I can’t understand how anyone can support civil forfeiture laws. For those not in the know civil forfeiture is when the cops can grab your property if they suspect it was used in connection with a crime.
So let’s say you have a bunch of cash in your wallet and the cop thinks you might be a drug dealer he can take the money and charge the money, not the owner, with a crime. The owner must then prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.
How is this legal? How can Democrats or Republicans support it since it would seem to offend the sensibilities of either group.
It’s a terrible thing. Earlier in my career I represented a lot of people trying to get their property back from law enforcement. Giving police a profit motive really caused some problems.
There was bi-partisan opposition to the most extreme injustices and some legislation improved the situation. Henry Hyde, of all people, helped push through some reforms.
In theory, it makes sense to take away the ill-gotten gains of a crime. In practice, it’s a nightmare.
I’ve often wondered this myself. It seems like it would violate either the 4th or 5th Amendment, or both. I’ve never understood how it can be constitutional.
I don’t mind the concept, that you should not be allowed to keep the profits from your crimes, but the implementation does not seem as though it holds to the ideals of a free and fair country.
It does seem that if they are going to take your stuff, then they should need to convict you of something. I don’t have a problem with them carting off a drug dealer’s car and stereo and dumping out the contents of his safe. But they need to be legally convicted of being a drug dealer first. And then, the police can file some sort of forfeiture in court, and whatever assets they can prove were gained through crime they can take. And at that point, the assets should go to fund the local community, not specifically held onto by the police force.
Taking the assets is only the start of the problem. Getting them back becomes a matter of proving a negative, that you didn’t get the assets from criminal activity to start with.
When attending parades, I never understood why folk thought it a “good thing” to see sports cars painted with the colors of local law agencies, with some notation that it was “seized from a drug dealer.”
Put this down with red light cameras, privatized prisons, fines and bonds such as by Ferguson, and much more in the category of “law enforcement for profit.” Not something that makes me overly proud of my country.
The cost of hiring an attorney and all the other fees involved, not to mention your time (even worse if it is out of state), will likely be more than the value that they stole from you, and that is if you win, which is not a given.
I was in landscaping back around 2000, and heard stories of landscapers and nursery owners going down to the nurseries in louisiana with tens of thousands of dollars in cash and a flatbed, with the intent of picking up the plants for the year. Instead, they would be pulled over by the cops, and have their money stolen. It was a big enough deal that nurseries were warning people to bring a traveler’s or cashier’s check rather than carrying that kind of cash (most didn’t accept credit cards, and certainly not personal checks). Not because of gangs or criminals, but because of the police.
The government must prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeit. The property owner does not have to “prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.”
Actually, a lot of people think that legal theory isn’t great at all. “Preponderance of the evidence” is a much lower bar to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is required to actually convict a person of a crime. There’s certainly an argument to be made that civil forfeiture should require the same level of proof as conviction.
I don’t have time to research the current laws, but when I was doing this work the burden of proof was definitely on the claimant to prove the asset was unrelated to a crime. I believe that under the current federal law, the initial burden in on the government. State laws probably vary.
Not just money, of course. Houses, cars, boats, etc.
I was just saying that it was great that he was pointing out the legal theory, but in reality, that’s not even how it works.
I absolutely agree that they should not be able to take your stuff without having to prove it is ill gotten gains. Forfeiture should come after conviction, not the moment they see you have something valuable that you don’t have a receipt and paper trail for.
By the way, in Washington State, and I assume other places, guess who is your hearing officer on a civil forfeiture? The Chief of Police or his/her designee. Yeah, that’s helpful. You can appeal that decision to the Courts, but it’s another hurdle.
People always used to ask me about living in a country with “corrupt” government in the years I lived overseas - I always used to say, there’s absolutely no difference in the USA except that the stakes are much higher.
Over there, you get pulled over and all the cops are really looking for is $20 or so, and the “problem” disappears as soon as they have it.
Here, you get pulled over and all the cops are really looking for is several thousand dollars in cash, and the “problem” goes away as soon as they have it and you’re free to go on your way. They then legally charge the money with a crime, and being unable to defend itself, it quietly reverts to their possession.
At a higher level, over there, you give the head honcho, or the head honcho’s family members, a suitcase of cash and you get the laws you want.
Here, your lobbyist gives several honchos several suitcases of cash, and you get whatever laws you want.
There’s a HUGE difference living in America!
Thank god we live here and not some third-world hellhole!