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

191–200 of 268 posts

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

#191

Post by jbooth »

tptacek wrote: post #81
drumdance wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to unreasonable search and seizure at the Federal level supersedes all state law. This was just a bad Supreme Court decision, morally in the same "ballpark" as Plessy vs. Ferguson

Unfortunately for this argument, the word "reasonable" means pretty much the same thing now as it did in 1787, and is clearly meant to delegate most of the answer to this question to the people (in the form of the legislature), and not the philosopher-kings of the court. You will of course come up with many arguments, virtually all of which I'll agree with, that asset forfeiture is "unreasonable". The problem is that…

I'm not a lawyer but this strongly disagrees with everything I learned in high school civics class about judicial review, and with many many high profile court cases overturning popularly enacted laws, from Marbury v Madison through to the current day gay marriage ban reversals.

It seems pretty cut and dried to me that the 4th amendment supersedes any law passed in direct opposition, just like the 1st or 2nd would. This isn't a case where the courts would be making multiple logical leaps to invalidate a law they disagree with, you can describe it in 4 words "seizure without a trial", then look at the 4th amendemnt.

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

#192

Post by the_why_of_y »

geggam wrote: post #135
merpnderp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.

The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

The constitution says the US is both a Republic and a Democracy.

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

#193

Post by jbooth »

rayiner wrote: post #183
Spooky23 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the point here is that a civil burden of proof is completely inappropriate when the plaintiff is the state and there's an allegation of criminality.

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

#194

Post by thinkling »

rayiner wrote: post #102
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there was not. It is worse than that. The money is what is charged, not the person. So the money has to prove itself innocent, which is pretty much impossible. If you h…

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.

I've heard this claim before that the police "charge" the asset rather than the owner; I believe it was in John Oliver's show on civil forfeiture--mentioned in other comments below:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10560200

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

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard burden of proof for civil cases, whatever actors are involved -- the side the wins is the side that proves that its position is most likely to be correct.

The higher (beyond a reasonable doubt) burden of proof in criminal cases exists as a safeguard because of the greater consequences to liberty of a criminal conviction.

Its the same standard used when pretty much anyone wants to use the legal system to take your money or other property via a lawsuit, so I don't think its that outrageous that it is used for civil forfeiture cases.

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

#196

Post by linkregister »

joncrocks wrote: post #140
alistproducer2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if the majority are in favour of horrible things, then will they not elect horrible leaders as well? And are we not just relying on elected leaders not doing horrible things anyway?

The essence of a representative republic is that these horrible leaders would still be checked by the minority of non-horrible leaders.

In a direct democracy, the mob only needs 51% of the referendum. In representative government, a minority of representatives can prevent disastrous legislation from happening, through the threat of filibuster or by holding a more valuable (to the opposition) bill hostage.

In 2009 when Democrats held a Congressional majority, they didn't get everything they wanted. Now in 2015, Republicans hold a Congressional majority, they still don't get everything they wanted. Whichever side you're on, you must admit that these checks prevented the "bad guys" from prevailing.

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

#197

Post by tn13 »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

I am looking for any SC verdicts justifying this horrendous Nazi styles practice. I am unable to find any, so I think this law is open to challenge.

Here is a brilliant John Stossel episode about this law and how it is destroying so many innocent people.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ399EBlqBE 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiGRMD4NXVA

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

#198

Post by chad_strategic »

fenomas wrote: post #26
MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get around it by claiming your house or car (or whatever) is guilty of a crime. Unfortunately, inanimate objects can't represent themselves in court.

AKA Civil Forfeiture. John Oliver did an episode on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Shucks you beat me to it. This was about a year go... It's only now that main stream media is picking up on this scam by the police.

This type of aggressive policing (excessive jaywalking tickets) was also happening in Ferguson.

We know how that turned out...

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

#199

Post by dragonwriter »

cft wrote: post #133
joshuaheard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

A suspected bank robber gets arrested when the money is kept. The outcome of the arrest is a conviction or an acquittal, which (automatically) determines the fate of the money. That's different from what is described in the article

> A suspected bank robber gets arrested when the money is kept. The outcome of the arrest is a conviction or an acquittal, which (automatically) determines the fate of the money.

No, it doesn't. An accused bank robber could be acquitted of the crime of robbery and still found liable for the tort of conversion of property, and have to pay the money back to the bank.

(Additionally, either criminal or civil forfeiture may be available against the specific money involved, only in a criminal forfeiture case would the acquittal of the defendant on the criminal charges be dispositive. Generally, as I understand it, criminal forfeiture applies to a broader and more distant class of property relations to the crime, and therefore isn't used for the types of property to which civil forfeiture could be applied.)

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

#200

Post by jbooth »

dragonwriter wrote: post #195
Spooky23 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard burden of proof for civil cases, whatever actors are involved -- the side the wins is the side that proves that its position is most likely…

If we were talking about a contract dispute where one of the parties is a city, state or the federal government, you're totally right.

If we're talking about the police alleging that you have money because of criminal acts, we should switch to the criminal standard.

Post reply on HN