Civil asset forfeiture (meta thread)

[bernorange 8,348]

Looks like I neglected to start a new one of these in the move over from the old site.

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to rule on a case that could have a major impact on civil liberties and whether civil asset forfeiture can continue to serve as low hanging fruit for bureaucratic interests run amok.

Timbs v. Indiana involves a man whose $42,000 Land Rover was confiscated via civil asset forfeiture. Attorneys from the libertarian public-interest law firm, Institute for Justice, don’t deny their client Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling $385 worth of heroin in two transactions and that his vehicle was used in the sale.

What they do contest is that the confiscation of the Land Rover (purchased with a payment from a life insurance policy, not drug money) was unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.

How is that? Due to a plea bargain, Timbs was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. He was also assessed a total of $1,200 in fees and fines. The offense carries a maximum fine of $10,000. Hence, Timbs’ attorneys assert the confiscation of a $42,000 car exceeds what he was liable for in the first place.
...
Suffice it to say, civil asset forfeiture is padding municipal budgets. One of the more glaring examples of this self-serving dynamic came from a seminar led by Harry S. Connelly Jr., a city attorney for Las Cruces, New Mexico. His zealous support for civil asset forfeiture made it clear that law enforcement is often more focused upon raising revenue, rather than public safety.

In particular, Connelly lauded a scenario in which parents lost their $300,000 house after their son was caught selling $10 of marijuana outside of their home.“Just think what you could do as a legal department. We could be czars. We could own the city. We could be in the real estate business,” said Connelly.

Media attention generally focuses on draconian cases involving high-dollar figures, cars, or homes that were confiscated by the government. However, one of the more perverse aspects of civil asset forfeiture is the manner in which much smaller amounts of money are routinely confiscated by police.

To be exact, the median forfeiture in Chicago was $1,049, according to a study by Reason Magazine and the Lucy Parsons Lab. That’s particularly disturbing because it generally costs at least $2,000 in legal and court fees to recover your assets. In other words, even if you’re willing to climb through a pile of red tape, it’s pointless to recover your assets in most cases.  

Moreover, unlike Timbs v. Indiana, the vast majority of civil asset forfeiture cases don’t involve a corresponding criminal case. In fact, eighty-seven percent of federal forfeitures are civil, not criminal.

The reason is that the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. On the other hand, the presumption of innocence doesn’t exist in a civil asset forfeiture case.

The defendant is technically the property that was seized. The owner must prove in court, with a preponderance of evidence, that the property wasn’t used to commit a crime or derived from criminal activity.

This is an un-American and counterproductive practice that is fundamentally opposed to constitutional principles. For this, among other reasons, are why 84 percent of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture.  

This is such an egregious issue that it motivated the generally reticent Justice Clarence Thomas to comment on Leonard v Texas. In that case, the police confiscated $201,100 in cash during a traffic stop. The money, along with the bill of sale for a Pennsylvania home, was located in a safe inside the trunk of the car.

Thomas pointed to wide misconduct associated with civil forfeitures. He even cited a few news reports and a research paper by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture. However, Thomas reluctantly ruled that the court couldn’t hear the case because those issues weren’t addressed at the lower court level first.

Nonetheless, Thomas clearly expressed interest in ruling on this issue with future cases.

“(I)t is unclear whether courts historically permitted forfeiture actions to proceed civilly in all respects. Some of this Court’s early cases suggested that forfeiture actions were in the nature of criminal proceedings. Whether forfeiture is characterized as civil or criminal carries important implications for a variety of procedural protections, including the right to a jury trial and the proper standard of proof.”

With that in mind, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s eventual replacement looms large in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, which will be heard in the next session of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kennedy often ruled in favor of civil rights issues.

To reiterate, the Supreme Court can’t overturn all of the wrongs associated with civil asset forfeiture in this one case. However, a favorable ruling in Timbs v. Indiana would certainly curtail some of the most flagrant abuses. Furthermore, it could lead to future cases that finally terminate this unjust and unconstitutional practice. 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/keeping-cops-hands-out-of-your-pockets/

 

Quote

...

In May, the state House approved a bill that would require police in Michigan to secure a criminal conviction before seizing property. The bill is being debated in the Judiciary Committee.

 

...

More:  https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/763530002

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,412]

Here is how the money is spent in some locales:  

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/07/20/feds-order-georgia-sheriff-to-return-69g-spent-on-hellcat-muscle-car.html

 

Sheriff buying a $70K Dodge Hellcat as his commuter car.  Feds are asking for the money back, so the county will be on the hook for it.

