This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
America's Frightening "Policing For Profit" Nightmare
Submitted by Roger Pilon via The National Interest,
In a move to check certain abuses inherent in the nation’s asset forfeiture law, Attorney General Eric Holder announced last Friday that the Justice Department would limit its practice of “adopting” state and local law-enforcement seizures of property for subsequent forfeiture to the government. Under the practice, to circumvent state laws that limit forfeitures or direct forfeited proceeds to the state’s general treasury, state or local officials who seize property suspected of being “involved” in crime ask the Justice Department to adopt the seizure, after which the proceeds, once forfeited pursuant to federal law, are then split between the two agencies, with 20 percent usually kept by Justice and 80 percent returned to the local police department that initiated the seizure.
If that sounds like “policing for profit,” that’s because it is. And the abuses engendered by this law’s perverse incentives are stunning. In Volusia County, Florida, police stop motorists going south on I-95 and seize amounts of cash in excess of $100 on suspicion that it’s money to buy drugs. New York City police make DUI arrests and then seize drivers’ cars. District of Columbia police seized a grandmother’s home after her grandson comes from next door and makes a call from the home to consummate a drug deal. Officials seized a home used for prostitution and the previous owner, who took back a second mortgage when he sold the home, loses the mortgage. In each case, the property is seized for forfeiture to the government not because the owner has been found guilty of a crime—charges are rarely even brought—but because it’s said to “facilitate” a crime. And if the owner does try to get his property back, the cost of litigation, to say nothing of the threat of a criminal prosecution, often puts an end to that.
So bizarre is this area of our law—when lawyers first stumble on a forfeiture case they’re often heard to say “This can’t be right”—that a little background is necessary to understand how it ever came to be. American asset-forfeiture law has two branches. One, criminal asset forfeiture, is usually fairly straightforward, whether it concerns contraband, which as such may be seized and forfeited to the government, or ill-gotten gain, instrumentalities or statutorily determined forfeitures. Pursuant to a criminal prosecution, any proceeds or instrumentalities of the alleged crime are subject to seizure and, upon conviction, forfeiture to the government. Courts may have to weigh the scope of proceeds or instrumentalities. Or they may have to limit statutes that provide for excessive forfeitures. But forfeiture follows conviction, with the usual procedural safeguards of the criminal law.
Not so with civil asset forfeiture, where most of the abuses today occur. Here, law-enforcement officials often simply seize property for forfeiture on mere suspicion of a crime, leaving it to the owner to try to prove the property’s “innocence,” where that is allowed. Unlike in personam criminal actions, brought against the person, civil forfeiture actions, if they are even brought, are in rem, brought against “the thing,” on the theory that it “facilitated” a crime and thus is “guilty.”
Grounded in the “deodand” theories of the Middle Ages, when the “goring ox” was subject to forfeiture because it was “guilty,” this practice first arose in America in admiralty law. Thus, if a ship owner abroad and hence beyond the reach of an in personam action failed to pay duties on goods he shipped to America, officials seized the goods through in rem actions. But except for such uses, forfeiture was fairly rare until Prohibition. With the war on drugs, it again came to life, although officials today use forfeiture well beyond the drug war. And as revenue from forfeitures has increased, the practice has become a veritable addiction for federal, state and local officials across the country, despite periodic exposés in the media.
Thus, behind all of this is a perverse set of incentives, since the police themselves or other law-enforcement agencies usually keep the forfeited property—an arrangement rationalized as a cost-efficient way to fight crime. The incentives are thus skewed toward ever more forfeitures. Vast state and local seizures aside, Justice Department seizures alone went from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993 to nearly $4.2 billion in 2012. And since 2001, the federal government has seized $2.5 billion without either bringing a criminal action or issuing a warrant.
