How is civil forfeiture a thing?

[Musicat]

How is civil forfeiture NOT a violation of the Due Process Clause? (5th & 14th constitutional Amendments)

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

[JRDelirious]

@Musicat

How is civil forfeiture NOT a violation of the Due Process Clause? (5th & 14th constitutional Amendments)

You define the process you use as being the due process. After all there IS a process and as mentioned, you *could *try to jump through the hoops.

[Bricker]

@Musicat

How is civil forfeiture NOT a violation of the Due Process Clause? (5th & 14th constitutional Amendments)

Answer:

Due process protections fall into two main areas: procedural and substantive.

Procedural due process asks whether the law operates within defined procedures. That is, in this case, satisfied by the notice that must be given to anyone who is known to have a possessory interest in the property, and the hearing that determines by preponderance of the evidence that shows the property was subject to forfeiture.

Substantive due process asks, at a basic level, if the steps being employed are fair. Fir example, if your car is stolen and then the driver looks at a hooker in Detroit, it hardly seems fair for you to forfeit it, even if the city provides you with notice and affords you the opportunity to attend a hearing.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

But I will tell you now that if the issue were that Bob was arrested without probable cause, the local sheriff’s department does not have to pay Bob for the day he missed work, or help Bob find another suitable used car listing on Craigslist, because that other deal totally fell through after Bob never showed up at the Walmart parking lot on account of being arrested.

This seems oddly backwards in a country that so values its freedoms. “Hey, sorry we arrested you for no reason. What, you lost a bunch of money from missed time at work, missed a job interview, got fired, etc.? Heh, sucks to be you.”

@k9bfriender

In this case, Bricker, I think the layman’s understanding of the matter is superior to the lawyer’s. Not saying that the precise legal aspect do not need to be considered, especially in regards to reforming the laws to be less oppressive, but in the case of how it actually works, the layman’s standard of “They stole my shit!” is superior to the legal standard of “achieving preponderance.”

You were correct in the your assumption of the “gut level reaction”, but honestly, that’s what is important here. The fact that the police have unfairly taken from you, not the intricacies of the laws that allowed them to unfairly take from you. If this happens to you, then you think “here are the steps I need to get my money back.” and even if you feel the need to have another lawyer present for the hearing, you probably know some people, and they probably would give you a discount for being a colleague and the fact that you would be doing most of the legwork. If this happens to me, I go “Shit, I need to get a lawyer.”

Here’s a hypothetical example: About once a week, I take 3-5 hundred dollars in cash to the bank. Lets say I get pulled over during that run, and in the course of the stop, the cop seizes about $400 in cash. I come into your law office to try to get my money back. What is your advice? What will you charge me for this? Is this going to be be worth my time? I would think that your advice to me would be that you would end up charging me more than it was worth. I do have resources, and I may be willing to invest up to a grand or so on the principle of the thing, but that is still the police “costing me my money” even if you are getting it rather than them. This is me as a middle aged white guy with no criminal history whatsoever. I would also be curious as to how you would consider other instances, say a 20 year old black man with a past drug possession charge, or even a person who, in addition to the money, the police found small quantities of drugs, like a joint.

The fact that I have to get a lawyer, then get paperwork documenting the providence of the funds, to go against the govt’s simple say so that they suspect that the funds were being used for illicit purposes is, to all intents and purposes to any layman, requiring me to prove my innocence. I’ll agree that that is not precisely what the law says I have to do, but the reality is, is that is exactly what I have to do.

QFT.

As with most cases in law enforcement or civil rights issues, it doesn’t really help to look at the cases of people with money. Bond and bail doesn’t fuck Marty McFly out the suburbs. Civil forfeiture doesn’t bankrupt Mary McWasp. Voter ID laws don’t deny Hannah Housewife the right to vote. But these are generally reasonably intelligent, reasonably wealthy people, who have the time, energy, intelligence, money, contacts, and other assorted resources to deal with shit like this.

Jamal in the projects? Assuming he has time to chase down that car the cops just took from him, does he have the money to hire a lawyer? Can he afford to, now that he can’t drive to work? Does have the time to make it to the courthouse, fill out the legal documents, and whatnot? He miiiiight be totally and utterly fucked by this, and that’s assuming the best-case scenario that he actually does get his car back, and isn’t cockblocked by the system, his previous arrest record, and the fact that they found a baseball bat in the back of the car.

