Look at this defense of civil asset forfeiture

[PilotsError 2339]

Penned by a former police chief, unsurprisingly.  There are some mind blowing statements in here.  I still don't understand why property goes to the state, even in the case of a conviction.  If there's a conviction, the family gets the property.  It just encourages police corruption.  Stevenson argues that cops should be able to take money they feel deeply in their hearts is derived from drug dealing even if it can't find any evidence linking the person carrying it to a crime.

 

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Timbs v. Indiana last  October, the court said, in essence, “Let’s make the punishment fit the crime.” To our criminal justice system, the ruling said, “Be sure that any seizure of property is proportional to whatever crime or illicit activity occurred.”

What it did NOT say is: Protect from seizure the assets that the police can establish are derived from drug dealing. Yet, this is exactly what will happen if Senate Bill 2 or House Bills 4001 and 4002 are enacted.

The rhetoric repeatedly spread by proponents of this legislation is that the police can stop someone for having a headlight out and if they are carrying cash, the police can simply seize their money. This is absolutely incorrect and highly offensive. Property can ONLY be seized when there is probable cause to believe that the money is from drug proceeds or assets. This is the same level of proof the police must have before they arrest someone.

Related: For cash-strapped police in Michigan, asset forfeiture bills could be a blow

It is important to reiterate that anyone who has had suspected drug proceeds or assets seized has the following rights:

Notice – A written notice is served explaining a person’s rights.

Claim – A person can file a claim to contest the seizure.

Defense – A person can assert any legal defense.

Discovery – A person can request civil discovery as permitted by court rules.

Day in Court – A trial heard by an independent court during which the government must prove its case.

Michigan has already enacted important forfeiture reforms with the support of law enforcement. Three examples include:  1) raising the standard of legal proof in asset forfeiture cases to “clear and convincing,” which is the highest civil standard; 2) creating a statewide system for reporting all seizures by police, and 3) eliminating the need for defendants to post a bond if they challenge a forfeiture.

Those who would eliminate forfeiture – or make it hard to utilize – should know the history on why it came to be. About 40 years ago, we faced a rising scourge of unfettered drug dealing. Heroin and crack cocaine were decimating neighborhoods. Yet, when officers arrested drug dealers, they had no way to seize their assets. Criminal gangs could keep enormous profits and other assets at sites apart from where their drugs were sold.  Shortly after the arrest occurred, many dealers quickly went back into business while awaiting trial using the same vehicles, cash and drug dens.

Asset forfeiture was a breakthrough that enhanced public safety. Even when we could not get convictions of high-level dealers, we could disrupt their profits by confiscating their assets. Complicit landlords were forced to either evict drug-dealing tenants or risk losing their real estate.

Since enacting reforms during the 2015-2016 legislative session, it has not been proven that a problem currently exists. Stringent and transparent procedures are currently in place to protect citizens while keeping drug dealers from profiting. The testimony being provided about “alleged” abuses of the forfeiture laws pre-date these expansive and meaningful reforms.

Law enforcement will be severely handicapped if state lawmakers succumb to the misconception that no forfeiture should take place without a conviction on proceeds under $50,000. It is a dramatic misunderstanding that a conviction can be obtained in all drug cases. Drugs and proceeds are not always discovered together which makes obtaining criminal convictions in certain instances impossible. Linking civil asset forfeiture to a criminal conviction allows drug dealers to continue profiting from dealing death in our communities. Illicit drug activity will again flourish at the expense of public safety.

The $50,000 threshold found in this legislation simply means that drug dealers will transport money in sums of less than $50,000. The scenarios I fear involve finding suspects in a house or a car in possession of $49,000 in cash with no valid explanation. Drugs may not be present, but everything else confirms and indicates drug trafficking, i.e., ledger books, scales, pre-recorded narcotics buy funds and packaging materials. In this particular scenario, as well as a multitude of others, the police and prosecutors could not establish a case to seize anything if Michigan adopts the $50,000 threshold.

