I couldn’t believe this when I saw it on Cops. I think it was Texas. The police would stop a susoect vehicle, find a crack pipe on the driver, or a bag of dope, then inform him or her that as well as being charged for the offense their car would be seized.
I found it shockingly disproportionate, akin to legalized theft. How long have they been doing this? Is it widespread among LEAs in the States? Have there been no successful legal challenges?
I read in some Dean R. Koontz novel written back in the 80s or 90s that in the course of the “War on Drugs” draconian laws had been enacted, one of which was that all assets of drug dealers were seized, which also included people only suspected, before the trial had taken place (when people should still be considered innocent). The reasoning used was that the big drug lords shouldn’t use their ill-gotten wealth to weasel out of the trial, and that the time till trial shouldn’t be used to get the millions of money out of the country, where it would be inaccessible even after conviction. But it has the potential for wide misuse.
Koontz has turned increasingly libertarian in the past 10 to 15 years and used his novels to rant against current laws and attitudes towards cops in society, but I presume his facts are correct. On the other hand, he might have gotten them from some conspiracy nut newsletter though.
There has been a progressive increase in asset forfeiture laws over the past 2 decades. Just one of the many respects in which “law and order” politics and the “industry” of crime fighting have progressively reduced our personal liberties over that time.
But as they say, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.” :rolleyes:
It’s something I’m against, because they seize people’s property for minor infractions, and it doesn’t have to be the one that has possession. The father of the kid that got caught with pot in the SUV has it seized. He can only get it back after paying expense court costs and proving the SUV should never have been seized. Sometimes your looking at some innocent persons house being seized, but until they can prove in court the seizure is wrong they are out of the house. They still have to make the house payments on what they don’t possess too. A law taking assets from a big time drug dealer is different to me, but they should have to win the case before they get the property.
I just do not understand forfeiture laws. They take away your property without due process of law under the fiction that they are not doing anything to you but only to your property.
Which is like saying I did not kill the guy but I donated a lead bullet to his brain.
Forfeiture laws are a disgrace and contrary to the rights and guarantees one would expect in a civilised nation.
They were enacted in 1980’s during the height of the “war on drugs”. What makes them particularly disproportionate is you don’t have to be convicted of anything, merely the SUSPICION of a drug offense is enough to have all your assets seized by the government.
This is one of those cases that amazes me. To me it seems that this is no brainer case of “unreasonable search and seizure” as prohibited by the 4th Amendment. How any judge could let this law stand is amazing to me, but clearly they have.
We talked about the legalities of forfeiture law here: Forfeiture Laws, How are they constitutional? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
and in the thread I linked to there.
Here’s a link about the history of modern forfeiture law:
The leading case on forfeiture is Bennis v. Michigan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZO.html which approved as constitutional the forfeiture of a vehicle owned by the wife of a guy who got a blowjob from a prostitute in it.
I believe they were expanded but it seems forfeiture laws have a long tradition. They are not new, only more common. It is tradition which enables them. I do not think they would pass constitutional muster if they were newly enacted today.
The police are now just revenuers. They confiscate because they can.
In Michigan our cops are writing more than double the tickets they did 5 years ago. It is about making up for the decrease in property tax revenue. It is just about money,not truth justice and the American way.
I have read about some small towns that have the newest and most cutting edge equipment financed by those who are just passing through.
I can understand the seizure of cash and property which the government believes are the fruit of drug trafficking. But on what basis are they confiscating the property of people who are drug users rather than dealers? Possession of drug paraphernalia, ie a crack pipe, was enough for a trooper to tell one weeping girl that her car would be forfeit.
As an Englishman I’ve always envied Americans the protection of freedoms afforded by their Constitution. I find it simply astonishing that your courts allow the police to get away with this.
They cannot confiscate a car simply because of some minor possesion by a drug user, the laws usually require either using the car to faciliate a drug sale,(i.e., transporting a drug while possessing with intent to sell) or if the car was purchased with proceeds from a drug sale.
The laws are unconscionable for many reasons. The burden is on the owner to prove the car is “innocent,” they often force you to post a bond to contest the legallity of the seizure of your own property, and they add a profit motive to law enforcement. (They get a lot more exciting stealing–I mean forfeiting–some really nice car than an old beater. Why would that be?)
There are some safeguards (thank you Sentor Hyde, of all people) but not nearly sufficient.
Um, what? The Americans aren’t the only ones with a constitution, and a Court to protect them, you know. And with all that political extremism on the Supreme court, where the Judges are openly taking sides and proclaiming their party allegations, and partys jokeying to get their President to appoint the next judge (only after another one retires/dies off), I’d say their rights are less protected than in European countries.
Thejudges on our constitutional court don’t have open party affiliations, because they strive and prize highest their neutrality when interpreting the law. They also don’t cling to the seats forever, but rotate out. They consider serving on the Constitutional Court an honor, and therefore strive to be worthy of that honor, not use it as a club to push through their conservative or liberal agenda.
Are you sure they were confiscating the car, and not just impounding it? A car driven by a suspect can generally be impounded.
I was hunting around for other stuff and found this.
Newsbrief: No Asset Forfeiture for Misdemeanor Drug Charges, Tennessee Says
I also agree with **Hello Again **that there could be some confusion between “arrest you and impound your car” and initiate forfeiture procedings. Nevertheless, the quote above shows that:
Here is the actual opinion: Tennessee State Government - TN.gov
I’ve read that some police departments do cost-benefit analyses when deciding where to assign their resources. If the police decide to put undercover agents working against Smith rather than Jones, I want it to be because Smith is a bigger danger to the community than Jones is, not because he has a yacht.
There were stories a few years ago ,that a black driving through a couple southern states could lose their car,especially if it were a nice expensive one. All they have to do is toss a joint in the car and it belonged to them. They also took all their cash.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
I’ll bear that in mind next time I try to purchase anything more powerful than an airgun in the UK.
I’ll add I’m not in the least bit impressed when I see local police departments around these parts driving some souped up hotrod (our locals’ is an early-70s Camaro) painted in the police colors and bearing the words “Seized from a drug dealer.”
Law enforcement for profit is not my preference.
It is very appealing for an elected official to support such efforts as they give the impression that they are doing something against crime/drugs without requiring the effort of actually trying to identify and address root causes. And there is very little political currency to be derived from opposing such legislation, a position law-and-order folks can easily characterize as being soft on crime/drugs.
Legislation theater - nothing to be proud of.
It’s on the rise, though:
Michigan: Police Chiefs Admit Traffic Enforcement is for Revenue
And it can be difficult to prove because it’s hard to find a lawyer I understand; I’ve heard that the cops will sometimes seize the assets of any lawyers you pay to advocate your side in a forfeiture case, claiming that now they are profiting from “drug money”.