These laws don’t get really nasty when they hit those who know how to fight back. They get really nasty when they hit those who can’t fight back, because they lack the knowledge or the money or the time. So it’s rather nice to see that literally everyone thus far in the thread has made it clear that they oppose these laws wholeheartedly. At least we can all get behind that one; we can’t even all get behind whether the holocaust happened around here half the time.

[BigT]

Oh, for goodness sake. This is one of the easiest ones in existence. Civil forfeiture is based on the concept that we don’t want people profiting from crimes. This is good. But, often, even if no one is convicted of a crime, that which is taken is kept. If there is no conviction, that means the court isn’t sure a crime took place, so the justification for civil forfeiture fails. The money is not theirs to keep, so it is now up to them to return it.

But we have dumb laws that make it where it’s the person whose stuff was taken who has to claim it back. And we have dumb laws that allow you to “convict” the stuff instead of the person. This stuff is not destroyed, meaning that the police profit off of crimes, which is them doing the very thing we don’t want done.

So we wind up with police abusing civil forfeiture so they can keep money. They are using criminal money to fund themselves. Or they are using money that isn’t criminal, which isn’t usable.

Oh, and Bricker. Whining about how you either do not communicate well or do not make good arguments isn’t anything wrong with the rest of us. If you repeatedly get the same undesirable results, the onus is on you to change your approach.

[drewder]

Ok so how is your money a separate entity from its owner? Why can they steal your property without you being involved?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Bricker]

@drewder

Ok so how is your money a separate entity from its owner? Why can they steal your property without you being involved?

They can’t – you are involved.

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So it’s rather nice to see that literally everyone thus far in the thread has made it clear that they oppose these laws wholeheartedly. At least we can all get behind that one; we can’t even all get behind whether the holocaust happened around here half the time.

I’m not so persuaded by your disparate impact worries, but you’re right that I oppose the laws wholeheartedly. From either prince or pauper, the state should not take property without a better showing than mere preponderance of the evidence. At a minimum, we should require a criminal conviction. The whole idea of forfeiture is to take property because it was used in a crime, and now the state wants to do that even when it can’t prove the crime happened.

[silenus]

If Congress passed a law stating that all forfeited property became Federal property, and would be auctioned off to reduced the National Debt, and local, state or Federal agencies got bupkis, that would get rid of the majority of the seizures.

[Procrustus]

@silenus

If Congress passed a law stating that all forfeited property became Federal property, and would be auctioned off to reduced the National Debt, and local, state or Federal agencies got bupkis, that would get rid of the majority of the seizures.

It would help, it not completely solve the problem. Some cops just really don’t like “drug dealers” having better houses, cars, boats, and girlfriends than they do. I saw a lot of motivation that apparently was fueled by just wanting these guys to suffer, in addition to the criminal penalties (and especially if they can’t successfully prosecute)

I hasten to add, not all cops. Probably not even the majority. But the “drug task forces” are not, in my experience, made up of the best and the brightest.

[k9bfriender]

@silenus

If Congress passed a law stating that all forfeited property became Federal property, and would be auctioned off to reduced the National Debt, and local, state or Federal agencies got bupkis, that would get rid of the majority of the seizures.

For a week, before congress passed another law giving bonuses to PDs for turning in forfeited assets.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

That seems like an odd point of view for “a lot of you” to take on a website devoted to fighting ignorance.

If people are having a discussion on an issue and you change the subject to another issue, that’s not fighting ignorance about the original issue.

@Bricker

It seems a simple enough counter to the fiendish tactic “a lot of you” feel I’m employing, eh?

If one person says you’re doing something and you disagree, you may choose to ignore it. But if a dozen people tell you you’re doing something, you should at least stop and consider the possibility that you are in fact doing it.

@Bricker

One of us is distracting the issue, perhaps. But is it me, offering a correction to a factual assertion? Or you, who argues that the inaccuracy is more useful in discussions?

The problem with that, Bricker, is that you rarely present your corrections in a clear and simple manner. You drag them out and make them into a discussion.

To paraphrase your example:

POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop!

BRICKER: The police aren’t committing arson.

POSTER 1: What are you talking about? Here’s a list of cites of the police being violent when they make arrests.