[Clob94 121]

Don't you know bro? The more stuff they grab and sell, the more effective they will be at protecting and serving......... poppycock! 

[bernorange 8,348]

lulz.  In the old thread on the old site, there were numerous examples of abuse posted, including the Montgomery County, TX DA that used CAF funds to buy a margarita machine for the office.

Quote

The 14 Most Ridiculous Things Police Bought With Asset Forfeiture

Policing for profit = YOLO for cops.

...

More:  https://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/the-14-most-ridiculous-things-police-bought-with-a-4y3w?utm_term=.daj3lDxZD#.xeeLO4Ya4

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,412]

The most eye-rolling part of the GA case I referenced above, is on their application for funds listed that the Dodge Challenger (not referencing the Hellcat model) would be used for undercover/covert activities.  When asked, the spokeswoman stated that it's just boilerplate language they use on all car requests and there was no attempt to mislead.    I agree, it wasn't an attempt to mislead, it was actually misleading.  Someone should be arrested for that.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

A West Virginia State Police trooper issued Dimitrios Patlias a warning for failing to drive within his lane, just before seizing more than $10,000 in cash from him and his wife.

On June 9, Tonya Smith — who was almost eight months pregnant — and Patlias were headed to the Hollywood Casino in Jefferson County. They had capitalized on several promotional offers and had 13 and 14 (respectively) $100 gift cards on them, along with the cash.

The trooper pulled them over, Smith said in an interview, and ranged from accusing them of smuggling cigarettes, to having drugs in the car, to gift card fraud. After searching the car, their persons, and Smith’s purse, the trooper let them go with a uniform warning citation.

However, he also took the $10,478 in cash, the 78 “gift cards” in the car, and Patlias’ smartphone, according to a property disposition report. Smith said 27 of those cards were gift cards, the rest of them were the kind of rewards program cards you get from any chain business.

Patlias and Smith wound up returning to their home in Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, stripped of all their cash but $2, without ever having been charged with a crime.
...

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/cops_and_courts/wv-state-police-seize-k-from-couple-without-charging-them/article_c46b9831-1c05-5ed0-b1b2-7b31c2654120.html

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

Last week, The Post published a series of in-depth articles about the abuses spawned by the law enforcement practice known as civil asset forfeiture. As two people who were heavily involved in the creation of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department in the 1980s, we find it particularly painful to watch as the heavy hand of government goes amok. The program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.
...
The Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000 to rein in abuses, but virtually nothing has changed. This is because civil forfeiture is fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and notions of fairness. It is unreformable.
...
Civil asset forfeiture and money-laundering laws are gross perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic, and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to “prove” anything to the government. If the government has probable cause of a violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be proclaimed by 12 peers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abolish-the-civil-asset-forfeiture-program-we-helped-create/2014/09/18/72f089ac-3d02-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html?utm_term=.64631265b354

30 years later, they want to close Pandora's Box.

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

Four years after Philadelphia police seized the home of Markela and Chris Sourovelis for a minor drug crime committed by their son, the city has agreed to almost completely dismantle its controversial civil asset forfeiture program and pay $3 million to its victims.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, announced today that the city had agreed to a settlement in a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit challenging its forfeiture program.

...

Philadelphia dropped its forfeiture case against the Sourevelises after their plight drew national media attention, but last year a federal judge allowed the Institute for Justice's suit to proceed as a class action. The city also put stricter rules into place for when houses could be seized and voluntarily stopped using forfeiture funds to pay the salary of police and prosecutors.

Under the terms of the settlement, codified in two binding consent decrees, Philadelphia will no longer seek property forfeitures for simple drug possession and will stop seizing petty amounts of cash without accompanying arrests or evidence in a criminal case. It will also put judges in charge of forfeiture hearings, will streamline the hearing process, and will ban the Philadelphia district attorney and Philadelphia Police Department from using forfeiture revenue to fund their payroll.

The city will disburse the $3 million settlement fund to qualifying members of the class action based on the circumstances of their case. A Philadelphia resident whose property was forfeited but was never convicted of a related crime, for example, will receive 100 percent of the value of the property.

