civil forfeiture

[mei lan]

One of the big liberal talking points these days is outrage over what's known as civil forfeiture - the right of police to claim cash you are carrying if they suspect it is to be used for nefarious purposes. Originally started as a way to seize assets of suspected drug kingpins and organized crime figures, it has now spread to the routine seizure of property (mostly cash) from regular citizens during traffic stops. The only requirement is if the officer at the site says he thinks it is going to be used for something illegal (i.e., no arrest involved, much less conviction). Citizens whose cash has been confiscated can appeal it, but it can take a year or more to resolve, and they are not guaranteed a good outcome. This is not unlike the asset forfeiture utilized by the IRS before the citizen is ever found to be guilty of a crime.

Two questions - a) what do you think of it (the libertarian in me says way unconstitutional); and 2) why on earth would you voluntarily tell a police person how much cash you are carrying (assuming he did not secure a search warrant to search the car, or search it on probable cause)?

Some linkies:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/24/the-civil-asset-forfeiture-racket

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/last-week-tonight-civil-forfeiture

 

[unionmom]

You would be absolutely flabbergasted at the situations when people give consent to search. Not saying that is always the case ... just pointed out that brilliance is not a requirement to be in public.

 

[mei lan]

Agreed. I saw one clip of a policeman who asked a guy (still in his car, no search requested) how much cash he was carrying, and the guy said $2400...he was headed to another state to buy a car he had purchased on ebay. Policeman seized the money because he said he was likely going to another state to buy drugs.

 

[stradial]

This is another case of a good idea being screwed up by those who no longer have common sense.
Perhaps it should be that if it is proven that they took your money and the money was not meant for illegal use, then they have to pay you double the amount back, plus interest.
Maybe that would cut down on the stupid stuff.

Also, I have to wonder, in all my traffic stops, I have never been asked how much money I am carrying.
Sooooo, how often does this occur?

 

[mei lan]

This is another case of a good idea being screwed up by those who no longer have common sense.
Perhaps it should be that if it is proven that they took your money and the money was not meant for illegal use, then they have to pay you double the amount back, plus interest.
Maybe that would cut down on the stupid stuff.

Also, I have to wonder, in all my traffic stops, I have never been asked how much money I am carrying.
Sooooo, how often does this occur?

Dunno. Apparently some jurisdictions like it more than others. I recall hearing a big stink of some area just east of Nashville where they did/do it a lot.

 

[lotstodo]

The constitutional end around is that the police arrest an object. Objects do not have constitutional rights. It's total BS. You should never have to prove ownership of your property absent due process.

 

[Winchester]

Don't believe everything you read out there. This has been thru and passed many legal reviews all the way to the high court. There are very strict guidelines to be followed.

There has been an effort to get this changed for many years and they keep loosing their case in court....so now they have decided to try it in the court of public opinion.

 

[mei lan]

Don't believe everything you read out there. This has been thru and passed many legal reviews all the way to the high court. There are very strict guidelines to be followed.

There has been an effort to get this changed for many years and they keep loosing their case in court....so now they have decided to try it in the court of public opinion.

The high court has been wrong before. Just sayin'...

 

[ShoeDiva]

Don't believe everything you read out there. This has been thru and passed many legal reviews all the way to the high court. There are very strict guidelines to be followed.

There has been an effort to get this changed for many years and they keep loosing their case in court....so now they have decided to try it in the court of public opinion.

I understand that there are strict guidelines to follow, but I thought those that have had legal reviews and made it to the high court were not the ones MeiLan was asking our opinion. I thought in most cases that people "fought back" in non arrests with money found in cars, the courts ordered the money back to the person? :dunno

To pay for your crime with time and money/possessions you own is one thing, to have cash on you and it confiscated because you "might, possibly" use it for the wrong reasons is ludicrous.

Cash is legal, even a lot of it. The gun on your hip is legally there. Both "might/possibly" be used for illegal things, but the police (in a traffic stop, no arrest) taking away cash because of what could happen, is as crazy to me as those that tell me guns kill people.

 

[mei lan]

Don't believe everything you read out there. This has been thru and passed many legal reviews all the way to the high court. There are very strict guidelines to be followed.

There has been an effort to get this changed for many years and they keep loosing their case in court....so now they have decided to try it in the court of public opinion.

