Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#151

Post by Symmetry »

merpnderp wrote: post #37
joshuaheard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your savings and you're on the way to buy a car?

It's mostly Nixon's fault. Back in the early 70s crime was rising and people were scared and they wanted to hear about how politicians were doing something. Murders were really a matter for local law enforcement rather than the Feds so Nixon came up with the politically brilliant idea of blaming crime on drug use, announcing a war on drugs, and creating new tools such as this sort of seizure of money.

There was a big expansion of this in 1984 pushed by Biden that more or less gave us the modern form of asset forfeiture.

And we're going to have to solve this problem at the Federal level. Many states have laws preventing police from keeping the money they seize. But the DEA is happy to take credit for the seizure, keep n% of the money, and hand the rest back to the department that did the seizing.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#152

Post by wickedlogic »

woah wrote: post #100
alistproducer2 wrote: post #96

Serious question. We're all problem solvers here. There has got to be a better way to get our elected leaders to pay more immediate attention to blatantly immoral and unconstitutional stuff like this. As developers and engineers we should come up with a technology to force issue on things like this. I'm pretty tired of reading a story like this and feeling helpless to change it,

Get out there and join political organizations. Another website just isn't going to change things.

http://watchdog.org/226188/civil-asset-forfeiture-new-hampsh...

https://freestateproject.org/

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#153

Post by AnimalMuppet »

woah wrote: post #100
alistproducer2 wrote: post #96

Serious question. We're all problem solvers here. There has got to be a better way to get our elected leaders to pay more immediate attention to blatantly immoral and unconstitutional stuff like this. As developers and engineers we should come up with a technology to force issue on things like this. I'm pretty tired of reading a story like this and feeling helpless to change it,

Get out there and join political organizations. Another website just isn't going to change things.

In the US, there are two major political parties. Those who oppose this kind of garbage need to join both of them (one side per person). Also, you need to be active at a local and state level, not just a national one.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#154

Post by AnimalMuppet »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #91

It's interesting that "conservatives" and "freedom loving people" become pretty OK with tyrannical practices as long as they are practiced on some undesirable group. "Don't tread on me" becomes "Don't tread on me, tread on the brown people instead."

Some do. I don't.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#155

Post by asmithmd1 »

joshuaheard wrote: post #35
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

Adding interest to the seized money is not enough. In anti-trust cases the US law is that damages are tripled to provide a deterrent to large companies trying to stifle competition from small companies. Why not have the same law in place here, if by some miracle a victim is able to prove their money is innocent they would get triple their money from the police.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#156

Post by ChristianBundy »

rayiner wrote: post #102
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there was not. It is worse than that. The money is what is charged, not the person. So the money has to prove itself innocent, which is pretty much impossible. If you h…

The money isn't "charged." The case is just styled as In re $35.00 of US Currency because the case is about the ownership status of the property, not about any specific person. The money doesn't have to "prove itself innocent." The legitimate owner just needs to rebut the government's argument that it was illegally obtained.

But shouldn't the burden of proof rest on the government?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#157

Post by harryh »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #155
joshuaheard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

Adding interest to the seized money is not enough. In anti-trust cases the US law is that damages are tripled to provide a deterrent to large companies trying to stifle competition from small companies. Why not have the same law in place here, if by some miracle a victim is able to prove their money is innocent they would get triple their money from the police.

Because the police haven't broken any laws and those guilty of anti-trust violations have.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#158

Post by kbenson »

jessaustin wrote: post #116
kbenson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes they are working in concert, and it's not a big set of affiliated but largely separate organizations working in their own best interests. I think it's far more likely that it's not cost effective to fight for the police if the person they seized from is motivated, unless really large amounts are at stake, in which case the possibility it was entirely legal is probably somewhat lessened, so the case isn't…

The symphony plays without a conductor. We're talking about a system that presents a particular set of incentives to parties with particular motivations. They can work perfectly well in concert without resorting to secret cabal meetings. In law enforcement more than most other professions, those who do something different are punished for it. That's all it takes for LEO practice to be trapped in some truly sub-optima…

I'm not making a case that they aren't incentivized enough to all do roughly the same thing in the normal case, but that there isn't enough disincentive to, as a whole, make sure that they would never allow a case to go forward. The Police chiefs are largely beholden to no-one in this specific case.

That said, it's the prosecutors that would have to keep the case active if disputed, and there's no incentive for them, except for a possible loss in the case where police overreach is proven. That's all the reason needed to not dispute most cases if they go far enough to actually require some work from the prosecutor.

> Hanlon's Razor is bullshit, by the way.

You and I live in different world then. Obviously, some portion of our worlds is entirely in our heads and doesn't conform to reality. I suspect I'm happier in mine than I would be in yours.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#159

Post by pavel_lishin »

kbenson wrote: post #148

It seems pretty clear to me the problem here is misaligned incentives. If the police weren't allowed to keep seized money, and where it did end up was disconnected enough, there would be little reason to confiscate property without due cause. Where we could redirect the money that it didn't cause problems is an interesting question, and I'm not sure I know of an answer that doesn't create other considerable problems.

Why redirect it at all? It's evidence. Put it in a bag, and store it. Nobody gets to spend it until a case is closed.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#160

Post by rayiner »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #156
rayiner wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money isn't "charged." The case is just styled as In re $35.00 of US Currency because the case is about the ownership status of the property, not about any specific person. The money doesn't have to "prove itself innocent." The legitimate owner just needs to rebut the government's argument that it was illegally obtained.

But shouldn't the burden of proof rest on the government?

It should be, and it is (at least under federal law): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983 ("the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture").

What I think causes confusion is the "innocent owner defense" where the burden is on the owner to prove that, notwithstanding that the property may be subject to forfeiture because it is illegal proceeds, the owner came by the property legitimately.

Post reply on HN