Civil Forfeiture as part of a larger trend

[lewisnotmiller]

I've read and listened to enough about Civil Forfeiture, or Stop-and-Seize laws in America that they strike me as more than a little problematic and open to abuse.

I'd never considered them part of an overall trend towards devolving government responsibilities. Please note, I'm not suggesting that government itself is getting smaller, and neither (I think) is the editorial linked below. But is there a trend to government 'outsourcing' certain functions where effective oversight (be it governmental or otherwise) is paramount?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-12/stop-and-seize-turns-police-into-self-funding-gangs

 

[Revoltingest]

I've read and listened to enough about Civil Forfeiture, or Stop-and-Seize laws in America that they strike me as more than a little problematic and open to abuse.

I'd never considered them part of an overall trend towards devolving government responsibilities. Please note, I'm not suggesting that government itself is getting smaller, and neither (I think) is the editorial linked below. But is there a trend to government 'outsourcing' certain functions where effective oversight (be it governmental or otherwise) is paramount?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-12/stop-and-seize-turns-police-into-self-funding-gangs

I've been fulminating about this for years.
Libertarians have been at the forefront fighting it.
Outsourcing isn't the issue here, since it's government doing it.
They'd never let privately owned companies ride on their gravy train.

 

[dust1n]

Civil forfeiture is quite simply an assault on people and a contradiction to the Bill of Rights. It's nothing more than asserting some property is involved with a crime with no charges. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've been fulminating about this for years.
Libertarians have been at the forefront fighting it.

Looks that way based on some limited research, but also appears to be one of those issues that gets broad support, and no action. As an outsider it just seems such a dangerous and destructive law!

Outsourcing isn't the issue here, since it's government doing it.
They'd never let privately owned companies ride on their gravy train.

Yeah. So in terms of the trend, I think the point is more that this is government devolving revenue raising and evaluation of guilt to a group that should not be directly in charge of either of those areas, due to the conflict of interest and lack of oversight this can promote. Civil Forfeiture scared me enough, but when I realised Police Departments got to keep the money and re-direct it for expenditure beyond their allotted budget? Holy crap.

Some of the other examples given in the article are more representative of true outsourcing, I guess, but it's not neccessarily public to private ownership that they are talking about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Looks that way based on some limited research, but also appears to be one of those issues that gets broad support, and no action. As an outsider it just seems such a dangerous and destructive law!



Yeah. So in terms of the trend, I think the point is more that this is government devolving revenue raising and evaluation of guilt to a group that should not be directly in charge of either of those areas, due to the conflict of interest and lack of oversight this can promote. Civil Forfeiture scared me enough, but when I realised Police Departments got to keep the money and re-direct it for expenditure beyond their allotted budget? Holy crap.

Some of the other examples given in the article are more representative of true outsourcing, I guess, but it's not neccessarily public to private ownership that they are talking about.

Aye, cops are corrupt enuf already, what with the beatings & stealing.
But this institutionalizes it.
Why does it happen?
Voters are ignorant or approving of it, since few (percentage-wise) people are affected.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Voters are ignorant or approving of it, since few (percentage-wise) people are affected.

*slaps voters*

They should bloody well wake up then.
There is hope...I hope...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/14/3646619/new-law-bans-civil-forfeiture-in-nm/

 

[Revoltingest]

*slaps voters*

They should bloody well wake up then.
There is hope...I hope...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/14/3646619/new-law-bans-civil-forfeiture-in-nm/

We Yanks tend to wait until things get really bad before exerting ourselves.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We Yanks tend to wait until things get really bad before exerting ourselves.

Not just you guys...we can certainly be similar. I'm more surprised that the law was allowed in the first place, honestly.

 

[columbus]

Not just you guys...we can certainly be similar.

Yeah,
Why don't you people down below get your marriage equality straight * before you try to tell us how to do things?

Tom
*see what I did there

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah,
Why don't you people down below get your marriage equality straight * before you try to tell us how to do things?

Tom
*see what I did there

Yup. Our politicians are complete assclowns.
Note to world : Feel free to rip on Australia for it's ridiculous approach to marriage equality, and then even more ridiculous level of (non)-discussion this has engendered. Saves me the trouble. We will get there, of course. Once about 95% of the population agrees with marriage equality, some politican will feel 'brave' enough to show some leadership.

Have this is a derail, but heck, it was my OP...so...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...500170896?sv=e935bde687db98ccafbdc05e750035d5

Our feminist, atheist, left-leaning former-prime minister, who was in a civil union with her man, rather than a marriage, strongly advocated against marriage equality when in power. Now, three years later, she has decided she is for it. She also has a book to sell. Colour me nauseated. Leadership at some point would be nice.

