Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by MCRed » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

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.

Treble damages is not enough.

The police and everyone involved in the seizure belongs in jail for the term appropriate under Grand Theft statutes.

Though I think there is a case that since they are government officials, the sentences should are trebled.

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

#162

Post by asmithmd1 » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #122

abtinf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They then have to appear in court, before a judge, and demonstrate this fact." We fought a revolution over this sort of garbage and enshrined the presumption of innocence as a core principle in our constitution. How about we seize all of your assets, give you a "single piece of paper" to enter a not guilty plea, then force you to prove in court that these powers are not widely misused. "The bar is not high", but som…

It would be as easy as saying "I have a job" or "my grandmother gave me $2,000 for rent and necessaries". It could be done by a self represented person easily. And again, the person who has property seized from them always has drugs... police are not just randomly taking money. Drug legalization is another another matter (I am pro, FWIW), but for now it remains illegal.

Unfortunately in Boston they are.

"As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney"

http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-...

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

#163

Post by curun1r » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #133

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…

A suspected bank robber gets arrested when the money is kept. The outcome of the arrest is a conviction or an acquittal, which (automatically) determines the fate of the money. That's different from what is described in the article

Another pretty large difference between this an the bank robber case is that when the bank robber is convicted, the police don't keep the money...the bank gets it back.

This whole issue would go away if seized assets were required to either be returned to the rightful owner or destroyed. If we allow police to keep what they seize, we should call it what it really is...pillaging.

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

#164

Post by Symmetry » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #106

Ugh, so much misinformation. Having lurked here for a while HN seems to think civil forfeiture is the boogie man. To clarify a few things, at least on the county level: 1) There are always drugs when property is seized this way. I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county, and the affidavits officers submit read something like: "I stopped Bob after an informant purchased a large amount of heroin f…

Do you review the federal seizures in your county? That is, would you see anything covered by the Equitable Sharing Program? My understanding is that its common for state agencies to use that to make an end run around your point 3.

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

#165

Post by shasta » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

asmithmd1 wrote: post #149

cft wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A suspected bank robber gets arrested when the money is kept. The outcome of the arrest is a conviction or an acquittal, which (automatically) determines the fate of the money. That's different from what is described in the article

Forfeiture was designed for cases like this: A bank robbery suspect is arrested with cash on him. The police have no evidence against the suspect but obtain a written confession - the trouble is they did not read him his rights. The confession is inadmissible, the suspect goes free. Do you hand him his money on the way out of court? In anti-trust cases damages are tripled as a deterrent, why not institute the same pe…

Maybe treble damages would help, but with many areas of the legal system it seems to me that what's needed most is a much more efficient first pass by a neutral party (court) to determine reasonable presumptions that can be challenged by slower and more deliberate passes. In other words, why are the police and DA making this determination? Why can't we have neutral party making the determination as to what happens to seized property?

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

#166

Post by usrusr » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:11 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29

badsock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good? The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country i…

Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America eithe…

> Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes.

Even if that might be seen by some as a valid argument for violating the sovereignty of those (non-)states, it remains entirely orthogonal to the question of wether the intervening forces should be private sector or public. The only connection is that an (alleged) anarchy zone is the only place where the extralegal nature of private sector violence can be glossed over.

The author is literally a solution looking for a problem and abusing the most troubled places on earth as an excuse to turn military grade violence into a business.

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

#167

Post by kbenson » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:11 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #159

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.

I obviously mean after it's no longer in dispute, you can't purposefully destroy/lose evidence. After any case is closed, the property should either be returned, or dispensed with in a way that doesn't incentivize wrongful collection of property in the first place.

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

#168

Post by MCRed » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

acveilleux wrote: post #99

mc32 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't civil forfeiture take off as a way to counter the rise of drug monies making kingpins? If to a great degree it's true and simultaneously we're reëvaluating cannabis and society and reëxamining three strikes laws, etc., I would hope we also take a critical look at this shift in burden of proof transferred to the accused with the hope it goes back to the prosecution.

Yeah but policing is expensive, being tough on crime is popular (but mostly only with white republicans) and lowering or eliminating taxes is sacrosanct to republicans. Perfect combination for these kind of abuses. As long as the victimized populaces doesn't vote for the politicians in power or is otherwise disenfranchised and poor, it's a great plan /s.

Biden is one of the architects of these abuses, and the Democrats elected him vice president-- twice. Plenty of blame to go around.

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

#169

Post by __jal » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

asmithmd1 wrote: post #149

cft wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A suspected bank robber gets arrested when the money is kept. The outcome of the arrest is a conviction or an acquittal, which (automatically) determines the fate of the money. That's different from what is described in the article

Forfeiture was designed for cases like this: A bank robbery suspect is arrested with cash on him. The police have no evidence against the suspect but obtain a written confession - the trouble is they did not read him his rights. The confession is inadmissible, the suspect goes free. Do you hand him his money on the way out of court? In anti-trust cases damages are tripled as a deterrent, why not institute the same pe…

One reason not to institute the same penalty for the police is that taxpayers end up paying.

You might say, good, that means voters will try to ensure future police don't do this shit. Which is a nice theory, but probably doesn't work out in practice.

In practice, you have small towns that can be bankrupted by a good-size suit, which is probably not a good outcome. You also have large cities that have room to minimax what they can get away with, and now all you've done is possibly deterred really egregious cases.

It gets substantially more complicated with the intersection of feds and state agencies, where (depending on the state) police are good at gaming where the money goes depending on how and what is charged by whom. (There are complicated revenue sharing arrangements between, for instance, the DEA and local cops for forfeitures.

If your hypothetical bank robber needs to be deprived of the money (and I don't think I agree, but that's a different discussion), the proper way to align incentives is to ensure the police do not see any of the money. Period. Give it back to the bank, put it in the state general fund, give it to a random orphan, burn it, whatever[1]. But as long as the police can by shiny toys with it (conference attendance, margarita machines and outright theft have all happened), they have an incentive to push it as hard as they can.

[1] Giving the funds to the state still has incentive problems, but they are muted. I don't know that there's any empirical evidence if it is sufficiently muted to align police behavior with what most non-cops consider reasonable.

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

#170

Post by jnbiche » Fri, Nov 13, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #43

purespark2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

"Property rights" aren't any natural rights. It's a societal agreement, and that agreement comes with strings attached. In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).

> In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).

Except that's...not happening, in one of the largest, and without doubt the most powerful, "democracies" in the world. Police do take away your property willy-nilly in the USA without trial.

Does this mean we get to stop paying taxes?