• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Asset Forfeiture = Government Theft

Nearly a 16 minute video.

Do you have more for us than this: "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."
 
If forfeiture has to happen, the the government should be required to give back the stuff in 15-20 days or less unless a judge OKs it.

In probably 95% (or likely more) of cases, it doesn't need to happen.

I suspect in almost all cases, its a 4th amendment violation or if not, we need new judges.
 
Like gerrymandering, asset forfeiture is one of those "How is this a thing that can exist in a democracy?" practices.

And civil asset forfeiture hasn't exactly been a tightly wrapped secret either. The fact that we don't send representatives to Washington to ban it once and for all says what we inherently believe about people who have bad encounters with the police, which is that they must deserve it. And sure enough, whenever you encounter anybody who goes along with obviously and objectively unjust practices as asset forfeiture or plea bargaining, or the acceptance of rape in prison, the belief is that it couldn't happen to them, because they're not one of those people.

The problem with this mentality is that it obviously exists inside the justice system as outside it, and if you're inclined to think that people who've been arrested are guilty, then you're already 80% of the way to convicting them even if the evidence against them is thin as hell.

But there's a saying that applies here, which is that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
 
Nearly a 16 minute video.

Do you have more for us than this: "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."
Guy has 96 000 dollars, is pulled over for following to close

Cops take 96 000, do not charge the guy with any crime, later gives back approx 1/3 to the guy to shut him up

Government (nee Cops) steal money from citizens and get away with it
 
If forfeiture has to happen, the the government should be required to give back the stuff in 15-20 days or less unless a judge OKs it.

I think more than that... A judge has to OK it based on specific probable cause of a CRIME. And the state must prove it's case, or the defendant get their property back, with added legal expenses reimbursed.

In probably 95% (or likely more) of cases, it doesn't need to happen.

I suspect in almost all cases, its a 4th amendment violation or if not, we need new judges.

We need to change the law. The current standard is "preponderance" (more evidence than not). Under the current laws, the person who has their property stolen, doesn't have to be arrested or even accused of a crime. Under the current standard, the property is named as one of the litigants. It's State v. $989,763.25, for example. And under the current system, the government keeps the property unless the citizens sues to try to get it back.

It's a completely screwed up system that needs to be scrapped and re-thought from the ground on up.

Oh, and there shouldn't be monitory incentives on the part of the government agencies to steal people's property. They shouldn't be able to fun their personal political campaigns, buy daiquiri mixers, etc...from the proceeds of stealing money from the innocent.
 
Guy has 96 000 dollars, is pulled over for following to close

Cops take 96 000, do not charge the guy with any crime, later gives back approx 1/3 to the guy to shut him up

Government (nee Cops) steal money from citizens and get away with it
Well that is more helpful.

Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.

For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?

Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?
 
Well that is more helpful.

Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.

That's your informed opinion, is it?

For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?

Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?

If you watched the video, you'd have answers to those questions.
 
I think more than that... A judge has to OK it based on specific probable cause of a CRIME. And the state must prove it's case, or the defendant get their property back, with added legal expenses reimbursed.



We need to change the law. The current standard is "preponderance" (more evidence than not). Under the current laws, the person who has their property stolen, doesn't have to be arrested or even accused of a crime. Under the current standard, the property is named as one of the litigants. It's State v. $989,763.25, for example. And under the current system, the government keeps the property unless the citizens sues to try to get it back.

It's a completely screwed up system that needs to be scrapped and re-thought from the ground on up.

Oh, and there shouldn't be monitory incentives on the part of the government agencies to steal people's property. They shouldn't be able to fun their personal political campaigns, buy daiquiri mixers, etc...from the proceeds of stealing money from the innocent.
I would advocate against any forfeiture until conviction. If you take money/property on probable cause only you may make it impossible for the person to actually defend themselves.
 
Well that is more helpful.

Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.

For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?

Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?

Yes he was pulled over for following to close.The police asked if they could search the car he said yes. They found the money and stole it.

So much for cooperating with the police being the best option
 
I didn't watch the video. The details of this specific case doesn't matter much.

There are very many examples of people who did nothing wrong losing large amounts of money, valuable property, and even businesses.

To make matters even more egregious, the money or property often goes to the police departments themselves, to use however they see fit.

How this could ever be reconciled with the 4th amendment is a mystery. It probably has something to do with the practice being associated with the "war on drugs".
 