There will be some cases, of course, in which the use of civil asset forfeiture might be justified simply on the facts, as in the admiralty case just noted. Or perhaps a drug dealer, knowing his guilt, but knowing also that the state’s evidence is inconclusive, will agree to forfeit cash that police have seized, thereby to avoid prosecution and possible conviction. That outcome is simply a bow to the uncertainties of prosecution, as with any ordinary plea bargain. But the rationale for the forfeiture in such a case is not facilitation—it’s alleged ill-gotten-gain. By contrast, when police or prosecutors, for acquisitive reasons, use the same tactics with innocent owners who insist on their innocence—“Abandon your property or we’ll prosecute you,” at which point the costs and risks surrounding prosecution surface—it’s the facilitation doctrine they’re employing to justify putting the innocent owner to such a choice. In such cases, the doctrine is pernicious: it’s simply a ruse—a fiction—serving to coerce acquiescence.
Because it lends itself to such abuse, therefore, the facilitation doctrine should be unavailable to any law-enforcement agency once an owner challenges a seizure of his property. And once he does, the government should bear the burden of showing not that the property is guilty, but that the owner is and, therefore, his property may be subject to forfeiture if it constitutes ill-gotten-gain or was an instrumentality of the crime, narrowly construed (e.g., burglary tools, but not cars in DUI arrests or houses from which drug calls were made). In other words, once an owner challenges a seizure, criminal forfeiture procedures should be required. Indeed, “civil” asset forfeiture, arising from an allegation that there was a crime, is essentially an oxymoron in such cases. The government should prove the allegation, under the standard criminal law procedures, before any property is forfeited.
Short of such a fundamental reform, Holder’s move is welcomed, but it makes only a dent in the problem. As the Department’s press release said, “adoptions currently constitute a very small slice of the federal asset forfeiture program. Over the last six years, adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.” Moreover, the new policy does not apply to seizures resulting from joint federal-state task forces, joint investigations or coordination, or federal seizure warrants obtained from federal courts to take custody of assets originally seized under state law. And of course the reform does not limit the ability of state and local officials to seize assets under their state laws.
Regrettably, many if not most of the abuses today take place at the state level, yet changes in federal law, which often serves as a model for state law, can affect state law as well. In his recent statement, Holder said that “this is the first step in a comprehensive review that we have launched of the federal asset forfeiture program.” Members of Congress from both parties, already working on forfeiture reform, welcomed that news. Conceivably, then, this is one area in which the new Republican Congress can work with the administration to bring about further reforms. And in that, they would do well to study the course taken by the late Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, who paved the way for the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. That act made several procedural reforms, but it left in place the basic substantive problem—the “facilitation” doctrine. The abuses have thus continued, so much so that two former directors of the Justice Department’s civil asset forfeiture program recently wrote in the Washington Post that “[t]he program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.”
If that is not possible, Congress should make fundamental changes in the program.
In particular, if a crime is alleged, federal law-enforcement officials should have power to seize property for subsequent forfeiture under only four conditions:
first, when the property is contraband;
second, when in personam jurisdiction is not available, as in the admiralty example above;
third, when, in the judgment of the officials, the evidence indicates that a successful prosecution is uncertain but there is a high probability that the property at issue is ill-gotten-gain from the alleged crime and the target does not object to the forfeiture, as in the drug-dealer example above; and
fourth, when the property would be subject to forfeiture following a successful prosecution and there is a substantial risk that it will be moved beyond the government’s reach or otherwise dissipated prior to conviction—but such seizures or freezes should not preclude the availability of funds sufficient to enable the defendant to mount a proper legal defense against the charges, even though some or all of the assets may be dissipated for that purpose.