Last June, the Pennsylvania legislature passed modest reforms of state asset forfeiture laws. The reforms increased the reporting requirements for asset forfeiture, raised the burden of proof necessary to seize property, and codified Philadelphia's new procedures for seizing homes into law. More than half of all U.S. states have passed some form of asset forfeiture reform in recent years, and in July a federal judge declared Albuquerque's asset forfeiture program unconstitutional.

...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/18/philadelphia-will-dismantle-its-asset-fo

Institute for Justice, my hat's off to you.

[bernorange 8,348]

Thanks Matt, whichever Surly poster you are:

Quote

...

Texas is lagging behind. Since civil asset forfeiture entered the national spotlight a few years ago, 29 states have amended their laws to limit the practice in some way. Sixteen states now place the burden of proof on the government in innocent owner claims. Fifteen states have gone farther, and now require a criminal conviction for the government to keep seized property. In contrast, attempts at reforming forfeiture law in Texas have all failed. State lawmakers introduced 13 different bills in the 2015 legislative session that would have made seizures more difficult. Each one failed.

Without needed protections, many cases of civil asset forfeiture amount to nothing more than legal theft. And nearly the whole state agrees: a 2017 poll from the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that an overwhelming 88 percent of Texas voters oppose asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction. That support needs to turn into tangible action to prevent future abuse. Texans who care about our property rights should petition the legislature to require criminal charges or convictions for seizures. Otherwise, law enforcement will keep abusing our rights and keeping our stuff — and Texans shouldn’t stand for that.

Matt Liles studies international relations at the University of Texas at Austin and is a Young Voices contributor.

https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2018/09/28/hey-texas-lets-stop-stealing-peoples-stuff/1447446002/

[bernorange 8,348]

* sigh *

Quote

Confederate monuments , Ten Commandment displays , gambling , lottery , ethics and the economy are all issues that can make for easy-to-digest campaign advertising.

But when it comes to issues sure to dominate the Legislature's time and focus in 2019, civil asset forfeiture reform is almost certain to rise above most, if not all, of them.

The problem is, it's not an easy issue to explain quickly.

"It's too complex for Twitter or a 30-second TV ad," said state Sen. Dick Brewbaker, R-Pike Road, who is not running for re-election this year. "If you bring it up, you're likely to be misunderstood."

The issue doesn't rank high as a top concern for voters, either. According to an unscientific AL.com poll, only 1.83 percent of approximately 9,500 participants named civil asset forfeiture as a top campaign issue. That place it 16th out of 18 choices of campaign issues this election season.

...

https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/10/policing_for_profit_debate_con.amp

[The Royal We 3,065]

This should not be a R v. D issue, but it is depressing at how little coverage it gets.

I saw something in my local paper about a big new project for the city - can't remember if it was new sidewalks or computers for the schools or what, but it was a $750,000+ spend.  The article discussing the project plainly said that the funds for the entire project were coming from "seized assets."  I live in a town of ~35k people - how is that even possible?

[Chad Fuck 17,566]

10 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

This should not be a R v. D issue, but it is depressing at how little coverage it gets.

I saw something in my local paper about a big new project for the city - can't remember if it was new sidewalks or computers for the schools or what, but it was a $750,000+ spend.  The article discussing the project plainly said that the funds for the entire project were coming from "seized assets."  I live in a town of ~35k people - how is that even possible?

Stealing from people who pass through.

Care to let us know which town it is we should avoid?

[bernorange 8,348]

[Huckleberry 32,701]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:34 AM, bernorange said:

* sigh *

https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/10/policing_for_profit_debate_con.amp

"It's too complex for Twitter or a 30-second TV ad," said state Sen. Dick Brewbaker, R-Pike Road, who is not running for re-election this year. "If you bring it up, you're likely to be misunderstood."

What a moron. Seems like we have a phrase that people have heard that covers this.

Innocent until proven guilty.

The government doesn't get to take citizens' shit until and unless they're proven guilty. The end.

[bernorange 8,348]

The concept of guilty until proven innocent has spread to the UK:

Quote

...
Zamira Hajiyeva, who is the subject of the first two unexplained wealth orders obtained by the UK National Crime Agency (NCA), also spent more than £16 million over a decade at luxury department store Harrods, a High Court judgment said, according to PA. ...

If Hajiyeva cannot explain how she afforded the assets in question, she could lose them. One property, worth around £11.5 million, is in the rich London neighborhood of Knightsbridge, where Harrods is located.

