http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...top-and-seize/
So yeah, there's this. I haven't had the cops do this to me, but I can't help but feel there's something wrong about policy. Any thoughts?
Printable View
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...top-and-seize/
So yeah, there's this. I haven't had the cops do this to me, but I can't help but feel there's something wrong about policy. Any thoughts?
Isn't that putting the burden of proof on the wrong end of the judicial system..Quote:
Hain’s book calls for “turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods.”
Cash seizures can be made under state or federal civil law. One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
I thought those episodes on tv where the townspeople has to "pay" for "protection" from bandits were fictional
Everything is possible in the land of opportunity, you know.
Civil asset forfeiture in the US is literally highway robbery, with the police acting as armed thugs instead of having any remote interest in protecting people. Considering that local departments frequently get to keep portions of what they seize, the system creates an active incentive for police to steal more money on even flimsier evidence. It's a disgrace, and I can't even fathom how the current system (whereby owners have to prove the money was legit) doesn't violate the 4th amendment.
If you want to be outraged, just check out Radley Balko's "asset forfeiture" tab.
It sounds like something that just needs a big enough stink made about it. I don't think many people are aware of this. I can imagine as soon as they do it to the wrong person and a huge issue is made about it, there will be public outcry. If it has to be forced up to the Supereme Court I can see it being deemed unconstitutional. The problem right now is they seem to be uncontested. Or perhaps I'm just naive
because stealing people's donuts wasn't bad enough.
These were my thoughts exactly. It is no different from trying to prove my ownership of anything else. It would be difficult to prove I own a lot of things I have other than my own word, including the $5 in my wallet now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Exactly. I have the deeds to my cars and motorcycle, but I don't have proof of ownership for my lawnmower, tv, laptop, etc.
Those things aren't cheap. I don't see how having to prove ownership of something already in your possession is that different from "guilty until proven innocent."
I guess that's where the possibility lies in saying it's unconstitutional?
Unfortunately, yes, you are a bit naive, but only out of ignorance. This issue shocks any non-cop who hears about it, which is exactly why big stinks have been made about it already. A number of states have even passed laws to curb civil forfeiture, such as prohibiting a local agency from benefiting directly from seized funds. These regulations are easily bypassed, however, with the help of the federal government; all a local department has to do is call the DEA, and all of a sudden it becomes a federal drug case subject to federal rules which allow state and local agencies to keep a large chunk of seized property. There is currently a proposed federal law to place greater burdens on the government in federal cases, but I'm skeptical it will pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Also such seizures have had appeals make it up to federal circuit courts of appeals (usually upheld), and the Supreme Court has done nothing. For decades.
The issue is primarily the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, the guarantee of sufficient procedural safeguards before you can be punished by the government -- which does include the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. I think there's also likely a legitimate Fourth Amendment argument based on the right to be free from unreasonable seizures in some of these cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky