money for a lot of people.
Drive through a stop sign? $220. Stop at a stop sign and proceed when safe to do so, but had three glasses of wine? $10k.
Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I agree that "let the drunks drive around until they hit someone" isn't necessarily the best solution, but you have to admit that the way we're dealing with it is nonsensical.
Now, I agree that the punishment has gotten out of hand. That's likely because it didn't have the impact it was hoped it would have, and so the punishment has been slowly ratcheted up over the decades to try to counteract this. That's an unfortunate side effect, and worth its own conversation as I agree it can literally ruin people's lives, but I think it's a distinct issue from whether drunk driving should be punished at all.
> Is driving after a few drinks really something like 50x more dangerous than blowing through a stop sign at speed?
I'm not sure, but in whatever calculations we make about this, we need to keep in mind a few additional points when considering driving while intoxicated. First, intoxication does not cease when the problem situation starts. That is, a distracted person may notice a pending accident too late to prevent it, but they still have a chance, under full control of their faculties, to try to mitigate the problem. Second, a driver distracted through their own fault may alter that behavior at any point, while an intoxicated person cannot (a person distracted from outside stimuli is not something you can really guard against).
That might be difficult to enforce... Maybe some kind of inventory management system for personal possessions? Institutions have been doing it for a while, it seems like the biggest hurdle is initially entering all the items.
Why did they even need that, the couple called them up told them they planned to sell mary jane and the hours they planned to do it, "Come on down, check it out", yet the police still needed to contrive an anonymous tip for some reason.
Police have an obligation to fully return, restore, and compensate citizens who have been inconvenienced, had their assets seized, and their property damaged, by the investigation and cleared of wrongdoing by the PD, had charges dropped, or found not guilty by a jury of their peers.
No more asset forfeiture to line cops' pockets, no more Baghdad raids for families that pose no immediate risk to anyone, no more citizens and families financially ruined to pay for the costs of the PDs mistakes.
When my brother was in middle school someone stole his phone. The right kid was arrested and the cops took the phone into evidence. My brother is 19 now. We could never get the phone back.
So, having a fight that triggers a call to the police (even a verbal one, or slamming a door) will result in the XY going to jail for the night, paying for it, losing their house and most of their belongings, losing their job, being arrested (which is never expunged, even if innocent), and being homeless while you get a new job, house, clothes, etc.
Even if you're acquitted (I was completely acquitted of the lowest charge possible, which is a 3rd degree misdemeanor), it's not like your things magically show up, you still went to jail and lost your job, and the state doesn't care at all. The records should be expunged, the money that I paid to stay in jail ($35) should be refunded, and I should be given a police escort to force her to relinquish my things (thousands of dollars of things, photos, etc).
The system in CO is just a race to call the cops. Whoever goes first, wins. Slamming a door will immediately tag you as a "Domestic Abuser" and any guns (and ammo) must be kept at a friend's for the duration of the trial (which takes 6 months).
I won, and it certainly doesn't feel like "winning". :(
I'll remember to keep the cops on speed-dial if I ever move there.
Edit: why the downvotes? I can provide an innumerable amount of sources.[0][1][2]
[0] http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/police-shot-and-ki...
[1] https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/A%20Department%20...
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-founder-ian-murdoc...
I get that it's easy to bury your head in the sand when it comes to these things, but there is a major league problem with the police here in SF. They are accountable to nobody and continue to harass and intimidate everyone, not just minorities.
A lot of people don't understand this.
It starts off with minorities because, being minorities, they don't have the political clout to do anything about it.
The downtown decision makers don't care if some black or brown kid gets his head split open for not moving fast enough when the police ordered him to leave.
They don't care until it's someone that is important to them. When it's John Q MiddleClassSuburbanWhiteTeen who gets arrested for a made up offense, it's too late to fix the problem. At that point, the machinations are already in place to abuse everyone.
What they do to the minorities, they'll eventually do to you.
Then they came for the tech bros.
I'm not saying that the police couldn't have handled this better, but characterizing this incident as "shoot first and ask questions later" is mendacious.
Edit: And Ian Murdock? What evidence is there that police killed him?
Also, thanks for sharing this. Horror stories like yours are awakening young men everywhere about the risks of co-habitation and having LTRs.
Besides, what phone camera has a light on it that's visible?
None that I can think of in day/noon/afternoon time. Some have a focus assist light and/or flash at night time -- but taking out of one's pockets and pointing a small object at a US policeman at nighttime, and especially in an aggressive scenario as the one we're discussing, that I would advise even less.
The officers claim that the Taser projected a red light, which they assumed was the laser sight of a handgun, and feared for their lives. At 7.18:43pm, Schiff and Sawyer began barraging Nieto with .40-calibre bullets.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/death-by-gent...