Hajiyeva's husband, Jahangir Hajiyev, was the chairman of the state-controlled International Bank of Azerbaijan from 2001 until his resignation in 2015. He was later sentenced to 15 years on fraud and embezzlement charges, PA reported.

The unexplained wealth order is a new power given to law enforcement agencies this year to tackle suspected corruption. According to the government, it requires "a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime" to explain how their property was obtained, if their lawful income appears to be insufficient to afford it.
...
"UWOs should now be used more widely to pursue more of the £4.4 billion worth of suspicious wealth we have identified across the UK."
...

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/uk/uk-wealth-order-hajiyeva-intl/index.html

 

[Viper 12,030]

excellent thread. subscribed.

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

... 86 percent of Utah voters and 84 percent of all Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture. ...

...The most recent data for forfeitures in Utah show that only 87 percent of cases involve a criminal charge, with only 58 percent resulting in a conviction. Even more troubling, 64 percent of cases involve a default judgment because the person doesn’t even fight the forfeiture at all.

...

And why don’t they fight? Consider this: The median value taken in forfeitures last year was a mere $1,071. Ask yourself: Would you hire an attorney for thousands of dollars to try to reclaim so little an amount? The question answers itself.

Then there are the larger cases, where it may make financial sense to fight. Even then, exchanges are offered by the prosecutor where the owner gets to keep half of the property if they agree to drop the case, letting the government keep the other half. No charges filed, no conviction, just a negotiation in which a property owner decides it’s better to lose some of the property than to spend a substantial amount of money and time fighting for years.

That isn’t justice. And it certainly isn’t the everything-is-peachy “essential law enforcement tool” Huber tries to depict. It is, rather, a law in dire need of reform.

...

More:  https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/10/28/commentary-civil/

[sushihorn 3,233]

On 10/30/2018 at 8:32 AM, Huckleberry said:

What a moron. Seems like we have a phrase that people have heard that covers this.

Innocent until proven guilty.

The government doesn't get to take citizens' shit until and unless they're proven guilty. The end.

The dodge that they are putting the assets on trial is absurd.  The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment could not be any clearer:

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

[bernorange 8,348]

Ideally, CAF gets neutered at the Federal level, but until that time, individual states are leading the way.  Except, apparently, for Michigan...

Quote

Earlier this year, my plan to ensure innocent people don’t lose their personal property to civil asset forfeiture was approved by the House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

This common-sense solution would protect the civil liberties of all Michigan residents while still allowing officers to crack down on convicted criminals. It would require an individual to be convicted of a crime before authorities are allowed to take and dispose of his or her property.

Unfortunately, the legislation has collected dust in the Senate Judiciary Committee for the five months since that historic vote. Sen. Rick Jones, who chairs the committee, appears reluctant to take the bill up for consideration. The former sheriff seems content with the status quo, which allows law enforcement officers to take and keep the property of individuals who are never even charged with a crime.
...

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2018/11/07/senate-must-follow-house-civil-asset-reform/1902400002/

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, an important asset forfeiture and property rights case. I wrote about the issues at stake here and here. The big questions before the Court are whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is "incorporated" against state governments and, if so, whether at least some state civil asset forfeitures violate the Clause. If the answers to these two questions are both "yes," the Court could also potentially address the issue of what qualifies as an "excessive" fine.

Today's oral argument makes clear that the Court will almost certainly rule that the Excessive Fines Clause does indeed apply to the states. The justices also seem likely to rule that at least some state asset forfeitures violate the Clause. Both liberal and conservative justices seemed to support Timbs on these two issues, especially incorporation. It is hard to say, however, what - if anything - the Court will do on the question of how to define "excessive." The justices could well decide to leave it to the lower courts, at least for the time being.

...

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/28/todays-supreme-court-oral-argument-in-ti

[EMAWesome 101]

From some of the tweets I've read it sounds like Gorsuch and Soniamayer are both in agreement on this (Gorsuch seemed to think that the more the Indiana Solicitor General argued his case the deeper the hole he dug himself.)

[HenryJames 65,890]

 

[Post Oak 20,184]

Texas Dem proposing Criminal Asset Forfeiture

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/texas-bill-would-require-a-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture-effectively-shut-federal-loophole/

Texas Bill Would Require a Conviction for Asset Forfeiture, Effectively Shut Federal Loophole

The Institute for Justice gives current Texas asset forfeiture laws a D+ grade, calling them “terrible.”

