Forfeiture Laws and police funding
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
That's exactly what happened to Rich. It was seized because it was "a large amount of cash" and because it was "tainted". In the forfeiture proceedure, .gov needs only prove a "reasonable suspicion" that it's from illegal sources; the burden of proof is on the third party, non-defendant owner of said funds. The fact that I was able to show that I paid cash for a $42K car, that I regularly withdrew fair sums of after-tax cash from the bank, that we had been buying land in W. NC for the past year failed to convince, as the money was in the hands of a third party who could not personally demonstrate such activity.
That was "this generation". It is also not exceptional, as most siezures of out-of-state motorists money and valuables are never contested due to the cost:
http://www.spaef.com/GVER_PUB/v1n3_prejean.html
Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
First time a Federal Judge ruled that cocaine traces are not evidence of trafficking may have been 1991. I doubt the DEA retroactively refunded all similar siezures prior. Even after the fact, who's going to go to court to try to recoup one or two thousand dollars.
http://www.geocities.com/rab_cdg1/jones.htm
Ever been asked at a traffic stop if you were carrying large sums of money? I have....more than once. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31094
Rich
http://www.geocities.com/rab_cdg1/jones.htm
Ever been asked at a traffic stop if you were carrying large sums of money? I have....more than once. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31094
Rich
TheeBadOne
Moderator
That's the point I was making. Things change (in fact, they change continually). What may have been okay 15 years ago is not (and what may not have been okay 15 years ago may be today...... keeping on top of things can be quite challenging).
TBO
TBO
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Some Cash Seizures
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1307769&secid=1
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2005/05/19/news/news/news13.txt
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14496799&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532215&rfi=6
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2005/05/04/news/news07.txt
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/051605_ns_drug_bust.html
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1307769&secid=1
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2005/05/19/news/news/news13.txt
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14496799&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532215&rfi=6
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2005/05/04/news/news07.txt
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/051605_ns_drug_bust.html
Unfortunately, civil forfeiture, that is a situation without criminal or other charges being brought, with any sort of conviction, or a finding of guilt, without any semblemce of Equal Protection of The Law has become THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
One or some might describe it in varying terms, might seek to explain or offer justification for such actions, however theft is theft, no matter who the theif might be, no matter what the color or style of "the suit" worn.
One or some might describe it in varying terms, might seek to explain or offer justification for such actions, however theft is theft, no matter who the theif might be, no matter what the color or style of "the suit" worn.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
TBO-
Each of those stories, on their face, support forfeit as a good idea......of course, in each of those cases, asset forfeiture could have been done after a criminal conviction. No one would complain. Certainly not me.
But, as has been pointed out, civil forfeiture need be linked to no crime or conviction at all, except in the media. It's a simple taking of assets, requiring you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're yours......no need to arrest you or try you. Imagine if such were applied to your generationally handed down firearms?
Civil Forfeiture is thievery, with the thieves having to prove little more than suspicion to keep your goods. Further, it enriches the very people and departments charged with enforcing it....what we call, in behavioral circles, a "positive feedback system"....the more they do it, the more they benefit.
Civil Forfeiture has been used to take ranches and farms from families who were never linked to the marijuana plants growing on some obscure corner (a favorite game of dopers in my part of NC is to plant on someone else's property). Civil Forfeiture has been used to take family homes after a teenage son was caught selling MJ. No discretion by the courts.....that the property is "reasonably assumed" to have been used in the crime is all that's necessary for LE to "triumph".
A few years back, Civil Forfeiture was used to confiscate a poor, working mother's only automobile after her ex-husband was snagged in it for the unthinkable crime of soliciting sex with a prostitute. I believe (but will not say for positive) that one went all the way to SCOTUS where the taking was upheld.
Civil Forfeiture is one of the most egregious offenses against law abiding citizens of this nation that has ever existed in the name of "If we could prevent just one [fill in the blanks]". It's bad law and no matter how it's spun or how anecdotal the "big bust stories" are, it remains police seizure without due process as we know it.
Rich
Each of those stories, on their face, support forfeit as a good idea......of course, in each of those cases, asset forfeiture could have been done after a criminal conviction. No one would complain. Certainly not me.
But, as has been pointed out, civil forfeiture need be linked to no crime or conviction at all, except in the media. It's a simple taking of assets, requiring you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're yours......no need to arrest you or try you. Imagine if such were applied to your generationally handed down firearms?
Civil Forfeiture is thievery, with the thieves having to prove little more than suspicion to keep your goods. Further, it enriches the very people and departments charged with enforcing it....what we call, in behavioral circles, a "positive feedback system"....the more they do it, the more they benefit.
Civil Forfeiture has been used to take ranches and farms from families who were never linked to the marijuana plants growing on some obscure corner (a favorite game of dopers in my part of NC is to plant on someone else's property). Civil Forfeiture has been used to take family homes after a teenage son was caught selling MJ. No discretion by the courts.....that the property is "reasonably assumed" to have been used in the crime is all that's necessary for LE to "triumph".
