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

Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#21

Post by jasonlotito »

criddell wrote: post #15
cmiller1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wikipedia has a slightly different take: > The politics of civil forfeiture were somewhat unusual. The federal forfeiture laws were introduced and pushed through Congress by Republicans in the 1980s, with some Democrats supportive and some critical.

> Wikipedia has a slightly different take:

No it doesn't.

Biden was one of the co-sponsors. But the main sponsor was a Republican, and a Republican signed it into law.

But that's all petty and pointless.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#22

Post by readthenotes1 »

sambeau wrote: post #17

This graph from the 2015 article "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year" really rammed this home for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...

other robbers

https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#23

Post by yamazakiwi »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #11
klyrs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.

Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.

I've never met a pro police type that would mention anything as corruption. If you asked them directly some would agree, but as a group I generally just hear apoligism.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#24

Post by readthenotes1 »

phkahler wrote: post #16
mikece wrote: post #5

The key question is "What will SCOTUS Do?" There have been numerous cases where Civil Asset Forfeiture has been overturned, but only AFTER the wronged party sued for actual and punitive damages. I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture (along with treble damages awarded to the wronged party)... but that woul…

>> I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture At that point the defense would be Qualified Immunity.

Another practice that would have the founders of the USA up in arms ...

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#26

Post by mandmandam »

bashinator wrote: post #9
wahnfrieden wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is at best a harm reduction tactic. But as I said for limiting state powers specifically, it's usually not even that.

So what actual actions do you advocate for ordinary citizens to take?

I don't think OP was trying to advocate any particular action, merely pointing out that a real and serious problem exists at the heart of our democracy.

Expecting people who point out a problem to also fix that problem in a single social media comment is a little unrealistic, I think, and generally not something people ask in good faith.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#27

Post by adrr »

criddell wrote: post #15
cmiller1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wikipedia has a slightly different take: > The politics of civil forfeiture were somewhat unusual. The federal forfeiture laws were introduced and pushed through Congress by Republicans in the 1980s, with some Democrats supportive and some critical.

And the dems rolled back "equitable sharing" in 2015.

> Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-se...

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#28

Post by burkaman »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #11
klyrs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.

Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-...

2016 essay by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police arguing against civil forfeiture reform.

> The FOP does not disagree that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform. In fact, we worked very closely with Senator Jeff Sessions on this issue going back to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-pr...

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of civil forfeiture's biggest fans, reinstates aggressive federal policies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-...

2017 essay by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein praising civil forfeiture and arguing reform is not necessary.

> Some critics claim that civil asset forfeiture fails to protect property rights or provide due process. The truth is that there are multiple levels of judicial protection, as well as administrative safeguards.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#29

Post by banannaise »

jkubicek wrote: post #2

Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.

Generally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their jobs.)

The opponent here isn't other citizens, it's the police and their organizations (police benevolent associations, police unions, etc.) which wield considerable political power, and to an extent also legal power (since they collectively have nearly full discretion over what laws are enforced and by what means, to the extent they can cooperate amongst themselves).

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#30

Post by bwanab »

jkubicek wrote: post #2

Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.

That's true. Nobody supports civil forfeiture until the moment a politician realizes there's hay to be made from claiming that they support police efforts to prevent crime.
Post reply on HN