Civil asset forfeiture (meta thread)

[TwiceHorn 31683]

Legislators are still just deathly afraid of being labeled "soft on crime," even though CAF doesn't really affect crime directly. 

Part of that is on the legislators, but a big part of that is on us.  Shame on us.

[Huckleberry 33538]

Yep, it needs to be a major focus of the citizens instead of a topic that's brought up only in small corners of the internet inhabited by smarter than average people. It's a disgusting practice and it should be an easy sell that foodie should only apply to possessions and funds proven to be acquired via illegal activity of which the defendant was found guilty.

[SDG 3319]

SCOTUS weighs in

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26433271/supreme-court-civil-asset-forfeiture-timbs-v-indiana/

Quote

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the case of Timbs v. Indiana. The decision was an auspicious one, and it was auspicious for two reasons. The first was that the decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg so, yes, she's back, sports fans. The second is that it was a harpoon sunk deeply into the scam that is the civil forfeiture procedure.

Tyson Timbs is an Indiana man who was busted in his SUV and who later pleaded guilty to drug-related offenses. The state went after his ride, estimated to cost $42,000. A state court came down against the forfeiture because the vehicle was worth far more than the fine that Timbs was assessed, which the state court determined violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive bail. The state took the case to Washington, arguing that the amendment's prohibition only extended to federal actions. 

Yeah, said RBG, the 14th Amendment says maybe not so much.

The misuse of the forfeiture statutes has become epidemic among local and state police departments. Too often, it leads to baroque corruption, and it also functions as a backdoor way to fund basic services in municipalities that don't have the guts to ask their citizens for tax increases. It's gotten so bad out in the country that both sides of the ideological ditch have come to oppose it, and it's central to the appeal of bipartisan criminal-justice reform. Now, those folks have a powerful legal weapon.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

20 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, it needs to be a major focus of the citizens instead of a topic that's brought up only in small corners of the internet inhabited by smarter than average people. It's a disgusting practice and it should be an easy sell that foodie should only apply to possessions and funds proven to be acquired via illegal activity of which the defendant was found guilty.

Bingo. And in light of the SCOTUS ruling, we may see it go away.

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

Civil asset forfeiture reform passed out of the North Dakota House on Wednesday, ...

House members approved House Bill 1286 in a 57-33 vote. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, introduced the bill to the House Judiciary Committee in January to eliminate the "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit." ...

The bill reforms several aspects of current law. It requires a conviction and annual reporting of seized and forfeited property. The bill also raises the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence and provides for interjurisdictional prosecution.

The bill includes exceptions as justification for forfeiture, including death, deportation or disappearance. A three-member subcommittee worked on the bill with input from prosecutors and law enforcement, who oppose a conviction requirement due to certain defendants who abscond and difficulty in prosecuting multijurisdictional crimes.
...
House Judiciary Committee members have expressed concerns over a quick death in the Senate for the bill due to law enforcement opposition over the conviction requirement. Rep. Terry Jones, R-New Town, who carried the bill Wednesday, has said he has further amendments that may enter through the Senate side.

Becker has said he will bring an initiated measure for reform in 2020 if the bill fails. His 2017 bill failed with zero votes in the Senate after passing the House.
...

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/north-dakota-house-passes-forfeiture-reform-amid-u-s-supreme/article_461b3fdc-3dac-5529-aacc-9216af4ed597.html?modalid=followed-notification-modal-3b87ebc6-c56d-11e7-9eae-9f0897924f3b

[bernorange 8374]

On 11/14/2018 at 8:36 AM, bernorange said:

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

Maybe the tide is turning?

Quote

Proposed changes to Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws were debated during a House committee Tuesday morning with bipartisan support and potential backing from the Michigan Attorney General.

A package of House and Senate bills had been introduced to the Legislature in an attempt to change the process of how law enforcement in the state can seize and keep property after an arrest.

Sen.Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township, sponsored a bill that prohibits property from forfeiture if a conviction is not made for the crime in question or a plea bargain is made and the property in question is involved. His bill applies to items worth less than $50,000.

“If you never bring charges, they’re going to get that property back, that’s it, it’s clear and simple. If you do bring charges and they’re found not guilty, and they went ahead and signed the form that said they want to contest it, don’t they have the right,” Lucido said. “Once they are found guilty, the civil asset forfeiture falls into place. But if they are found not guilty, they should be returned their property”
...
Lucido’s bill passed out the Senate with bipartisan support and was handed to the House.