A few years back, Civil Forfeiture was used to confiscate a poor, working mother's only automobile after her ex-husband was snagged in it for the unthinkable crime of soliciting sex with a prostitute. I believe (but will not say for positive) that one went all the way to SCOTUS where the taking was upheld.
Civil Forfeiture is one of the most egregious offenses against law abiding citizens of this nation that has ever existed in the name of "If we could prevent just one [fill in the blanks]". It's bad law and no matter how it's spun or how anecdotal the "big bust stories" are, it remains police seizure without due process as we know it.
Rich
Civil Forfeiture is a self licking lollypop that should be fought vigorously by all who value freedom. It is a short leap to attacking us and our 2 amendment rights as we have seen so called lawmakers putting forth in New Jersey.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. — Daniel Webster
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. — Daniel Webster
Rich Lucibella wrote in part:
"Civil Forfeiture is thievery, with the thieves having to prove little more than suspicion to keep your goods. Further, it enriches the very people and departments charged with enforcing it....what we call, in behavioral circles, a "positive feedback system"....the more they do it, the more they benefit."
Rich:
I'm impressed by your reference to "positive fedback system", where in you are more polite than I was, re my reference to THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW. I will stand by my characterization, less stylish than yours, however.
Later, you offered the following:
"Civil Forfeiture is one of the most egregious offenses against law abiding citizens of this nation that has ever existed in the name of "If we could prevent just one [fill in the blanks]". It's bad law and no matter how it's spun or how anecdotal the "big bust stories" are, it remains police seizure without due process as we know it."
Civil Forfeiture got so egregious, so outrageous that it became to much even for Henry, Grab The Money and Run, Hyde, congresscritter from the Chicago area, who a few years back actually offered and to some extent pushed legislation to curbe such operations.
Molon Labe:
Re your "self licking lollypop", that's even better than Rich's "positive feedback system", my compliments sir.
"Civil Forfeiture is thievery, with the thieves having to prove little more than suspicion to keep your goods. Further, it enriches the very people and departments charged with enforcing it....what we call, in behavioral circles, a "positive feedback system"....the more they do it, the more they benefit."
Rich:
I'm impressed by your reference to "positive fedback system", where in you are more polite than I was, re my reference to THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW. I will stand by my characterization, less stylish than yours, however.
Later, you offered the following:
"Civil Forfeiture is one of the most egregious offenses against law abiding citizens of this nation that has ever existed in the name of "If we could prevent just one [fill in the blanks]". It's bad law and no matter how it's spun or how anecdotal the "big bust stories" are, it remains police seizure without due process as we know it."
Civil Forfeiture got so egregious, so outrageous that it became to much even for Henry, Grab The Money and Run, Hyde, congresscritter from the Chicago area, who a few years back actually offered and to some extent pushed legislation to curbe such operations.
Molon Labe:
Re your "self licking lollypop", that's even better than Rich's "positive feedback system", my compliments sir.
Rich,
I think an even better term for the troubles of forfeitures is "moral hazard". Forfeiture gives the police a strong and direct incentive to abuse their powers. The lack of due process removes the hurdle that would serve as a check to that abuse. And despite TBO's claims that "things have changed," what hasn't changed is the existance of the moral hazard. Abuses will continue until the incentive is taken away.
Is there any epilogue to your case? I can't imagine how furious I would be if the government had simply stolen $100k of my money.
I think an even better term for the troubles of forfeitures is "moral hazard". Forfeiture gives the police a strong and direct incentive to abuse their powers. The lack of due process removes the hurdle that would serve as a check to that abuse. And despite TBO's claims that "things have changed," what hasn't changed is the existance of the moral hazard. Abuses will continue until the incentive is taken away.
Is there any epilogue to your case? I can't imagine how furious I would be if the government had simply stolen $100k of my money.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Epilogue? Not really. Angry? Yes, but I was doing very well at the time and was in the process of taking my business public with me as CEO. The last thing I needed was to push the issue....and DEA knew it.
For clarification, it was not a conspiracy against me or anything like that. It was a happenstance stop and a siezure of opportunity. They took it.
Angry was when I paid Uncle Sam the cap gains check in 1994 on the proceeds of sale of my business after having paid 40% and 50% taxes on every dollar of profit earned to create that sale price. That was angry.
Rich
For clarification, it was not a conspiracy against me or anything like that. It was a happenstance stop and a siezure of opportunity. They took it.
Angry was when I paid Uncle Sam the cap gains check in 1994 on the proceeds of sale of my business after having paid 40% and 50% taxes on every dollar of profit earned to create that sale price. That was angry.
Rich
Rich Lucibella:
I now and then find mysself curious as to the following.