Those reforms would effectively eliminate the facilitation doctrine, except for a narrow reading of “instrumentalities,” and would largely replace civil forfeiture proceedings with criminal proceedings. Consistent with last Friday’s reform, however, Congress should put an end to the underlying incentive structure by requiring that forfeited assets be assigned to the federal treasury, rather than to the Justice Department, which should not be allowed, in effect, to “police for profit.” In 2013, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund exceeded $2 billion, having more than doubled since 2008 and increased twenty-fold since it was created in 1986. Not coincidentally, the growth in civil asset forfeiture closely parallels the ability of law enforcement agencies to profit from their activities. In fact, a veritable cottage industry has arisen that instructs officers how to stretch their legal authority to the absolute limit and beyond. It’s a system that more resembles piracy than law enforcement.
At the least, if the reforms above are not made, Congress should require the government to show, if challenged, that the property subject to forfeiture had a significant and direct connection to the alleged underlying crime, not simply that it was somehow “involved” in the crime, as now. And the standard of proof should be raised from a mere preponderance of the evidence, again as now, to clear and convincing evidence. Similarly, a proportionality requirement should be imposed to ensure that the government does not seize property out of proportion to the offense. Congress should require officials to consider the seriousness of the offense, the hardship to the owner, the value of the property, and the extent of a nexus to criminal activity. If a son living in his parents’ home is convicted of selling $40 worth of heroin and officials try to take the home, as recently happened in Philadelphia, a proportionality requirement would ensure that prosecutors cannot take a home for a $40 crime.
Finally, assuming that the facilitation doctrine is not eliminated, current law affords an innocent owner defense, but the burden is on the owner to prove his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. Just as people enjoy the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, property owners never convicted or even charged with a crime should not be presumed guilty in civil asset forfeiture proceedings. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the owner knew or reasonably should have known that the property facilitated a crime and he did nothing to mitigate the situation or that the property reflected the proceeds of a crime.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 has proven inadequate for curbing abuses, as countless Americans across the nation, having done nothing wrong, continue to lose their homes, businesses, and, sometimes, their very lives to the aggressive, acquisitive policing that this law encourages. There is broad agreement today that Congress should act quickly and decisively to fix a system that is badly in need of reform.
»
- 11194 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
and now you know why there are gold fringes around American flags.
I think the term everyone is searching for here is;
full spectrum dominance
Leviathan in its Final Days will bloat as it tries desperately to find new fiat fuel, like a dying star expanding and consuming it's own system's planets…
Yet everyone obeys 24/7... and looks to place blame anywhere but with themselves.
"It is time for Congress to act."
--------------------------------
You want CONgress to fix a problem of officials stealing other people's goods?
Ha! Good luck with that - What a hoot!
Me thinkth McBeth? Kinda wimpy Miletones
Everybody obeys and doesn’t think twice when it happens because their empathy levels are next to zero.
And empathy is where intelect lies.
ME ME ME
A week ago, a girl was kidnapped in broad daylight in Belgium. Dozens of adults where watching it and nobody responded, only 2 17 year old kids ran to the car where they pulled the girl in and they tried multiple times to stop the car.
Not a single adult responded...
And what was weird when I talked about it with other adults was: I wouldn’t do anything either, to dangerous....
Unless... it was their daughter that would be kidnapped... than they would expect the world to respond....
Everybody watches the news and says "terrible!" I’m buying a bumpersticker to protest against it!
But when confronted with the situation... nothing...
Bumper stickers? How quaint.
People these days can't even be bothered to do that. That would at least require them to go to a store, buy a sticker, and then physically put it on their car.
People these days, would just post something to their twitter account. Because through the power of the internet, it has never been easier to be a social justice warrior.
https://bitchtopia.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/hashtag-activism.jpg
Of course, once Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook inevitably merge into a gigantic social media skynet, it will be even easier to post drivel of all shapes and sizes to your YouTwitFace account.
May I venture that if I see a young girl being dragged away and screaming for help, the blade I often carry would find it's way to the abductor's person very quickly. If there is anything I can do about it, young ladies and children will be protected on NZ's watch. And I feel I am ALWAYS on watch over my fellows.
Everybody obeys and doesn’t think twice when it happens because their empathy levels are next to zero.