I understand that there are strict guidelines to follow, but I thought those that have had legal reviews and made it to the high court were not the ones MeiLan was asking our opinion. I thought in most cases that people "fought back" in non arrests with money found in cars, the courts ordered the money back to the person? :dunno

To pay for your crime with time and money/possessions you own is one thing, to have cash on you and it confiscated because you "might, possibly" use it for the wrong reasons is ludicrous.

Cash is legal, even a lot of it. The gun on your hip is legally there. Both "might/possibly" be used for illegal things, but the police (in a traffic stop, no arrest) taking away cash because of what could happen, is as crazy to me as those that tell me guns kill people.

Well said! And many times the jurisdictions do have to give the money back, but there is no recourse when your restaurant has folded or you have lost the purchase of some item because your money was taken and you didn't get it back for a year or more. I personally probably wouldn't carry that kind of money, but some folks do, and it is their right, IMHO.

 

[deewee]

I do not know enough about this particular subject to debate. Interesting topic, and I will read up on this, and maybe talk to a few cops in the area about their perspective.

 

[stradial]

Don't believe everything you read out there. This has been thru and passed many legal reviews all the way to the high court. There are very strict guidelines to be followed.

There has been an effort to get this changed for many years and they keep loosing their case in court....so now they have decided to try it in the court of public opinion.

I understand that there are strict guidelines to follow, but I thought those that have had legal reviews and made it to the high court were not the ones MeiLan was asking our opinion. I thought in most cases that people "fought back" in non arrests with money found in cars, the courts ordered the money back to the person? :dunno

To pay for your crime with time and money/possessions you own is one thing, to have cash on you and it confiscated because you "might, possibly" use it for the wrong reasons is ludicrous.

Cash is legal, even a lot of it. The gun on your hip is legally there. Both "might/possibly" be used for illegal things, but the police (in a traffic stop, no arrest) taking away cash because of what could happen, is as crazy to me as those that tell me guns kill people.

Great analogy.

I still have no problem with taking the money or possessions where it is clearly coming from illegal actions.

The problem is, making sure we get the right money and possessions.

I knew this person personally and before someone says, yes but you would be surprised at who does what.
I agree, but the person in the example I am about to give, spent a great portion of his time working with addicts to get them off drugs.

This happened in the 1990's.
A friend of mine had several different business endeavors, among which was 2 or more big trucks that he had doing big truck stuff, picking up and delivering loads across the country.
One of his trucks was stopped in TN and drugs were found in the truck.
I can't remember what drugs (although I want to say coke) or how much, but is was evidently enough to seize the truck.
My buddy had nothing to do with the drugs and eventually got his truck back.
But my memory says it took over at least 6 months and it cost him money for a lawyer to get the truck back.
There was never any evidence that my buddy was making money from running drugs or that he even knew of the drug running.
Luckily my buddy had the resources, and other businesses, to withstand having that big truck out of action for 6 months or more and to be able to fight to get it back.

 

[Grey Colson]

Never seized cash from anyone but a doper I arrested. Never seen or heard of anyone at my previous agency seizing cash without a court order to do so. I can assure you if I have never even heard of such a thing, these cases are extremely isolated. That is, if the complaints are even founded.

Oh, and LTD...I arrested a house when assigned to DEA. I thought it sounded a little strange, but that's what they called it. :dunno

 

[deewee]

Shouldn't there be evidence (besides money) present to make the determination that whatever money is present has been gained from a crime?

I talked with M about this. He has seized money, but only when it was found with drugs/evidence of a crime. A particular case he used for example. On a traffic stop, it became apparent that there were drugs in the vehicle. One, by one, he searched each each person (there were 4), finding drugs in their pockets with money in the same pocket. Not just chump change money. Hundreds of dollars on each person. He counted the cash, in front of the camera of his popo mobile, and it became evidence.

Is that not how this is supposed to work? It sounds very above board to me.

 

[deewee]

This is another case of a good idea being screwed up by those who no longer have common sense.
Perhaps it should be that if it is proven that they took your money and the money was not meant for illegal use, then they have to pay you double the amount back, plus interest.
Maybe that would cut down on the stupid stuff.

Also, I have to wonder, in all my traffic stops, I have never been asked how much money I am carrying.
Sooooo, how often does this occur?

Dunno. Apparently some jurisdictions like it more than others. I recall hearing a big stink of some area just east of Nashville where they did/do it a lot.