In fact, it would be hard to distinguish between someone holding a phone with a light on or someone holding a gun with a light attached.
I'm not defending police brutality, but these are often difficult situations.
Police discretion be damned.
That's the problem, as a mandatory law, there is no discretion, which makes the legal system too inflexible to be just. The problem with civil forfeiture is the opposite, as there is too much discretion, which allows it to be abused and used unjustly.
To all laws are criminal, and not all crimes have a singular, discrete victim. Laws are also used as disincentives.
> CF is a crime.
CF is used in a lot more instances than the simplistic example you are putting forth. For example, CF is what is used to justify seizure of contraband at the border (imagine a shipping container full of guns with no known owner). Grouping all usages under a simplistic, unrealistic reading of the law doesn't lead anywhere useful.
Assume CIA? :D
It beyond sucks, and should be something police truly fear doing due to lawsuit exposure.
I was arrested on a completely bogus felony "destruction of evidence" charge about a decade ago while driving my car though a "bad part" of town (think how discriminatory that is at face value, btw) by a totally crooked cop who eventually was thrown off the force for illegal activities.
I was arrested and would have been held for months in jail if I didn't have the resources to bond out, which cost somewhere around $400 to do.
I lost a really great job a few days later as my small town publishes all arrests in the newspaper and my boss or his boss saw my name in it I'm sure.
The first thing I told my PD was "under no circumstances was I going to take a plea in this case!" and explained that I have always pled when guilty in the past.
I could tell he understood my resolve. In the end, the cop was thrown off the force and one day I showed up to court ready to battle and he told "great news...you've been null-processed and its over."
I didn't know to feel ecstatic or furious over what had happened. I still don't.
What were you convicted of before this incident? Were they related in any way?
Oh it's ok for a totally crooked cop to charge me with a completely bogus felony, cost me 100's if not 1000's of dollars, and destroy my job because I had proir weed and MDMA charges from a decade earlier?
Well ok I guess if that's how you feel about things.
For example, if you have past convictions for drug possession and the corruption in this case was that the officer saw you, knew your history, just assumed you were guilty and refused to back down when he realized that you were clean. Alternately, you were driving along and (From your account name, I'm going to assume that you're brown) he sees a brown guy driving through a "bad area" and decides to make a bust, regardless of your guilt or innocence.
Both are misconduct. Both are wrong but I believe that the other poster was just trying to get a mental image.
This is a great lesson for everyone. I grew up assuming that people in charge of regulations and laws would know them. They could tell you what's legal and what's not.
After interactions with different gov't agencies and law enforcement, I've come to realize that's not true at all. I would be shocked if even 10% of the people in charge of enforcing laws have even read the laws themselves.
Don't be surprised if a police officer arrests you for something completely legal or if a gov't agency tells you can/can't do something even though the opposite is true.
It's pretty disheartening when the people chosen to enforce a law aren't even informed enough to do it correctly. It's not that hard to get up to speed.
There have been stories recently of police arresting someone for a legal act because the officer thought it was illegal. If I remember correctly a lawsuit was started in one of these cases and it determined the officer's ignorance of the law was not a suitable reason for the lawsuit. Or something to that point.
That's already true, as pointed out in Three Felonies a Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/.... Everyone is already a criminal if someone wants to look carefully enough.
This is a pretty good quote. It reminded me of two more:
"Honest men have nothing to fear from the police" (said, presumably, by the prolific Anonymous), and
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" (said, presumably, by Cardinal Richelieu but possibly by the Roman philosopher Quintilian)
> ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That way, the police can't just seize your stuff without considering the damages that inflicts on a person.
I also believe that no money from fines should go to the police department. It should end up in the state's (not the city, etc.) general fund. That will end the incentive to be a bunch of buccaneers.
If you stick it in the general fund, it is just one spending bill away from ending up in police coffers anyway.
CF in general is a troublesome idea; a better system would be the court overseeing and holding in escrow any funds or items that are seized by the police and disbursing it as necessary once the trial is over or a plea is reached.
That is provably not the person arrested money, just as a car thief shouldn't keep the car. Drug money is tougher, and the government should have to prove it came from criminal activity. Allowing the government to seize money just because it could have been from illegal activity is bull.
They were lucky. Aereo did the same, specifically falling court rulings and the law and their efforts were successfully held in court to be clear demonstration of an attempt to break the law!
What a world.
A police officer must, must have discretion. The individual, the team, that steps into a home must be able to decide whether taking items is the best course of action and be free to do so without coercion.
Otherwise, you have robots acting on instructions from higher ups. That's not a reasonable model for society.