If these statutory amendments are enacted, they will mandate linking the final disposition of a criminal case with a civil forfeiture. There are numerous ethical reasons that this has not been done in the past. Lower-level offenders often have an incentive to work with law enforcement to target major dealers and, as a result, receive a lesser offense or no conviction at all. This is clearly in the interest of justice and furthers public safety. Requiring a conviction to proceed with a civil forfeiture works to the detriment of both defendants and law enforcement under these oft-repeated circumstances.  

For the sake of our public safety, let’s keep Michigan’s current sensible forfeiture law intact.

https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-softening-michigan-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-helps-drug-dealers

[Jerry Callo 8956]

Wow.

[Brisketexan 106671]

He makes a compelling argument.  And surely, he would agree that innocent people should suffer no harm in the event of a mistaken forfeiture proceeding.  So I have a simple modification that I am certain he will agree with:

Mandatory award of attorney's fees in a CAF case.  That is, if law enforcement seizes my car or cash, and I have to spend $20k on a lawyer to get it back, and I indeed do get it back, then the seizing entity must pay my attorney's fees, so as to make me whole.  Those funds are to be paid out of 1) any CAF proceeds held by the entity, and 2) if those funds are insufficient, then out of the pension fund of the law enforcement agency.

There, everyone wins.  The cops surely won't wrongfully seize any assets, so they have nothing to worry about with respect to my friendly amendment.

[Dennis Taylor 19294]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He makes a compelling argument.  And surely, he would agree that innocent people should suffer no harm in the event of a mistaken forfeiture proceeding.  So I have a simple modification that I am certain he will agree with:

Mandatory award of attorney's fees in a CAF case.  That is, if law enforcement seizes my car or cash, and I have to spend $20k on a lawyer to get it back, and I indeed do get it back, then the seizing entity must pay my attorney's fees, so as to make me whole.  Those funds are to be paid out of 1) any CAF proceeds held by the entity, and 2) if those funds are insufficient, then out of the pension fund of the law enforcement agency.

There, everyone wins.  The cops surely won't wrongfully seize any assets, so they have nothing to worry about with respect to my friendly amendment.

[Brisketexan 106671]

Just now, Dennis Taylor said:

What?  You don't think he'll go for it?  But....but....I don't understand?  I mean, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."  Right? Isn't that written on the side of their patrol vehicles or something?

[NeverMarryAStripper 22247]

Texas should make civil asset forfeiture a state crime and authorize the Texas Rangers to arrest any Federal official that breaks the law

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

 

2 hours ago, PilotsError said:

Day in Court – A trial heard by an independent court during which the government must prove its case.

(not mentioned.  "prove its case" does not mean "prove you committed a crime," does not mean "beyond a reasonable doubt," does not mean "you'll have any luck without expensive attorneys").

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

20 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Texas should make civil asset forfeiture a state crime and authorize the Texas Rangers to arrest any Federal official that breaks the law

And then Travis County should pass a law saying anyone arresting a federal officer is committing high treason.

 

Then Austin should pass a law saying that anyone convicting someone of high treason for stopping civil forfeiture is guilty of medium treason.

 

Them my HOA should pass a law saying anyone guilty of medium treason for convicting an asset forfeiture stopper of stopping feds is guilty of just a dash of treason.

that's not how federalism works

[Brisketexan 106671]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

(not mentioned.  "prove its case" does not mean "prove you committed a crime," does not mean "beyond a reasonable doubt," does not mean "you'll have any luck without expensive attorneys").

Well, I think this fits PERFECTLY into conservative thought.  This is a civil lawsuit, with one side as the plaintiff.  Conservatives HATE lawsuit abuse, right? And they LOVE "loser pays" proposals, so that abusive plaintiffs and plaintiff's lawyers get it good and hard for all of those frivolous lawsuits they're always filing.  Gosh, seems like they ought to LOVE my proposal.  Abusive plaintiff who loses his unmeritorious case has to pay for the attorney's fees the poor innocent defendant had to incur.  Shit, that last sentence may as well be a line in every GOP platform in America -- so what's the problem, officer?  Why you no like my proposal?

[Chewbacca 7827]

A police chief likes CAF?  Color me shocked.

 

What an asshole.  Civil Asset Forfeiture is as anti-American as anything I can think of.

[TwiceHorn 31998]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

He makes a compelling argument.  And surely, he would agree that innocent people should suffer no harm in the event of a mistaken forfeiture proceeding.  So I have a simple modification that I am certain he will agree with:

Mandatory award of attorney's fees in a CAF case.  That is, if law enforcement seizes my car or cash, and I have to spend $20k on a lawyer to get it back, and I indeed do get it back, then the seizing entity must pay my attorney's fees, so as to make me whole.  Those funds are to be paid out of 1) any CAF proceeds held by the entity, and 2) if those funds are insufficient, then out of the pension fund of the law enforcement agency.

There, everyone wins.  The cops surely won't wrongfully seize any assets, so they have nothing to worry about with respect to my friendly amendment.

It is nice that Michigan apparently provides a meaningful civil case before forfeiture, but yeah, that all assumes that a defendant can afford $100k for a civil lawyer to go up against the state.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is nice that Michigan apparently provides a meaningful civil case before forfeiture, but yeah, that all assumes that a defendant can afford $100k for a civil lawyer to go up against the state.

Which is also an interesting part of the proposed law:  putting a floor at $50k.  If it isn't enough to warrant hiring a lawyer, they can't seize.  That's a pretty good idea.

[Kyle 207]

Regarded.

[DanRydell 799]

20 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Texas should make civil asset forfeiture a state crime and authorize the Texas Rangers to arrest any Federal official that breaks the law

Federal officers are generally immune from state prosecution for official conduct.

[Prepuce of Doom 21260]

That asshole should hang. 

[Nivek 17352]

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

He makes a compelling argument.  And surely, he would agree that innocent people should suffer no harm in the event of a mistaken forfeiture proceeding.  So I have a simple modification that I am certain he will agree with:

Mandatory award of attorney's fees in a CAF case.  That is, if law enforcement seizes my car or cash, and I have to spend $20k on a lawyer to get it back, and I indeed do get it back, then the seizing entity must pay my attorney's fees, so as to make me whole.  Those funds are to be paid out of 1) any CAF proceeds held by the entity, and 2) if those funds are insufficient, then out of the pension fund of the law enforcement agency.

There, everyone wins.  The cops surely won't wrongfully seize any assets, so they have nothing to worry about with respect to my friendly amendment.

Are there any people not associated with law enforcement that agrees with this program?  I cannot understand how anyone could think this program would do more good than harm in its execution.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

I think it's such a great idea, that we should extend it to white-collar crimes and government corruption.  If we think you're doing something wrong, we can seize YOUR assets. Up to you to prove innocence.  

[Brisketexan 106671]

11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Are there any people not associated with law enforcement that agrees with this program?  I cannot understand how anyone could think this program would do more good than harm in its execution.  

I don't mind the concept of asset forfeiture as part of a CRIMINAL proceeding.  If you convict me, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, AND you prove that the $$$ I made and stashed under my house are the proceeds of my crime by the same standard, then sure.  I'm okay with a seizure.

The irreconcilable conflict here is that the basis for these seizures is criminal activity, and people are being deprived of property based on alleged criminal activity....but the burden of proof is NOT the criminal standard.  That doesn't fly.

[Armybrat 41335]

Law Enforcement lobby has more juice with the legislature than an accused/alleged criminal’s extended family.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Armybrat

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't mind the concept of asset forfeiture as part of a CRIMINAL proceeding.  If you convict me, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, AND you prove that the $$$ I made and stashed under my house are the proceeds of my crime by the same standard, then sure.  I'm okay with a seizure.

The irreconcilable conflict here is that the basis for these seizures is criminal activity, and people are being deprived of property based on alleged criminal activity....but the burden of proof is NOT the criminal standard.  That doesn't fly.

That and it deprives the accused of the ability to afford council before they have even been determined to be guilty. So if they accuse you and you have to go to trial there's a good chance you get even less of a shot at a fair shake.

[TwiceHorn 31998]

The US has moved closer and closer to pre-crime.  Without the benefit of this:

[Nivek 17352]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't mind the concept of asset forfeiture as part of a CRIMINAL proceeding.  If you convict me, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, AND you prove that the $$$ I made and stashed under my house are the proceeds of my crime by the same standard, then sure.  I'm okay with a seizure.

The irreconcilable conflict here is that the basis for these seizures is criminal activity, and people are being deprived of property based on alleged criminal activity....but the burden of proof is NOT the criminal standard.  That doesn't fly.

I think CAF in a criminal proceeding is what we imagine the program to be, but the reality is Teneha, TX (NYT's article about targeting parents and threatening the custody of their kids unless they surrender their cash).  Plus I still cannot see how one can legally make a claim against and inanimate object (but that is a different topic).  

[Brisketexan 106671]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

I think CAF in a criminal proceeding is what we imagine the program to be, but the reality is Teneha, TX (NYT's article about targeting parents and threatening the custody of their kids unless they surrender their cash).  Plus I still cannot see how one can legally make a claim against and inanimate object (but that is a different topic).  

Well, in rem claims are a weird creature, but they've been around a LONG time.

I look at asset forfeiture as effectively part of the punishment phase of a criminal proceeding.  IF I am found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we know that I can be imprisoned or fined or both.  I would add this as another element -- IF I am found guilty, and IF it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that asset or funds X were procured as part of or in furtherance of my criminal enterprise (I'm a smuggler, and bought a super-fast boat to do my jobs, or I buried the money I was paid as a hit man in my back yard), THEN an additional sentence can be my forfeiture of those assets.  But the burden is as high as it is for my conviction in the first place.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

It still cracks me up that the state sues cars (they are listed as the defendant in these cases) and dogs are almost always star witnesses for the plaintiffs. Yes, I know these dogs are highly trained (to indicate that all cash smells like drugs) but there is something medieval about it that makes me laugh. Bitterly.

[Brisketexan 106671]

6 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It still cracks me up that the state sues cars (they are listed as the defendant in these cases) and dogs are almost always star witnesses for the plaintiffs. Yes, I know these dogs are highly trained (to indicate that all cash smells like drugs) but there is something medieval about it that makes me laugh. Bitterly.

Customs seizure cases are the best for that.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FIFTY-THREE (53) ECLECTUS PARROTS, Defendants

Or this one:

U.S. v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets

[TwiceHorn 31998]

The best footnote in the history of opinions, probably:

1 Thus, this most delightful of case names: Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children v. Playboy Enterprises; seriously rivaled, in our judgment, only by United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Article Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo Fly Powders for Drunkenness, 40 F. Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941) (condemnation proceeding under Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), and United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971) (leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendants)

Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults Of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, et al.,  815 F.2d 323, 324 (fn. 1) (5th Cir. 1987)

Back from when the Fifth Circuit was one of the better courts of appeal in this nation.  And had a sense of humor.  Now you have the Ediths and Priscilla.

Edited April 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31998]

And I think what you mean is forfeiture of ill-gotten gains as a punishment, after conviction, and in satisfaction of restitution, is fine.  This pre-conviction crap is unamerican.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

I'm sure some Reposa-type has tried this, but I'd love to see somebody put the K-9 on the stand for cross. "Now, Slugger -- do you mind if I call you that, or should I refer to you as K-9 Slugger?"

"Let the record state that Slugger indicated no preference. Now, Slugger, it says in the state's suit that when you examined the defendant's money, you 'gave a positive alert for the odor of narcotics.' Do I have that right?"

"Let the record state that Slugger indicated no preference. In fact, it is my belief that Slugger is currently engaged in licking his own testicles right now. Now Slugger, could you tell the jury what exact type of narcotics you gave positive alert for?"

And so on.

[Deej 77677]

Law enforcement would make sure Slugger never took the stand by "forgetting" they left him in a hot car.

[Brisketexan 106671]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And I think what you mean is forfeiture of ill-gotten gains as a punishment, after conviction, and in satisfaction of restitution, is fine.  This pre-conviction crap is unamerican.

Well, I will go just SLIGHTLY farther than that (although maybe I'm not, and I'm getting caught up in semantics).  If a hit man earned $50k for his work, and buried it in the back yard, after he is convicted of that crime AND it is shown that the $50k came from the crime, he should surrender those ill-gotten gains.  I don't know if that would meet the strict definition of "restitution" (as it would if he had made the $50k by bilking investors out of their money, and had to pay it back to them).  Maybe the distinction is to whom the money would be paid.  If he ripped off investors, it's restitution that should be paid to the direct victims.  If he made the money in a scheme where the victim is dead, or there are just general/diffuse victims (say, he's a drug dealer -- notwithstanding my disdain for the war on drugs, just using it as an example), then it wouldn't be "restitution" to a particular victim -- I'm okay with it going to the state.

Really, it should be more about not having convicted criminals keep the fruits of their crimes -- it is not at ALL about providing an income stream to law enforcement, which can't help but create perverse incentives.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Braff Zacklin 13675]

On 4/10/2019 at 9:46 AM, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Texas should make civil asset forfeiture a state crime and authorize the Texas Rangers to arrest any Federal official that breaks the law

No need to arrest or prosecute. Just take from them everything they have without proof or due process and see how they like it.

In all seriousness, CAF is an unconstitutional blight on our legal system and yet another example that most people do not give a shit about injustice as long as it does not directly affect them.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Braff Zacklin

[TwiceHorn 31998]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, I will go just SLIGHTLY farther than that (although maybe I'm not, and I'm getting caught up in semantics).  If a hit man earned $50k for his work, and buried it in the back yard, after he is convicted of that crime AND it is shown that the $50k came from the crime, he should surrender those ill-gotten gains.  I don't know if that would meet the strict definition of "restitution" (as it would if he had made the $50k by bilking investors out of their money, and had to pay it back to them).  Maybe the distinction is to whom the money would be paid.  If he ripped off investors, it's restitution that should be paid to the direct victims.  If he made the money in a scheme where the victim is dead, or there are just general/diffuse victims (say, he's a drug dealer -- notwithstanding my disdain for the war on drugs, just using it as an example), then it wouldn't be "restitution" to a particular victim -- I'm okay with it going to the state.

Really, it should be more about not having convicted criminals keep the fruits of their crimes -- it is not at ALL about providing an income stream to law enforcement, which can't help but create perverse incentives.

I'm with you.  But, and this is a big but, that kind of asset forfeiture happens, see Manafort, but where it is applied is very unclear.  Most criminal judgments include restitution judgements that frequently go unsatisfied, even when there is forfeiture also.  I think it should be applied first to restitution, not to some gubmint slush fund.

Rightly or wrongly, the CJ system, particularly the federal one, is big on restitution where there is any identifiable class of victims.  If they're going to do that, they need to satisfy it with forfeited assets first, rather than using it for some miscellaneous government purpose while the defendant is rendered permanently destitute by a monstrous restitution judgment.

Edited April 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 106671]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm with you.  But, and this is a big but, that kind of asset forfeiture happens, see Manafort, but where it is applied is very unclear.  Most criminal judgments include restitution judgements that frequently go unsatisfied, even when there is forfeiture also.  I think it should be applied first to restitution, not to some gubmint slush fund.

Rightly or wrongly, the CJ system, particularly the federal one, is big on restitution where there is any identifiable class of victims.  If they're going to do that, they need to satisfy it with forfeited assets first, rather than using it for some miscellaneous government purpose while the defendant is rendered permanently destitute by a monstrous restitution judgment.

No argument from me.  Restitution is the highest and best use for seized funds/assets in most cases.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22247]

I’m no lawyer,and certainly not the smartest person in the room, but I just don’t understand the constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture. It seems to me to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment. In addition, it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that CAF could be considered a violation of the eighth amendment in cases where the amount seized was grossly disproportionate to the offense. So how can CAF be constitutional when there hasn’t even been an offense proven, or even alleged. CAF seems to be the only political position that both Republican and Democrat lawmakers seem to agree on. Which only proves that they’re all scum.

[TwiceHorn 31998]

35 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I’m no lawyer,and certainly not the smartest person in the room, but I just don’t understand the constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture. It seems to me to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment. In addition, it’s my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that CAF could be considered a violation of the eighth amendment in cases where the amount seized was grossly disproportionate to the offense. So how can CAF be constitutional when there hasn’t even been an offense proven, or even alleged. CAF seems to be the only political position that both Republican and Democrat lawmakers seem to agree on. Which only proves that they’re all scum.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has created an artificial distinction between things that are punitive (and subject to the criminal due process safeguards) and protective or prophylactic (and not subject thereto, namely sex offender registries, but many more things).  They did recently hold that 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment, which includes proportionality of fines) analysis must be applied to forfeitures.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana 

However, in that case, he had pled guilty so it wasn't an opportunity to review pre- or no-conviction CAF.

Fourth Amendment only requires probable cause for a seizure, so that's probably not violated.  Eighth Amendment applies, at least when there's a conviction of a crime to judge the proportionality/excessiveness.

What we are really probably looking at is a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of property without due process of law.  It's a state action, it's punitive in nature, and therefore at least quasi-criminal, and ought to receive maximum due process.

Edited April 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[NeverMarryAStripper 22247]

So by implementing a prophylactic safeguard they raw dog us in the ass

[TwiceHorn 31998]

3 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

So by implementing a prophylactic safeguard they raw dog us in the ass

Exactly!

To be clear, the Supremes have never opined on the legality of CAF directly.  But I am sure the authorities are prepared to defend it as a prophylactic means of curtailing crime short of convictions and punishment.

Edited April 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

To be clear, the Supremes have never opined on the legality of CAF directly. 

what does this mean?  they just had that opinion a few months ago out of Indiana or something where they seized a car for some tiny shit.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

(I'm a smuggler, and bought a super-fast boat to do my jobs,

this is what CAF was limited to at common law.  actual instruments to commit the crime.  pirate ships and stuff.  

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22247]

They can have my pirate ship when they pry it from my cold dead hands

 

[TwiceHorn 31998]

21 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

what does this mean?  they just had that opinion a few months ago out of Indiana or something where they seized a car for some tiny shit.

It means the legality of civil asset forfeiture, standing alone, has never been ruled upon.  Specific peripheral questions have, as in the Timbs case, referenced above. 

[Cajun 11771]

On 4/10/2019 at 10:40 AM, Brisketexan said:

He makes a compelling argument.  And surely, he would agree that innocent people should suffer no harm in the event of a mistaken forfeiture proceeding.  So I have a simple modification that I am certain he will agree with:

Mandatory award of attorney's fees in a CAF case.  That is, if law enforcement seizes my car or cash, and I have to spend $20k on a lawyer to get it back, and I indeed do get it back, then the seizing entity must pay my attorney's fees, so as to make me whole.  Those funds are to be paid out of 1) any CAF proceeds held by the entity, and 2) if those funds are insufficient, then out of the pension fund of the law enforcement agency.

There, everyone wins.  The cops surely won't wrongfully seize any assets, so they have nothing to worry about with respect to my friendly amendment.

Cop reading that...

[Hornius Emeritus 12783]

Chicago is getting sued by the ACLU over its civil asset forfeiture madness:

https://reason.com/2019/04/29/chicago-impounds-innocent-peoples-cars-and-soaks-them-in-fines-now-its-getting-sued/

[Chewbacca 7827]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Chicago is getting sued by the ACLU over its civil asset forfeiture madness:

https://reason.com/2019/04/29/chicago-impounds-innocent-peoples-cars-and-soaks-them-in-fines-now-its-getting-sued/

That is some crazy shit.  Take your car to a body shop after a wreck and the city not only seizes it, but then sells it?  Holy shit.

[TwiceHorn 31998]

Man, anytime a municipal court is involved, it's a scary business.  Pretty much kangaroo courts most of the time.  Thankfully, they don't usually adjudicate much very serious.