And empathy is where intelect lies.
ME ME ME
A week ago, a girl was kidnapped in broad daylight in Belgium. Dozens of adults where watching it and nobody responded, only 2 17 year old kids ran to the car where they pulled the girl in and they tried multiple times to stop the car.
Not a single adult responded...
And what was weird when I talked about it with other adults was: I wouldn’t do anything either, to dangerous....
Unless... it was their daughter that would be kidnapped... than they would expect the world to respond....
Everybody watches the news and says "terrible!" I’m buying a bumpersticker to protest against it!
But when confronted with the situation... nothing...
Make peace with your local LE while you can. Many are awake, preparing, and moving into the hills themselves.
Make peace with your local LE while you can. Many are awake, preparing, and moving into the hills themselves.
Puh-leez!!
If you know a couple of those, God bless, but "make peace with them"?? Why? They need to make peace with me... and repent of their lies, intimidations and thuggery!
It is code for "paying off" the guy in blue before he "asks" you to do it.
Get back to me when Congress makes a law voiding a Federal Judge's tenure and pension in the face of an anti-Constitutional ruling.
What part of the 4rth Amendment exactly is unreadable to these over educated socialst commiecrats?
this article makes for-profit confiscations sound like a bad thing
but in the face of shrinking tax bases and insolvent pension funds for city workers, the confiscation of assets just makes good business sense and helps maintain the security of municipal salaries, new school construction, and so forth
our favorite places to perform this valuable municipal service: outside casinos and airports where high-net-worth properties can be efficiently forfeitured
hugs,
the fraternal orders
That shouldn't need a sarc tag.
The hangovers are strong today.
You guys want my junk, no problem! Just break the plane of my doorway there and a split second after that we will have the opportunity to meet our maker and let her sort it out for us!
One Texas sheriffs dept found that out the.hard.way:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-With-Killing-Burleson-Cou...
meet our maker and let her sort it out???
Your still live with your mother?
This is where a monopoly of force goes. Basicaly its piracy.
Piracy implies a different dynamic, the poor stealing from the rich. This is basically medieval force, like when some asshole lord would squat on a river island and threaten violence to all those who tried to shirk his 'toll'.
Because, he could. He had the cannons and thugs.
Some of the more infamous ones were state approved.
Ah, yes, 'privateers'. Perhaps a more accurate term. Although I'm not sure they were able to keep 80% of the loot!
No cannons.
Maybe a trebuchet;)
Late medieval ofc. But for the rest of the millenia a few guys w bow and arrow did the job nicely I'm sure.
The word you are looking for is theft. Government is simply a monopoly criminal gang.
If anyone thought there was any real difference between cops and crooks, then these developments in civil forfeiture should cure them.
If not convinced, listen to author Douglas Valentine on the real relationship between crime and law enforcement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J80UC34SH8c
This report is provided for the media and general public.
At approximately 09:15hrs on 24 January, the SMM in government-controlled Mariupol heard at its location incoming massed Multi-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) attacks from a north-east direction, consisting of an extremely heavy barrage lasting 35 seconds. Twenty minutes later the SMM received information from the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) in Mariupol and other sources, that shelling had occurred in the area of Olimpiiska Street, in Ordzhonikidzevskyi district, 8.5 km north-east of Mariupol city centre, approximately 400 metres from a Ukrainian Armed Forces checkpoint.
At 10:20hrs the SMM went to Olimpiiska Street and saw seven adult civilians dead. The SMM observed in an area of 1.6 km by 1.1 km, including an open market, multiple impacts on buildings, retail shops, homes and a school. The SMM observed cars on fire and windows facing the north-eastern side of a nine-storey building shattered. The SMM was able to count 19 rocket strikes and is certain there are more. Four hospitals and the emergency service in the city informed the SMM that at least 20 people died and 75 people were injured and hospitalized. Ten of the wounded were in a critical condition, according to a hospital representative.