House bills sponsored by Rep. Jason Wentworth, R-Clare, and Rep. David LaGrand, D-Grand Rapids, outline similar changes in Michigan’s statue as Lucido’s bill. ...

https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/michigan-house-committee-debates-civil-asset-forfeiture-changes-02-20-2019

[bernorange 8374]

I'm liking the news dive this morning...

Quote

Lawmakers announced a comprehensive civil asset forfeiture reform bill this week during a press conference at the Statehouse in Columbia following The Greenville News’ TAKEN investigation.

So far, 93 out of 123 House members have co-sponsored the legislation, including House Judiciary Committee Chair Peter McCoy, who will decide whether to schedule a subcommittee hearing.

The bill, called the Asset Forfeiture and Private Property Protection Act, H 3968, was introduced in the House on Tuesday and referred to the House Judiciary committee.

Its most fundamental reform would eliminate civil forfeiture altogether, creating instead a system of criminal forfeiture. If a person is found guilty of a felony that includes forfeiture as a punishment, their forfeiture case would be tried after the criminal conviction.
...

https://amp.greenvilleonline.com/amp/2883441002

[TwiceHorn 31683]

One other thing I have noticed about criminal justice reform and that seems to be that legislators are out of touch with constituents typically on crime issues. 

For example, the recently passed federal prison and sentencing reform bill languished for more than five years and was significantly watered down because certain cunty Senators (Tom Cotton, Sessions), opposed it on fear-mongering grounds.  Yet, polling indicated a solid majority of Americans (like 60+%) favor prison and sentencing reform and there has been little or no political backlash in reform-minded states like Texas.  Still, dickwads like Cotton could raise the specter of Willie Horton and get them all pissing right down their leg.  And this at the federal level, where a relatively small percentage of prisoners are incarcerated.

Its amusing (and sickening) that the federal government seem always to be in the vanguard of creating and passing new and draconian criminal laws (which isn't their gotdam business in the first place), and are usually the last to undo them.

Go states!

[zork 629]

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/timbs-v-indiana/

 

[Viper 12155]

very encouraging it was a unanimous decision, but this was just about incorporating the 8th amendment and couldn't have been much of a surprise right?

[TwiceHorn 31683]

20 hours ago, Viper said:

very encouraging it was a unanimous decision, but this was just about incorporating the 8th amendment and couldn't have been much of a surprise right?

Yes, something of a tempest in a teapot.  Here's a good analysis.  https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2019/02/why-i-am-certainly-hoping-but-not-really-expecting-timbs-to-end-up-being-a-big-deal.html

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

...
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed three bills into law Thursday that significantly limit police's ability to forfeit property without first obtaining a criminal conviction. Michigan will join 11 other states that have passed laws requiring convictions before forfeitures in some or all cases—part of growing bipartisan concerns that civil forfeiture deprives property owners of due process and creates perverse incentives for the police.
...

https://reason.com/2019/05/10/michigan-police-wont-be-able-to-seize-peoples-cars-for-suspected-drug-crimes-anymore/

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

... “I know that all of the property seized in St. Charles County is cash — we don’t seize anything but cash — and when we do that, we can prove without a doubt that the person involved is involved in criminal activity,” he said. ...

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-charles-county-police-pressured-suspects-private-tow-lot-hand-over-10000-cash#stream/0

Too much to quote in that report.  Worth a read if the subject matter interests you.

[Brisketexan 105570]

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-charles-county-police-pressured-suspects-private-tow-lot-hand-over-10000-cash#stream/0

Too much to quote in that report.  Worth a read if the subject matter interests you.

Blah blah, why do you hate our heroes, and support all the druggies out there?

CAF is bullshit, always has been, always will be.  Good luck improving the situation much.  

[bernorange 8374]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

.. Good luck improving the situation much.  

I'm just sitting on my hill watching the world spinning 'round.

[Brisketexan 105570]

5 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I'm just sitting on my hill watching the world spinning 'round.

Dude.  Ledge is the place to be.  Coulda sworn I sent you an invite.

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

... New Jersey Senate passed a bill Monday by a 36-3 vote requiring a criminal conviction in certain cases before police and prosecutors can take property using civil forfeiture.