*sighs*

Malcolm Turnbull is new, and honestly, I have high hopes, but this (admittedly biased) article doesn't scream of leadership from him and the conservatives on this any more than Gillard's actions seemed to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...kers-on-samesex-marriage-20150924-gjtrws.html

In all honesty, I made this one of the absolute central issues for me in trying to decide who to vote for last election, and then worked out that both sides were pathetically lacking in the balls to make any move risking alienating some voting blocks. Ignoring the less vocal majority seemed easier, I guess, which is at least partially on the less vocal majority.

 

[Orbit]

I've read and listened to enough about Civil Forfeiture, or Stop-and-Seize laws in America that they strike me as more than a little problematic and open to abuse.

I'd never considered them part of an overall trend towards devolving government responsibilities. Please note, I'm not suggesting that government itself is getting smaller, and neither (I think) is the editorial linked below. But is there a trend to government 'outsourcing' certain functions where effective oversight (be it governmental or otherwise) is paramount?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-12/stop-and-seize-turns-police-into-self-funding-gangs

I just read another article on this that you probably will find shocking: http://gawker.com/cops-took-more-property-from-americans-than-burglars-di-1744205551

The problem is there is no due process, no recovery procedures for victims, and it creates a profit motive for law enforcement seizures. I don't really think it's outsourcing so much as it's legislative opportunism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I just read another article on this that you probably will find shocking: http://gawker.com/cops-took-more-property-from-americans-than-burglars-di-1744205551

The problem is there is no due process, no recovery procedures for victims, and it creates a profit motive for law enforcement seizures. I don't really think it's outsourcing so much as it's legislative opportunism.

Nope, not shocked at all. I read the same article this morning. Actually, it was reading that that led me to do a quick google search for reccent information. Obviously not living in the US, this isn't a daily consideration for me, so I guess the last time I really thought about it was when John Oliver did a very interesting piece on it for Last Week Tonight.

 

[columbus]

. Our politicians are complete assclowns.

For once the USA is not the bottom (of the barrel)!
I get tumescent with "joy".

I will point(heh) this out every chance I get!

I only had so much shame, and I used it all up back in the 80s.
Go USA!
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

For once the USA is not the bottom (of the barrel)!
I get tumescent with "joy".

 

[Revoltingest]

An interesting case where government thugs went after the
wrong guy, ie, a legislator in a position to push reform.
The IRS took @ $1M from him.
They didn't say why. But they admitted that he
broke no laws. He'd reported all income.
But they offered to let him have 2/3 of his money
in exchange for not prosecuting him. He spent
@$150K to get it all back.
Finally....someone in government who sees this
is armed robbery with a badge, & wants to fix it.
Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Victim of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Calls for New Reforms - Tennessee Star

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's one trick Michigan uses to take your money....
If you have a bank account, & all you do is have
automatic regular deposits made, the state will
deem it "inactive" & take it all.
Holland woman's account with $10k disappears | wzzm13.com
So now she must spend money to go thru a legal
process to show that she's the rightful owner of the
money the state stole from her account.
Odd...
The bank knew it was her money.
But the state (not just MI) wants to discourage
owners from getting their property.

Another trick...
Michigan will steal your home for any small debt....even $8.
Ending Home Equity Theft | Pacific Legal Foundation

 

[Revoltingest]

Some good news in our trying times!

Federal appeals court rules against government, which
has long used the fiction that taking people's cash without
proving any crime (by its owner) is OK because the cash
itself could be illegitimate, & has no presumption of innocence.
So it's up to the victim to prove they own the cash legitimately.
This takes years & tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees
for the victim.
The appeals court destroyed that bogus rationale.
Federal Court Upholds The Right To Carry Cash

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Some good news in our trying times!

Federal appeals court rules against government, which
has long used the fiction that taking people's cash without
proving any crime (by its owner) is OK because the cash
itself could be illegitimate, & has no presumption of innocence.
So it's up to the victim to prove they own the cash legitimately.
This takes years & tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees
for the victim.
The appeals court destroyed that bogus rationale.
Federal Court Upholds The Right To Carry Cash

From your article...

Although Dereck was arrested for public intoxication and driving with an open container, he wasn’t charged with drug trafficking (or any other crime that would authorize civil forfeiture). Nevertheless, law enforcement seized every penny from Dereck’s car, claiming it was drug money.

Sheesh. Glad the court pushed back on this. Interesting story, thanks for bumping the thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

From your article...



Sheesh. Glad the court pushed back on this. Interesting story, thanks for bumping the thread.

Good it is to see some real progress in trying times.
I watch for such news.
And tis best to bump an existing thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Aside from the problem of punishing people by taking
their property without even being accused of a crime,
& that the victims must then sue to prove their innocence
in order to recover their property (at great legal expense),
government uses one other trick, ie, delay any hearing
for a year or more.
SCOTUS will address the issue of justice delayed being
justice denied.

Supreme Court Decides to Hear Important Asset Forfeiture Procedural Property Rights Case

The Court will determine whether the Due Process Clause prevents the government from using asset forfeiture to seize property and hold it for many months without a timely hearing.

reason.com