“The standard of proof required to forfeit property in Texas is just preponderance of the evidence, and an innocent owner bears the burden of proving that she was not involved in any crimes associated with her property before she can get it back. In addition, law enforcement agencies enjoy a strong incentive to seize property.”

[Brisketexan 104,612]

14 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

Texas Dem proposing Criminal Asset Forfeiture

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/texas-bill-would-require-a-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture-effectively-shut-federal-loophole/

Texas Bill Would Require a Conviction for Asset Forfeiture, Effectively Shut Federal Loophole

The Institute for Justice gives current Texas asset forfeiture laws a D+ grade, calling them “terrible.”

“The standard of proof required to forfeit property in Texas is just preponderance of the evidence, and an innocent owner bears the burden of proving that she was not involved in any crimes associated with her property before she can get it back. In addition, law enforcement agencies enjoy a strong incentive to seize property.”

See Tenaha, Texas.  Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to this bullshit.

This is an issue that SHOULD have broad, bi-partisan support at the lege...because it has that kind of support in the public, as well.  It ain't just Dems opposing this -- far from it:

Quote

Without needed protections, many cases of civil asset forfeiture amount to nothing more than legal theft. And nearly the whole state agrees: a 2017 poll from the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that an overwhelming 88 percent of Texas voters oppose asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction. 

The TPPF ain't exactly a buncha libtards.

Fixing this makes too much sense, across the board.

Thus, I expect this reform to be sent to deep-freeze in the lege, never to be seen again.

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

...
Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has been applying—or incorporating—the various provisions contained in the Bill of Rights against the states via the 14th Amendment, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In other words, if the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment applies against the states (it does), then the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment deserves the same treatment.

Now here is where things start to get interesting. "We all agree that the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states," Gorsuch said during the Timbs oral arguments. But he then acknowledged that not everyone on the Court agrees on exactly how it should be done. "Whether you want to do it through the Due Process Clause and look at history and tradition," he continued, "or whether one wants to look at privileges and immunities, you might come to the same conclusion."

Gorsuch was likely thinking about McDonald v. Chicago, the 2010 case in which the Court confronted these questions: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply against the states via the 14th Amendment, and if it does apply, is that because the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of U.S. citizenship, or because it is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause?
...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/04/neil-gorsuch-civil-asset-forfeiture-and

If I'm reading that right, even though the Timbs case appears to be about the application of the 8th amendment (excessive fines), there is a meta issue regarding incorporation of the 8th via the 14th which could open the door to arguments that CAF violates due process entirely. I hope I understood that correctly.

[Viper 12,030]

interesting, not sure I fully understand the full ramifications of either interpretation but this is what the article explains

Quote

 Some conservatives worry that if the Supreme Court embraces the Privileges or Immunities Clause, that clause will then be used to justify greater judicial meddling in future cases. Thomas, by contrast, waved away those concerns in his McDonald concurrence. "The mere fact that the [Privileges or Immunities] Clause does not expressly list the rights it protects," he wrote, "does not render it incapable of principled judicial application."

 

[JohnnyRage 1,617]

Gas Pipe owner aquitted, Gov’t doesn’t care...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/01/20/acquitted-drug-trafficking-uncle-sam-wants-keep-property-anyway

[TwiceHorn 31,274]

On 10/30/2018 at 8:39 AM, bernorange said:

The concept of guilty until proven innocent has spread to the UK:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/uk/uk-wealth-order-hajiyeva-intl/index.html

 

So the country without a written Constitution guaranteeing due process and a presumption of innocence learns a lesson from the one that does.

[David Dennison 18,656]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So the country without a written Constitution guaranteeing due process and a presumption of innocence learns a lesson from the one that does.

To be fair, the Constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee a presumption of innocence. 

[bernorange 8,348]

3 hours ago, JohnnyRage said:

Gas Pipe owner aquitted, Gov’t doesn’t care...

It's an outrageous abuse and perversion of the ethos upon which our nation was founded.

[Llano Estacado 1,257]

Yeah, but Hellcats and fat stacks of benjis.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

Can the government seize Trump's properties? Might need to reconsider my position.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Yep.

That’s why the Mueller investigation is actually paying for itself after seizing shit from Manafort and others.

I’m good with not overturning CAF until We The People can take whatever Trump has left of value.

Turn all his golf courses into national parks.

Turn Mar-A-Lago into a refugee resettlement center.