I would advocate against any forfeiture until conviction. If you take money/property on probable cause only you may make it impossible for the person to actually defend themselves.
I can understand an asset freeze during trial outside of money used to cover a lawyer and living expenses. But not outright seizing and taking money like is being g done
 
Well that is more helpful.

Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.

For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?

Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?
I don’t know the specifics of this case but assume he - stupidly - consented to the search. Cops find the money and in their experience only drug dealers carry that kind of money. So they confiscate it as crime proceeds.

Happens more often than you’d expect. Carrying large sums of money is now evidence of criminality.

And if they test the money they’ll find drug resifue on some of cause much of the money in circulation has drug residue on it.
 
How this could ever be reconciled with the 4th amendment is a mystery. It probably has something to do with the practice being associated with the "war on drugs".

Yup. And they use the legal fiction that that it's not the property of someone and the suit is a suit that goes against the property itself as the defendant. That's why there are cases on the books that are literally, "United States of America v. An Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls..." and "United States of America v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins" (I shit you not, real cases)
 
That's your informed opinion, is it?
No.

I have not been at all informed by the OP.

Posting a nearly 16 minute video (no I have not wasted time watching it) without any real synopsis does not lend itself to being informative to anyone.

If you watched the video, you'd have answers to those questions.
If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.

"Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

^^^That is the sum total of what was hopefully actually said about the OP's nearly 16 minutes of video.^^^

Apparently asking for any summary of a 16 minute video so one can know if it would be worth devoting any time to watching the video is just way to much to expect.
 
Scarily enough, there are people in Canada cheering for this.
 
No.

I have not been at all informed by the OP.

Posting a nearly 16 minute video (no I have not wasted time watching it) without any real synopsis does not lend itself to being informative to anyone.

Well, that sure hasn't stopped you from posting your uninformed opinion! Good job!

If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.

"Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

^^^That is the sum total of what was hopefully actually said about the OP's nearly 16 minutes of video.^^^

Apparently asking for any summary of a 16 minute video so one can know if it would be worth devoting any time to watching the video is just way to much to expect.

Watch it or don't. But it's your choice to put your ignorance on display for everyone to see.
 
No.

I have not been at all informed by the OP.

Posting a nearly 16 minute video (no I have not wasted time watching it) without any real synopsis does not lend itself to being informative to anyone.


If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.

"Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

^^^That is the sum total of what was hopefully actually said about the OP's nearly 16 minutes of video.^^^

Apparently asking for any summary of a 16 minute video so one can know if it would be worth devoting any time to watching the video is just way to much to expect.
Just out of curiosity, what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?
 
How do drug traffickers move their money?
 


Another good example...
 
I don’t know the specifics of this case but assume he - stupidly - consented to the search. Cops find the money and in their experience only drug dealers carry that kind of money. So they confiscate it as crime proceeds.

Happens more often than you’d expect. Carrying large sums of money is now evidence of criminality.

And if they test the money they’ll find drug resifue on some of cause much of the money in circulation has drug residue on it.
But from what I read elsewhere and understand it was seized in relation to a drug offense and in court the dude agreed to the return of only a partial amount that was seized.
 
But from what I read elsewhere and understand it was seized in relation to a drug offense and in court the dude agreed to the return of only a partial amount that was seized.

That was the claim by the government, although the police officers who seized the cash said they thought he did nothing wrong...nor was he charged in connection with a crime.

Also, you have the settlement backwards. The government agreed to give him part of his money back.
 
If forfeiture has to happen, the the government should be required to give back the stuff in 15-20 days or less unless a judge OKs it.

In probably 95% (or likely more) of cases, it doesn't need to happen.

I suspect in almost all cases, its a 4th amendment violation or if not, we need new judges.
I think if forfeiture has to happen the suspect should actually have to be charged with a crime and that crime proven in a criminal court. With civil forfeiture the suspect is not charged. Instead it is the property in question that is charged and tried in a civil court with a much lower standard of guilt and the ower is the one who has to prove innocence to get it back.

While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity.
 
Just out of curiosity, what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?
All of my posts have been quite explicit.

I take issue with the OP wanting folks to watch and obviously BIASED 16 minute video to discuss their obvious agreeing opinion offered that, "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."

Is it too much (apparently) to ask for the Op to actually proffer a summary of their 16 minute video.

You know, something to work with more than just their opinion of an incident without making any mention of what was entailed in the incident?
 
Back
Top Bottom