Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Police

[Calaverasgrande]

I can speak from abundant personal experience that civil asset forfeiture is a legit thing to be wary of.
Used to be an anti bank person until it happened to me.
I know people who lost vehicles, tools and equipment the same way.
Something people should be aware of;
you can have all your ducks in a row and be perfectly legal and legit. But a person on parole or probation staying with you automatically jeopardizes your belongings if they are suspected of drug dealing, stolen property etc.
In many cities the laws are such that they do not have to return such seized property or cash.
Most of those laws date back to the 'war on drugs' 80s and 90s. Quite out of date now.
Also as far as searching vehicles, probable cause and certain 'broken window' policies make any vehicle able to be searched.
The only private place in a vehicle is one that locks. Vans do not have trunks generally speaking. But as pointed out above you can secure a safe to the van. Secure is key. If it's just rattling at the bottom of a closet they can seize it as 'evidence'.

 

[PeterPiper]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and basically said if you get your stuff taken by the cops you can always sue to get it back.

Suppose you can't afford to sue? (because they took all your money)
Also, you must actually win a lawsuit to prevail. Suppose you lose but were innocent?

Shouldn't the basis for a decision be a presumption of innocence rather than the power of the state?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures

 

[Marcos989A]

Suppose you can't afford to sue? (because they took all your money)
Also, you must actually win a lawsuit to prevail. Suppose you lose but were innocent?

Shouldn't the basis for a decision be a presumption of innocence rather than the power of the state?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures

 

[spd2918]

This was obviously a very biased hit piece. Identifying the man as a former marine is a clear indication of the bias. What does that matter? I'm a vet and I don't expect people to treat me differently. I am as capable of committing crimes as a non-vet.

Always question the motives of these videos. Ask yourself why all the information is not presented.

This video has a forced narrative to justify a political opinion. It does not show anything that would more justify the seizure, because that would fit their narrative.

This may or may not have been a legitimate seizure. We don't know from video if the guy is actually a drug mule. His seizure is subject to judicial review. There are checks and balances in the system. Even if this is the worst example of a seizure, does that mean no seizures are ever justified?

 

[jacqueg]

This was obviously a very biased hit piece. Identifying the man as a former marine is a clear indication of the bias. What does that matter? I'm a vet and I don't expect people to treat me differently. I am as capable of committing crimes as a non-vet.

Always question the motives of these videos. Ask yourself why all the information is not presented.

This video has a forced narrative to justify a political opinion. It does not show anything that would more justify the seizure, because that would fit their narrative.

This may or may not have been a legitimate seizure. We don't know from video if the guy is actually a drug mule. His seizure is subject to judicial review. There are checks and balances in the system. Even if this is the worst example of a seizure, does that mean no seizures are ever justified?

No. But it does mean that the "profits" from such a seizure should not go to the responsible law enforcement agency. Alternatives have been suggested as a way to remove the incentives for over-aggressive enforcement.

If you seriously think there are no bad cops, you have some catching up to do.

 

[Thomas]

I've emailed all my national and state level elected leaders about this topic for at least a decade. I share with them each pertinent article I come across. I met personally with 2 congressional staffers who were amazing well read on many issues, but they both feigned ignorance of civil asset forfeiture. And I failed to create any motivation to create any changes. But I'm just one little barking dog. As usual, I urge everyone to email your elected reps and petition for changes.

 

[user 29855]

Please be careful with this discussion. Avoid demonizing the entire group of law enforcement officers. I don't want to have to close the thread because this is an issue that we all should be aware of.

Well said. While problems with law enforcement exist, it is seldom "policy." The vast number of police officers are honest, hardworking, and engaged in an occupation that few of us could handle physically or emotionally.

 

[PeterPiper]

No. But it does mean that the "profits" from such a seizure should not go to the responsible law enforcement agency. Alternatives have been suggested as a way to remove the incentives for over-aggressive enforcement.

If you seriously think there are no bad cops, you have some catching up to do.

I agree.
You would think common sense would tell you that the agency seizing the assets should never be able to simply keep them.
This defies all logic.
It is corruption temptation and implementation at it's very pinnacle.

Why do "We The People" even tolerate this kind of thing?

 

[PeterPiper]

Well said. While problems with law enforcement exist, it is seldom "policy." The vast number of police officers are honest, hardworking, and engaged in an occupation that few of us could handle physically or emotionally.

True.
I think assigning derogatory terms to other entire groups of people simply because they have different beliefs or we feel they are wrong is inappropriate.
But unfortunaetly it is sometimes allowed, even here.

 

[John in Montreal]

True.
I think assigning derogatory terms to other entire groups of people simply because they have different beliefs or we feel they are wrong is inappropriate.
But unfortunaetly it is sometimes allowed, even here.

Law enforcement is an occupation. Police officers are not a group of people with different beliefs. Or at least they shouldn't be.

 

[rvwandering]

This discussion has served its purpose to inform forum members about possible problems. I'm closing the thread.