BRICKER: The cites don’t support your claim.

POSTER 1: What do you mean? They all support my claim.

BRICKER: No, they don’t.

Thirty posts later, we’ll have finally established that the thing you objected to in your first post was the improper use of the word arson. So why couldn’t you have simply explained that in your first post and made that single point clear? The fact that people have to work so hard to get you to explain what the point is that you’re arguing makes us feel that your goal may be to obstruct the discussion rather than add information to it.

This is certainly something I have felt in discussions with you.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

To paraphrase your example:

POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop!

BRICKER: The police aren’t committing arson.

POSTER 1: What are you talking about? Here’s a list of cites of the police being violent when they make arrests.

BRICKER: The cites don’t support your claim.

POSTER 1: What do you mean? They all support my claim.

BRICKER: No, they don’t.

Thirty posts later, we’ll have finally established that the thing you objected to in your first post was the improper use of the word arson. So why couldn’t you have simply explained that in your first post and made that single point clear? The fact that people have to work so hard to get you to explain what the point is that you’re arguing makes us feel that your goal may be to obstruct the discussion rather than add information to it.

This is certainly something I have felt in discussions with you.

No. The only thing that’s missing from my posts, the thing you crave, is this:

POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop!

BRICKER: The police aren’t committing arson. But let me be totally clear: in my opinion, I totally hate hate hate the police violence and stand four square against it.

POSTER 1: (whew, he’s on the right side) What did you mean about the arson, then?

BRICKER: The crime is described as ‘brutality,’ and not arson.

POSTER 1: Got it thanks!

[DrDeth]

I think it needs to be changed so if no indictment is brought within 180 days (or if a GJ isnt at least empaneled) then the stuff goes back, with no action on the part of the defendant.

If the defendant isnt found guilty, then a separate hearing after to return the goods, with the burden on the Sate to show a preponderance of evidence.

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

I think it needs to be changed so if no indictment is brought within 180 days (or if a GJ isnt at least empaneled) then the stuff goes back, with no action on the part of the defendant.

I’d go further, because all you need for a grand jury indictment is probable cause, a standard lower than preponderance of the evidence.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

I’d go further, because all you need for a grand jury indictment is probable cause, a standard lower than preponderance of the evidence.

Ok, but at least that is something. If they dont do anything, stuff goes back.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

No. The only thing that’s missing from my posts, the thing you crave, is this:

POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop!

BRICKER: The police aren’t committing arson. But let me be totally clear: in my opinion, I totally hate hate hate the police violence and stand four square against it.

POSTER 1: (whew, he’s on the right side) What did you mean about the arson, then?

BRICKER: The crime is described as ‘brutality,’ and not arson.

POSTER 1: Got it thanks!

It’s not asking for virtue signaling, it’s letting us know what the argument is about.

If you let people spend time and energy trying to explain to you that police violence is bad, and your reply is that it’s not arson, even if the person who originally called it arson is no longer active in the thread, without letting us know that we do not need to convince you that both police violence and arson is bad, it gets a might bit frustrating.
Analogy :

Poster 1: Arson is bad, those damn police!

You: It’s not arson.

Poster 2: Police violence is bad!

You: It’s still not arson.

[k9bfriender]

Sorry for double post, but two things really quick.

First, I’m an idiot. I referenced 1984 a few times, when I really meant fahrenheit 451.

Also, speaking of which, the analogy is not between arson and police violence, as those tow have nothing to do with each other. The analogy should be between homicide and murder, where it is matter of degree, maybe even hyperbole, but not missing the definition entirely, as your equating police violence and arson does. Or, to use 451’s analogy, to call state sanctioned burnings arson.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

It’s not asking for virtue signaling, it’s letting us know what the argument is about.

Really?

My very first post in this thread:

@drewder

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.

@Bricker

That’s not an accurate description.

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.”

[Leaper]

I find Bricker’s faith in the purity of the justice system touching, myself. Then again, given his occupation, he sort of has to have it; if he didn’t naively believe that all charges ever brought against anyone has legally weighty evidence behind it, and nobody is ever corrupt or railroaded, he’d not be a lawyer to begin with.

Now, onto the facts: was the recent Supreme Court case regarding, IIRC, Colorado relevant to this discussion or not?