That same day, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed a transparency bill into law that will require quarterly reporting by police departments detailing their forfeiture activities. ...

https://reason.com/2020/01/14/new-jersey-passes-civil-asset-forfeiture-reforms/

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

Terry Rolin’s life savings of $82,373 were seized by the federal government even though he has not been charged with any crime. In fact, his daughter was doing something completely legal—flying domestically with cash—when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized the money in August 2019 at the Pittsburgh International Airport. Today, Terry and his daughter Rebecca Brown are teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit to get his life savings returned and to end unconstitutional and unlawful practices by the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
...
While she was eventually allowed to leave for her gate with the money, before boarding she was approached again by a trooper and a DEA agent. After interrogating Rebecca and calling Terry, the agent seized the money without charging either Terry or Rebecca with a crime. Months later, Terry and Rebecca received notice that the DEA intends to permanently keep the money using civil forfeiture, a process that allows law enforcement to take the money without convicting anyone of a crime.

“Flying with any amount of cash is completely legal, but once again we see government agents treating American citizens like criminals,” said IJ Senior Attorney Dan Alban. “You don’t forfeit your constitutional rights when you try to board an airplane. It is time for TSA and federal law enforcement to stop seizing cash from travelers simply because the government considers certain amounts of cash ‘suspicious.’”
...

https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal-government-to-get-his-life-savings-back/

[pacman 7427]

https://ij.org/report/fighting-crime-or-raising-revenue/

civil forfeiture does not improve crime, civil forfeiture increases in economic downturns (prepare your anus in the coming months)

 

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/

civil forfeiture has taken in over $40 billion, which is an incomplete figure, too low, due to some policing districts not required to report

[bernorange 8374]

Quote

A study just published in Criminal Justice Review answers an important question for New Mexicans: Did reforming civil forfeiture make them less safe? That study of nine years of crime data found that, no, crime did not rise when law enforcement lost the ability to take property without charging people with a crime. The Institute for Justice (IJ) found that crime rates in New Mexico did not worsen compared to neighboring states and arrest rates did not decrease.

“These results show that ending civil forfeiture does not encourage criminals to ramp up their activities, nor does it hamper law enforcement’s ability to do their job,” said Jennifer McDonald, lead author of the study and IJ Assistant Director of Activism. “State and federal lawmakers now have empirical evidence—not just speculation and anecdotes—showing they can rein in civil forfeiture without compromising public safety.”

Civil forfeiture allows the government to take cash, cars, and even homes without charging the property owner with a crime. Since the process to forfeit money is civil, rather than criminal, the government’s burden of proof is reduced and property owners are not entitled to an attorney. Proceeds from civil forfeiture then typically go directly to law enforcement.

In 2015, New Mexico eliminated civil forfeiture, requiring prosecutors to use the criminal process to keep property linked to crime. The Legislature also barred law enforcement from keeping the proceeds of criminal or civil forfeiture. At the time, law enforcement groups cautioned that lawmakers were taking away a critical tool for police.

The chair of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association warned that, without civil forfeiture, “You’ll get less law enforcement.” “The end result of this is the cartels are going to ramp up their money laundering and cash exchanges in the state of New Mexico tenfold,” he predicted.

But IJ’s analysis of monthly data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report over a nine-year period shows no measurable harm. There were no significant post-reform differences in crime or arrests in New Mexico relative to Colorado or Texas.

An earlier version of the study first appeared in the third edition of Policing for Profit, IJ’s in-depth analysis of civil forfeiture. Criminal Justice Review is a peer-reviewed journal published since 1976 that “provides a forum for social scientists to report research findings for informed policy making with respect to crime and justice through innovative and advanced methodologies.”

https://ij.org/press-release/despite-dark-warnings-study-shows-new-mexicos-civil-forfeiture-reform-did-not-affect-crime-rates/

 

[Dnaguy 12328]

9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

https://ij.org/press-release/despite-dark-warnings-study-shows-new-mexicos-civil-forfeiture-reform-did-not-affect-crime-rates/

 

[Brisketexan 105570]

Fortunately, we just elected a freedom and liberty-loving POTUS who stands for individual rights, and not letting the government overreach by stealing your property without due process.

Oh, sorry about that.....I mean we elected just the fucking opposite (see his position from his last term):

Quote

As reported by the Washington Post: "The Justice Department announced a new federal policy Wednesday to help state and local police take cash and property from people suspected of a crime, even without a criminal charge, reversing an Obama administration rule prompted by past abuse by police."

Quote

“On asset forfeiture, we’ve got a state senator in Texas that was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money,” Eavenson said.

“Can you believe that?” Trump interjected.

“And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed,” the Texas sheriff continued.

“Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career,” Trump replied, presumably suggesting that the lawmaker would suffer for holding a position contrary to the president’s.