The SMM conducted a crater analysis and its initial assessment showed that the impacts were caused by Grad and Uragan rockets. According to the impact analysis, the Grad rockets originated from a north-easterly direction, in the area of Oktyabr (19 km north-east of Olimpiiska Street), and the Uragan rockets from an easterly direction, in the area of Zaichenko (15 km east of Olimpiiska Street), both controlled by the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”).
At 13:02hrs and 13:21hrs the SMM heard again incoming MLRS salvos lasting for eight seconds, from an easterly direction. At a distance of 300 metres the SMM saw smoke above the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ checkpoint number 14 (8.9 km north-east of Mariupol city centre), just several hundred metres away from where the shelling had hit in Olimpiiska Street.
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/136061
I better believe people in Mariupol than some shitty agency sponsored by USA and NATO
Than translate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDE_J9fMnGI
Also about OSCE members in Ukraine:
http://www.osce.org/node/109110
Alexey Lyzhenkov from the Russian Federation assumed the position of director of the Transnational Threats Department on 23 April 2012. Prior to joining the OSCE, he was the deputy Permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations in Vienna where he led activities of the Mission regarding transnational organized crime, corruption, illegal trafficking in narcotics, counter terrorism, cybercrime, trafficking in human beings and other related transnational threats. From 2004 to 2007, he served at the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs as deputy Director of the Department on new Challenges and Threats where he co-ordinated activities of the department regarding Russia’s participation in international co-operation against terrorism and other transnational threats.
Obvious false flag is obvious.
Go peddle your propaganda elsewhere, fuckwit123.
Please post on this subject AFTER you've been blown up by one of your fellow Ukes shithead.
Push a people too far, and just like a stretched rubber-band, they will eventually snap. Though it wasn't spelled out, I believe we have seen this in many of these LEO-related shootings by the public having felt tread upon. And should this continue, one can assume that such desperate acts will as well. Do unto others...
Thank God for all those brave men and women fighting in foreign lands so we can have our freedom from tyranny here in the US.
"so we can have our freedom of tyranny here in the US."
fixed it for you.
Defacto enslavement to free others from...slavery?
The fucking whore with a crown and a torch "works hard for the money, so you better treat her right"!
Yep they going feral.
Policig for PROFIT is right on. Check out the oppression on college age or HS age kids for having a beer. MIP or minor in possession tickets are given out like candy at Spring breaks, private partys, Universitys etc. etc. They are expensive and 1 out of 3 kids get them. Generally $650 to deal with it. These are not DUI. My son was at a private party thrown by a parent for NEW YEARS. He was 18. 50 kids were there. Word got out that there was underage drinking going on. The scene was like a Terrorist event in Boston. Entire county law enforcment came. They rushed the house kids scattered, my son tried to go out the back door and was tackled and cuffed. 45 kids were taken away in paddy wagons. All seniors in high school. My son was also charged with obstruction of justice because he tried to go out the back door. Kids were hiding everywhere. MIND YOU, this is all over some beer and liquor and the parents were there. I realize it was bad judgemet of the parents to allow this but this was not a public event and the kids were special invites and requred to spend the night. NO DRUGS just mostly beer and playing beer pong.
My son was in jail for 2 days and $2000 and 1 year later it was over. THE MIP pick pocket is awful because you have to get it off your childs record in order to attend some colleges.
I can tell you that my son as well as most of his friends despise the police and their oppression. The Ticket pick pocket, legalized stealing is becoming unbearable so that the state can pay their retirements.
I would ask everyone to promote a NO TICKET MONTH. Meaning DO NOTHING THAT MIGHT INVITE A TICKET. Deprive them this dishonest revenue.
If your.about to be fucked, don' t just lay there, FUCK BACK.
You attorney did get the names.of all the.cops involved, right?
Wait a few years, then send them some christmas cards. Or whatever....
