11–20 of 455 posts
I'm sure that this is a valued asset in the fight against crime ... ... but as this story illustrates, it's so shockingly immoral as to constitute robbery. Shut it down.
I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations. After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."' Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search ref…
This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.)
That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants.
In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!
While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…
What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed.
George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.
The important bit: > he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black person on that part of the train.
race-card popular lately, but civil forfeiture is a problem here. More race you bring - less efficient you get with fighting real issue at hands. If you do little research - people of all races and sexes were hurt by that, and local/federal police benefitted from it.
Of COURSE race is an important element of how law enforcement interacts with citizens. Race is part of these issues. The very term "race card" is offensive and marginalizing, even if you didn't mean it that way.
Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
The important bit: > he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black person on that part of the train.
"A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why."
Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for the cop to be asking it. We, as a society, need to walk this all back starting right here at this point in the process.
The forfeiture itself is so clearly unconstitutional that I can't imagine how even a loose constructionist can twist it to make it ok. Much less someone like Thomas or Scalia. Ugh.
Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.
While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…
lol maybe if you're white
welcome to the logic that everyone has had to operate under