There are people, in every profession, that take advantage. There are bad cops, and there are corrupt agencies (in that the corruption is in the leadership and it filters down to the employees). Those are the ones that make the actions of all cops come under scrutiny, and their jobs harder to perform. I hate those people. Well, maybe not hate, but almost, because it makes my husband's job harder.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Shouldn't there be evidence (besides money) present to make the determination that whatever money is present has been gained from a crime?

I talked with M about this. He has seized money, but only when it was found with drugs/evidence of a crime. A particular case he used for example. On a traffic stop, it became apparent that there were drugs in the vehicle. One, by one, he searched each each person (there were 4), finding drugs in their pockets with money in the same pocket. Not just chump change money. Hundreds of dollars on each person. He counted the cash, in front of the camera of his popo mobile, and it became evidence.

Is that not how this is supposed to work? It sounds very above board to me.

There were reports of it not working liking that (drugs, lose your stuff...which if true oh well, don't do drugs) across the country and especially in an area of TN that MeiLan mentioned. I can not look now, but maybe MeiLan will chime in. What we are speaking of is the maybe/could situation of them seeing a lot of cash and applying that train of thought/logic :huh to large amounts of money.

 

[stradial]

Never seized cash from anyone but a doper I arrested. Never seen or heard of anyone at my previous agency seizing cash without a court order to do so. I can assure you if I have never even heard of such a thing, these cases are extremely isolated. That is, if the complaints are even founded.

Oh, and LTD...I arrested a house when assigned to DEA. I thought it sounded a little strange, but that's what they called it. :dunno

I think it would depend greatly on the department and how ethically they are ran.
If I know one person personally, which I gave as an example, then I do have to wonder how much it does happen.
And while I understand that criminals don't tell people who aren't criminals about their criminal activity, I just gave you an example of a complaint that was founded.
Yes, I believe the person who said he was not involved, it was totally his employee's deal.
Why would I believe him?
As I said, he spent a huge amount of his personal time, for years for no monetary compensation, working with and helping people who were addicts, get off whatever they were addicted to.
I could be wrong, but people who do that, year in and year out, every week of the year, don't also sell drugs.
And the court agreed that it was founded.

 

[deewee]

Shouldn't there be evidence (besides money) present to make the determination that whatever money is present has been gained from a crime?

I talked with M about this. He has seized money, but only when it was found with drugs/evidence of a crime. A particular case he used for example. On a traffic stop, it became apparent that there were drugs in the vehicle. One, by one, he searched each each person (there were 4), finding drugs in their pockets with money in the same pocket. Not just chump change money. Hundreds of dollars on each person. He counted the cash, in front of the camera of his popo mobile, and it became evidence.

Is that not how this is supposed to work? It sounds very above board to me.

There were reports of it not working liking that (drugs, lose your stuff...which if true oh well, don't do drugs) across the country and especially in an area of TN that MeiLan mentioned. I can not look now, but maybe MeiLan will chime in. What we are speaking of is the maybe/could situation of them seeing a lot of cash and applying that train of thought/logic :huh to large amounts of money.

Gotcha.

 

[Boss 302]

I think before any property should be seized under drug forfeiture, it should be proven the items being seized are in fact linked to a drug deal or possession of illegal drugs; not suspected. Just because a guy is carrying a large amount of cash on him does not mean he is involved with a drug deal and for a LEO to just take it because he "suspects" it's involved with drugs are is going to be involved with drugs is just wrong. I see these types of seizures as unconstitutional.

Never give the police permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over for a traffic stop either.

 

[Winchester]

I do not know enough about this particular subject to debate. Interesting topic, and I will read up on this, and maybe talk to a few cops in the area about their perspective.

I would recommend talking to prosecutors who have worked these cases. Cops just process the paperwork and turn it over to the attorneys. From that point on it's out of their hands. Few cops ever know the outcome of the seizure as they can take years to complete.

I understand that not every such case is won, that's why we have a court system as checks and balances. Mistakes are made and the court corrects that, well they are suppose to anyway. I'm only saying to not believe everything you read, these groups are prying on the growing distrust in law enforcement to bring an end to the whole process when they have already lost in court.

You only hear about the 1 in 10,000+ cases where L/E lost in court so they want to stop all of it. This is the biggest weapon in crime fighting and the criminals want it gone. Criminals do not fear jail or prison but they get upset that you took their bling away.