If 18 is old enough to pick up a weapon, and get shipped off to shoot other slaves in foreign lands, why is it not old enough to drink?
People are born with the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and to be free of aggression against same by others. To aggress against another's Life, Liberty, and/or Property, is to commit a crime. To aggress against someone's Life, Liberty, and/or Property under cover of authority is to levy war against that person.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Therefore, those that aggress against the American people by threatening, or taking, their Property, Life, and/or Liberty are committing Article 3 Section 3 treason, and shall one day be held accountable.
I am Witness One. Who will be Witness Two?
The banksters need to repay us.
Witness two. Honestly, in my conservations with local law enforcement and my local commisioners etc. it would seem to me that they all have the same desire to live peacefully...
It seems as if a prerequisite for working in law enforcement these days is a general predisposition towards being an asshole. 'Nice Guys" don't make it in the LEO profession. You have to be an intolerable DICK in order to effectively do your job as a so-called peace officer.
Law enforcement has become a revenue collection arm of government. Their sole purpose is not to discourage or stop criminal activity, it is to extort financial assets from the public at large.
As a former paid firefighter/paramedic, I stopped "talking" to cops about ten years ago. I recognize the fact that if you are not one of them, THEN YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM.
Personally speaking, you couldn't pay me enough to be a cop these days. If they are going to treat the USSA citizenry as if they are enemy combatants in a war zone, then they should not expect any mercy when extreme resistance is encountered.
People are born with the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and to be free of aggression against same by others.
You were neither born with, nor do you have any rights. You have temporary privileges to give you the illusion of freedom in your slavery. The only true freedom is the freedom of thought. With that you can brake away from the slavery. Of course to not be a slave is to be a criminal in the state's eyes. Take your pick.
You are neither born with or given anything of real value. All that is worth having is taken. Whether through industry or force. Taking control of your mind and gaining a true perception of the world is beautiful liberty even when confined to a police state.
They will simply make up an excuse to pull people over. They call them safety checkpoints.
Sort of off topic. The power tripping ones need to be let go. Some people should not be cops.
“it is time for Congress to act.”
… and risk exposing the billion, probably trillions, members of Congress have stashed in off-shore bank accounts?
Don’t forget, Congress established that organ or terror that most Americans know as the Department of Homeland Security. It was modeled after French committees of terror (1792-4), the Judeo-Bolshevik Cheka (aka NKVD, KGB et cetera) and the Nazi Schutzstaffel.
The primary purpose of these organs of terror was to protect rule by thieves by eliminating all dissent. If the DHS is modeled after those historical instruments of terror, what possibly could be its purpose?
What a silly question.
You couldn't be more right
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
I'm an old lawyer and remember when cops could not do this. All the forfeiture laws have really done is turn the cops into thieves. It really started with the original Ricco laws, which were supposedly meant to empower cops to economically destroy mobsters, but it has, as predicted, only served to empower them to destroy any of us.
Have they siezed Sheldon Silver's assets yet!
CONgress just can't do the right thing.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-23/congress-proposes-bill-restore-...
The continuance of the police state is dependent on revenue. As tax reciepts decline along with the economy, these fund raising events will become more common. The exception becomes the rule. Do not expect the corrupt legislative powers responsible fo this to curb the activities of the enforcers. And forget about the courts. It is because of them that we are suffering these injuries and wrongs. Civil war is now inevitable. Its the only remaining remedy.
Violence for money is popular these days
Civil Asset Forfeiture is one of the most destructive laws ever introduced in this country. It causes the police to look on the average law-abiding citizen as someone to be disrespected and exploited. It causes the average citizen to look on the police as an oppressive evil to be feared and ultimately to be resisted with force.
CONgress isn't going to do shit.
They don't even debate wars, much less defund them.
Impeach all 535 + ICiC for fraud, treason
No disrespect to the author but your a little late.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sh...
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!!!!!! Sure he is.