Turn Trump Tower into a civil rights museum.

Really make it sting.

[TwiceHorn 31,274]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m good with not overturning CAF until We The People can take whatever Trump has left of value.

 

I despise Trump but this is stupid.

I have no fundamental objection to seizing assets that are proven to be the ill-gotten gains of a crime of which the defendant is convicted.  Civil asset forfeiture is not that.

You are better than this post.  Unfortunately, however, people tend to lose their marbles when talking about Trump.

CAF is bullshit applied to anyone.  It's never justified by the subsequent guilt or general despicability of the asset owner.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

What if we just apply it to politicians that endorse it? We can do that, right?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Someone needs to find their tongue in cheek translator.

[TwiceHorn 31,274]

22 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Someone needs to find their tongue in cheek translator.

I left out that the Manafort deal isn't CAF either, it's post-conviction, although I think they did seize at the time of indictment.

Theres a lot of lunacy surrounding Trump.  And emanating from him.  But I tire of lunatic responses to lunacy.  That makes everyone a loon and that's no good.

Edited January 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104,612]

I left out that the Manafort deal isn't CAF either, it's post-conviction, although I think they did seize at the time of indictment.

Theres a lot of lunacy surrounding Trump.  And emanating from him.  But I tire of lunatic responses to lunacy.  That makes everyone a loon and that's no good.

Yes and no. We responded to killers with guns by killing them with guns. That’s how we won WWII.

Trump has turned politics in this country upside down. Fighting him fairly is how you lose.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

Obviously. Vocally object to intentional lunacy from message board posters and quietly accept Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Both sides.

[TwiceHorn 31,274]

Also, kindly use the sarcasm font in the future.

It's just that vast swaths of our criminal laws were justified at the time of their enactment. and later, by the effect they would have on this heinous bad guy or the other nasty fucker, without due consideration for how they could be turned on Joe Sixpack or otherwise generally abused by the government, or whether existing laws could be used to adequately deal with the heinous bad guy or nasty fucker. 

CAF is kind of Exhibit A, but there are a shit ton of examples.  I'm just tired of brain-dead criminal justice and have kind of a visceral reaction to things that look like it.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

Agreed. I don't even that's a controversial position and yet, somehow, CAF is still a thing selectively used to punish scapegoated menaces to society like "The Gas Pipe!" while CAF-supporting whales blowing jet flames of suspicious smoke outta every orifice know they don't even need bother with that contingency. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

*think

[TwiceHorn 31,274]

23 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Agreed. I don't even that's a controversial position and yet, somehow, CAF is still a thing selectively used to punish scapegoated menaces to society like "The Gas Pipe!" while CAF-supporting whales blowing jet flames of suspicious smoke outta every orifice know they don't even need bother with that contingency. 

An irony.  The Gas Pipe was originally indicted for mail and wire fraud, drug trafficking, etc. and was only ultimately convicted on Hugo's beloved Conspiracy Against the US, 18 USC 371.  Which, as glorious as it sounds, basically is a kinda chickenshit, catch-all, we-can't-find-a-real-crime charge.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

That's not an irony though as it doesn't apply to CAF.

[bernorange 8,348]

I watched a bit of cable news at lunch today.  Heard several mentions that the Trump admin is considering tapping CAF funds to help pay for a border wall.  smh...

Quote

Hawaiian vacation. Margarita machine. Sparkles the Clown. Are we going to add Trump’s border wall to the list of “ridiculous things” that civil asset forfeiture funds have been spent on?

It seems so if left up to this administration.

On Friday, two congressional Republicans told the Associated Press that the administration had been looking at civil asset forfeiture funds to finance the border wall’s construction. And it’s easy to see why. The federal government’s forfeiture fund currently has $3.7 billion in cash, but over $7.6 billion in assets. For the Trump administration, what could be more tempting than liquidating this slush fund to build the wall it wants a new influx of $5.7 billion for?

This scheme exemplifies all that is wrong with civil asset forfeiture, which occurs when law enforcement takes property away from someone based on the mere suspicion it is connected to a crime. To be clear — because people can’t believe this is a thing — you do not have to be arrested or convicted of a crime to have your property seized and taken under civil asset forfeiture.

And once forfeited, local law enforcement in many places can use this money for almost anything it wants. This is how civil forfeiture has earned the nickname “policing for profit.” And this is why the Trump administration thinks forfeiture funds are on the table for a border wall.

