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

91–100 of 179 posts

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

#91

Post by cdchn »

soneil wrote: post #85
danbruc wrote: post #59

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can t…

You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse. They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00…

Here's even more absurd: United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

A federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force the Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its product.

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

#92

Post by HDThoreaun »

banannaise wrote: post #29
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 j…

No, I'm pretty sure the political argument is "if we stop doing this we'll have to raise taxes because it makes up a non insignificant portion of police revenue"

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

#93

Post by danbruc »

soneil wrote: post #85
danbruc wrote: post #59

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can t…

You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse. They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00…

I remember some discussion here quite some time ago where somebody brought this up and linked to a list of the strangest cases, I still remember something like United States vs. a few tons of fish.

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

#94

Post by rhino369 »

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.

There really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing.

But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards.

Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property.

I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin you can’t explain. By law, I have to file tax returns that explains my income. There isn’t a huge difference. These kind of seizures makes organized crime much easier to fight.

But again, a lot of these examples look more like straight theft.

Also, law enforcement shouldn’t get to keep the money it seizes. It’s a perverse incentive. Should just go into the general treasury.

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

#95

Post by cdchn »

danbruc wrote: post #93
soneil wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse. They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00…

I remember some discussion here quite some time ago where somebody brought this up and linked to a list of the strangest cases, I still remember something like United States vs. a few tons of fish.

Wikipedia's list of "in rem" cases has a lot of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_...

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

#96

Post by throwawaymaths »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #88
ben940830298432 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit bizarre to read about police state where the police are a monopoly ran and controlled by the government and then call it capitalist.

The role of the police in upholding and defending capital is a well understood mechanic of capitalism. It's either naive or disingenuous or hold that they are separate unrelated phenomena when literally centuries of experience and scholarship demonstrates how they are interconnected mutually reinforcing social structures.

Capitalism is not a monolithic idea, and lots of capitalist scholars have challenged the validity of, variously:

- police writ large

- police monopolies

- any given police policy and its interaction with capital

Anyways, if police are supposed "to defend capital", then a policy of stealing capital from private individuals is exactly not capitalistic.

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

#97

Post by HDThoreaun »

euroderf wrote: post #67
DebtDeflation wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.

I thought this meme was identified decades ago: Whenever a town threatens to cut the fire department's budget, the FD whines loudly, and let a house or two burn down, and then they point fingers back at the mayor / town board. Once voters know the pattern, they're hep to it. So what's with the NYPD ? No voter control ? Should NYers start proposing referendums ? Are referendums even possible ?

I'm in Chicago, but we have a similar situation. Voters are wise to the pattern, there's just nothing we can do about it other than firing all of them and bringing in the national guard, and we're not ready to do that. They've got us by the balls, blaming them doesn't get them to start working again

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

#98

Post by danbruc »

cdchn wrote: post #95
danbruc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember some discussion here quite some time ago where somebody brought this up and linked to a list of the strangest cases, I still remember something like United States vs. a few tons of fish.

Wikipedia's list of "in rem" cases has a lot of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_...

There it is. Seemingly it was not against complete fish.

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...

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

#99

Post by throwawaymaths »

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.

It might be okay if civil forfeiture were allowed as is but with the owner having an absolute entitlement to a jury case and treble damages against the police if they lose.

In theory it already is a constitutional right to Levy a civil trial against the police for forfeiture. And any civil trial with dollar value more than 20 is entitled to a jury.

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

#100

Post by ROTMetro »

rhino369 wrote: post #94
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.

There really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing. But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards. Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property. I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin…

If taxes were paid on the money then your example makes zero sense.

But yes we must explain everything to the Government. Rights aren't inherent, but are granted to us by the government if we can explain good enough why we need them. Cops should pull me over and ask how I financed my car and if I don't have a good enough answer/documentation on me they should get to take it /s

Post reply on HN