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

181–190 of 268 posts

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

#181

Post by rayiner »

makomk wrote: post #180
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.

Of course, this styling isn't just used in cases where the property was illegally obtained. It's also used in cases where it's not in dispute that the property was legally obtained, and the government simply seeks to take it from the legitimate owner as a penalty for a crime they assert he committed, in order to avoid naming the owner as a defendant even though they know exactly who owned the property they seized.

Source?

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

#182

Post by Fezzik »

Symmetry wrote: post #164
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.

Unfortunately no, I have never had any interaction with the feds and handling civil forfeitures. Reading a lot of the articles the majority of the problems appear to be with the feds and not local governments. So it could be that at the federal level abuse truly is rampant.

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

#183

Post by rayiner »

Spooky23 wrote: post #173
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a low standard for the government to meet. "Preponderance of the evidence" means that the government doesn't need to prove the property is subject to forfeiture, just show that 50% of the evidence indicates that it could be. (guy in car from out of state at night, guy fits the profile of something, road is a "drug corridor", guy had alot of cash, guy was speeding) It's hard to convict you of a crime for drivin…

It's the standard civil burden of proof. If I say I own Blackacre and you say you own it, I just have to present enough evidence to get over the 50% mark.

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

#184

Post by btilly »

logfromblammo wrote: post #64
btilly wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal rationale is the one for civil forfeiture. Namely they sue the possession, not you. The possession has no rights. And you have no standing in said lawsuit unless you survive an uphill battle to prove that you actually owned the possession in question. Ever tried to prove that you really own the money in your wallet?

Federal Reserve Notes are bearer instruments. If my wallet has any indication of who owns it, the presumption is that the owner of the wallet is the bearer. If you really want to get hairy, put the cash in an unmarked envelope and put it on the front seat of a car owned by someone other than the driver. Now prove who owns it.

Many, many forfeiture cases demonstrate that the reasonable presumption is not actually made by our system. For example many look like, "Person tries to board a plane. TSA finds money on person, seizes it, sues the money with no case made against the person."

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

#185

Post by Kluny »

joshfraser wrote: post #34
entropyneur wrote: post #2

> With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace. Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It's confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in…

I'm happy I live in a country that has taxes, because I like the improved quality of life that comes from having utilities and public services like streets and water. Civil forfeiture hurts the quality of life for everyone except the cops.

I believe it hurts quality of life for cops as well, in that it reduces their self-respect.

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

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> They then have to appear in court, before a judge, and demonstrate this fact.

Strictly speaking, the government has the burden of proof (not the property owner) in forfeiture cases, but the burden is the usual civil burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) because it is a civil action, not the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). This is one reason forfeiture (and other civil remedies, where available) might be pursued in a case where criminal charges would not be, the burden of proof is lower.

> Perhaps at the federal level things work very differently and the process is abused

No, the main abuse due to federal law hasn't been by the feds, its by local agencies using provisions of federal law allowing them to keep the proceeds of federal-law based seizures when the state law those agencies deal with requires state law seizures to go to the state general fund, which provides much less incentive for law enforcement agencies to abuse seizure powers as a revenue source.

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

#187

Post by leesalminen »

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.

> And again, the person who has property seized from them always has drugs.

This seems like anecdotal evidence to me. Moreover, police officers do lie on signed police reports (it's happened to me). Were you present during Bob's arrest?

> I have a job

So, if I have a job paying $20k/year and I have $2k in my pocket would that be a sufficient reason for having said currency?

> My grandmother gave me $2,000 for rent and necessaries

Would my grandmother have to appear before a judge as well? What if the court date was scheduled 3 weeks after my arrest? I'd probably be evicted out of my home by the time I ever saw a judge.

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

#188

Post by Fezzik »

MCRed wrote: post #172
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…

> There are always drugs when property is seized this way. Nope. Several years ago the FBI stole $6M in Platinum, Gold and Silver. Some of the theft was of protected political speech-- literally copper & silver pieces with Ron Paul's picture and a campaign slogan on them. No allegations of drugs was involved, and the criminality claim -- that using gold and silver as barter threatened to undermine the US dollar -- wa…

Agreed. Theft is theft. I want to write an article on this now and really research the numbers and number of cases - there appears to be a vast difference in when and how federal vs state forfeiture powers are exercised.

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

#189

Post by dragonwriter »

btilly wrote: post #184
logfromblammo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal Reserve Notes are bearer instruments. If my wallet has any indication of who owns it, the presumption is that the owner of the wallet is the bearer. If you really want to get hairy, put the cash in an unmarked envelope and put it on the front seat of a car owned by someone other than the driver. Now prove who owns it.

Many, many forfeiture cases demonstrate that the reasonable presumption is not actually made by our system. For example many look like, "Person tries to board a plane. TSA finds money on person, seizes it, sues the money with no case made against the person."

> Many, many forfeiture cases demonstrate that the reasonable presumption is not actually made by our system. For example many look like, "Person tries to board a plane. TSA finds money on person, seizes it, sues the money with no case made against the person."

The structure of asset forfeiture laws requires that the action be formally against the property. They also require both specific notice of people with specified relations to the property which indicate probable ownership, and public notice, so that any persons with ownership interests in the property can intervene in the action and have the opportunity to contest the governments claims against the property.

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

#190

Post by marcosdumay »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #126
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

elected leaders There's your problem. Why are you electing people? That's completely backwards. Electing people is allocating labor and incurring production costs without evaluating demand signals. It is ideas that must be debated and voted on, and have people fill in to execute them. Only by having information on what policy is desired will you able to properly apportion the production costs and allocate the represe…

So direct democracy then? That presents it's own problems like the majority being in favor of something horrible, like the internment of muslim citizens after a terrorist attack.

Please, get some downsides that are not shared with representative democracy. Because, you know, people are comparing those two.
Post reply on HN