That assumption at the federal level, however, is mistaken.

Building a wall with federal forfeiture funds is no slam dunk. Federal law limits the use of such funds to certain law enforcement purposes. “Border wall” is not one of them. And it doesn’t look like Congress would take action to change the law so that “border wall” is a permissible expense. Even though we’ve heard a member of Congress suggest that a wall should be built with forfeiture funds, most federal officials are strongly opposed to civil forfeiture.     

On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a civil forfeiture reformer, questioned Attorney General nominee William Barr on the practice. Lee got Barr to concede that you “have to strike the right balance” on civil forfeiture. In 1991, Barr said that civil asset forfeiture could give law enforcement a “speed-trap mentality” where agencies pursue forfeitures to line their own coffers.

And last week, Reps. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) kicked off the 116th Congress by participating in a briefing on civil asset forfeiture reform, with Walberg sharing his plan to again reintroduce the FAIR Act, a comprehensive reform bill on the subject. Last Congress, the U.S. House adopted bipartisan amendments to a spending bill that would have prohibited the Justice Department from using federal dollars to increase forfeiture practices, but those amendments were not included in the final package.

When 84 percent of constituents oppose civil asset forfeiture, and 76 percent of voters are more likely to support candidates who back forfeiture reform, elected officials better listen. And this administration should listen to those who are saying building a wall with forfeiture “might be the worst idea yet.”

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/can-trump-administration-use-asset-forfeiture

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Ted Cruz - The Junior Senator from Texas - wants to take El Chapo’s fortune and use it for the wall.

Money made by famously smuggling drugs into America USING A TUNNEL.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

[RPM 26,228]

4 hours ago, bernorange said:

I watched a bit of cable news at lunch today.  Heard several mentions that the Trump admin is considering tapping CAF funds to help pay for a border wall.  smh...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/can-trump-administration-use-asset-forfeiture

Trump: Wait, you're telling me I can just steal the money? Why didn't you tell me this was an Atlantic City deal?

Edited February 13, 2019 by RPM

[bernorange 8,348]

The Institute for Justice has been all over this issue.  They published a page with a ton of information grading each State on their CAF laws:

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/

Texas currently graded at a D+.

Quote

...
A common refrain in the states where reform efforts have been unsuccessful is that resistance from law enforcement leaders killed the bills. In Texas, for example, 13 civil forfeiture reform bills were introduced during the 2015 legislative session. None of them passed, due in large part to law enforcement opposition.35 Five36 of the 13 that made it out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee—only to die in the Calendars Committee—would have significantly reformed the state’s laws by increasing the standard of proof from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence, shifting the burden in innocent owner claims to the government, increasing transparency through stronger reporting requirements, and granting attorney’s fees to owners if the government failed to forfeit successfully.37

Another bill in Texas that would have required the government to convict a property owner of a crime before forfeiting property38 died in the State Affairs Committee after the chairman, under pressure from law enforcement, refused to allow the bill to move forward.39 The bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Simpson of Longview, in Gregg County, also felt the heat from law enforcement when he appeared on a public panel in Austin to discuss forfeiture reform. A coterie of law enforcement officers and a judge from Simpson’s district flew to the panel on a donated private plane to express their opposition to reform.
...

 

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/7942-the-b-team-interesting-opinions-that-arent-the-political-headlines-of-the-day/&tab=comments#comment-1059672

 

edit: Can't get link to embed. See thread that suingtogetamessageboard started.

 

edit again: link is now working.

I am idoit.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by High Plains Drifter

[bernorange 8,348]

Quote

Prosecutors are ignoring the Constitution and legal precedent in their zeal to punish the founders and former staff of Backpage, by seizing money and other assets that stem from protected speech and legal activity.
...
Since the defendants' arrests in April 2018, prosecutors "have created constant interference with the Defendants' ability to defend this case," states a January 2019 status report filed by their lawyers. "Virtually all of the Defendants' assets have been seized, virtually all of the money in their attorneys' trust accounts designated to fund the defense has been been seized or is effectively frozen," and defense lawyers "may expose themselves to criminal liability if they use those funds to pay fees" from the case.

Last week, the Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, and the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine) filed a brief in support of the defendants on this matter. The groups say they want "to amplify the danger that the government's use of civil forfeiture to seize the assets and proceeds of expressive material poses to free expression."
...

http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/20/using-asset-forfeiture-to-quelch-speech