What with the abuses of civil forfeiture, as opposed to criminal forfeiture, and other ongoing abuses by law enforcement, plain old fashioned stupidity aside, I wonder as to what sort of expressions one might find on the faces of "law enforcement" in the event they came to be faced with an absolute lack of cooperation from the law abiding, who compose the vast majority of the populace.
Would one see fear, anger, hate, curiousity as in lack of understanding, wonderment or perhaps a late arrived at understanding of a situation that could be described as follows. The patience of the public goes only so far, and law enforcement simply went to far, way to far.
I now and then find mysself curious as to the following.
What with the abuses of civil forfeiture, as opposed to criminal forfeiture, and other ongoing abuses by law enforcement, plain old fashioned stupidity aside, I wonder as to what sort of expressions one might find on the faces of "law enforcement" in the event they came to be faced with an absolute lack of cooperation from the law abiding, who compose the vast majority of the populace.
Would one see fear, anger, hate, curiousity as in lack of understanding, wonderment or perhaps a late arrived at understanding of a situation that could be described as follows. The patience of the public goes only so far, and law enforcement simply went to far, way to far.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
"An absolute lack of cooperation" as in resistance by force?
Short-lived and futile, methinks.
Rich
Short-lived and futile, methinks.
Rich
Rich Lucibella:
Re the question you asked, concerning my reference to an absolute lack of cooperation, I did NOT refer to resistance by force, for I believe that your conclusion about "short lived and futile" is correct.
What I refered to would be the following. In conversation between investigators/police and the citizenry, the following might be heard, from the citizen(s). I/we could not say with certainty, I/we do not recall, I/we must have been looking the other way, and so forth and so on, all very polite and peaceful. Juries might even commence mass acquittals. I believe, in some cases anyhow, that the trial judge might be able to set aside a guilty verdict, though I do not believe that a not guilty verdict can be so treated.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that a "signal would be sent", and that same would be received.
Re the question you asked, concerning my reference to an absolute lack of cooperation, I did NOT refer to resistance by force, for I believe that your conclusion about "short lived and futile" is correct.
What I refered to would be the following. In conversation between investigators/police and the citizenry, the following might be heard, from the citizen(s). I/we could not say with certainty, I/we do not recall, I/we must have been looking the other way, and so forth and so on, all very polite and peaceful. Juries might even commence mass acquittals. I believe, in some cases anyhow, that the trial judge might be able to set aside a guilty verdict, though I do not believe that a not guilty verdict can be so treated.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that a "signal would be sent", and that same would be received.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Alan-
Thanks much for the clarification.
Rich
Thanks much for the clarification.
Rich
Wanna bet? Delaware. 1990. Man, without prior record, carrying $100K cash, stopped and sniffed. Money confiscated in a case styled, US Government v. One Hundred Thousand Dollars in US Currency. (They charge the property because it makes it more difficult for the owner to prove "standing" in court.)
The burden of proof was not on the government but the bearer. The money was "guilty until proven innocent". The bearer claimed he was headed to Western North Carolina in search of land deals. In Court he produced his money backer, complete with cash withdrawal history from legal bank accounts; a man who could document his income and who had an un-impeachable background. That backer was yours truly. The money was mine. It no longer is. In the end, the Judged decided that we had not sufficiently proven my ownership of my money.
True story.
Rich
How about a case cite, then?
The burden of proof was not on the government but the bearer. The money was "guilty until proven innocent". The bearer claimed he was headed to Western North Carolina in search of land deals. In Court he produced his money backer, complete with cash withdrawal history from legal bank accounts; a man who could document his income and who had an un-impeachable background. That backer was yours truly. The money was mine. It no longer is. In the end, the Judged decided that we had not sufficiently proven my ownership of my money.
True story.
Rich
How about a case cite, then?
Group9:
This matter has been mentioned before, leaving me wondering as to thwe following, respecting the governments prosecution of an amount of money, as seemed here to have been the case.
Assuming that there was a jury trial, was such the case, what might have happened in the event of the jury bringing in a virdict against the government? Would the money have walked out the door, escaping the venal grasp of the government, thereby being returned to it's owners?
This matter has been mentioned before, leaving me wondering as to thwe following, respecting the governments prosecution of an amount of money, as seemed here to have been the case.
Assuming that there was a jury trial, was such the case, what might have happened in the event of the jury bringing in a virdict against the government? Would the money have walked out the door, escaping the venal grasp of the government, thereby being returned to it's owners?
randersonabq
New member
due process
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This seems to argue pretty strongly against civil seizure.
Albuquerque considered a policy to seize the cars of repeat drunk drivers but dropped it over this issue.
Even the ACLU, think of them what you may and who often seeem to pick strange issues, waded in citing due process
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This seems to argue pretty strongly against civil seizure.
Albuquerque considered a policy to seize the cars of repeat drunk drivers but dropped it over this issue.
Even the ACLU, think of them what you may and who often seeem to pick strange issues, waded in citing due process