41–50 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about drawing from the salary of individual officers?
How about malpractice insurance funded by their pension fund?
This seems to be a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Even if the seizing of assets is legit, the assets should be looked at as revenue, and should be allocated by the legislature, not the police department. It is incredibly unseemly for police to be operating their own private economy based on forfeited assets that were acquired due to their position/power. There should be a downside for police…
That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's even remotely Constitutional.
Once that is changed, I agree with you: the money should go to the state's general fund or the US treasury, not the police department.
There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in spite of offering better than av…
That would certainly reduce the problem, but the correct solution is to prevent assets from being seized without criminal charges and require them to be immediately returned without further proceedings if the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assets are the proceeds of a criminal enterprise of which the owner/defendant is found guilty.
This seems to be a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Even if the seizing of assets is legit, the assets should be looked at as revenue, and should be allocated by the legislature, not the police department. It is incredibly unseemly for police to be operating their own private economy based on forfeited assets that were acquired due to their position/power. There should be a downside for police…
Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime and the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be returned, with interest. That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's…
Reading of such articles makes me wonder about the reports/ranks given by transparency international ...etc on corruption. Comment by @icantthinkofone in this thread indicates this problem can be seen in other organizations too. If that is true, then corruption is there across all public organizations in US. In India too, we hear stories of corruption but scale is different. I conclude, it is explicit in some sectors…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line. In principle, I agree. But since the police are taxpayer funded, this just ends up costing the people money, and the only damage to the police force is political/reputational. Not to say those would not be good pressures to have, just that trying to hit them in the pocketbook i…
How about drawing from the salary of individual officers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime and the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be returned, with interest. That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's…
How do I pay my legal fees if my seized cash is being held in escrow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"preponderance of the evidence" is a low standard compared to the "presumed innocent" standard of criminal trials. It's not helped by the fact that the judge in civil forfeiture proceedings sometimes has a clear conflict of interest: cf. Coutroom 478. http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p...
The key distinction is between punishing you by taking property that is yours (criminal penalty) and taking property that is not yours in the first place (civil forfeiture). In a civil context, preponderance of the evidence is the typical standard. E.g. If I sue you for embezzling my money, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get my money back. I think civil forfeiture has major problems with…
There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in spite of offering better than av…
And the DA's shouldn't be able to do this: "We've got you as the suspect for 7 different crimes, if you give us your house, we won't take you to trial" Person: "But I'm innocent!" DA: "Take your chance in court, or give us your house and we'll let you go on your merry way"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime and the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be returned, with interest. That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't see how that's…
How do I pay my legal fees if my seized cash is being held in escrow?
The sensible thing to do is to treat it similar to a bankruptcy. Prevent the defendant from transferring the assets out of the country or spending them on hookers and blow but allow them to be used for legitimate expenses like continuing the operation of the defendant's business or household or legal expenses.