Disgusting Asset Forfiture

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Going in the exact opposite direction that asset forfeiture needs to go in... awful practice that is ripe for abuse and corruption, and I can't imagine how it was ever considered Constitutional.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jeff-sessions-wants-police-to-take-more-cash-from-american-citizens/ar-BBECcJm?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Quote:Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.

Additionally, many states allow law enforcement officers to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.

Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.

In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.

“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.

In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.

These types of forfeitures amounted to a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted. Still, criminal justice reform groups on the left and the right cheered the move as a signal that the Obama administration was serious about curtailing forfeiture abuses.

In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”

“This is a federalism issue,” Johnson said. “Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would “circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying 'we're going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.'”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment.

Alternative Story Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/sessions-signals-more-police-property-seizures-coming.html

[Millhouse]

I can understand seizing and keeping money & guns related to a conviction.

But I didnt realize that they could do the same without a conviction. That is just wrong, and goes against everything the founding fathers fought for.

[*michaelsean*]

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 11:28 AM)Millhouse Wrote: I can understand seizing and keeping money & guns related to a conviction.

But I didnt realize that they could do the same without a conviction. That is just wrong, and goes against everything the founding fathers fought for.

Yeah, in most states they can do it without a conviction, or even a charge.

Then it's 100% on you to show how you got the money legally to a judge in court and convince them to overturn it, and even then it's pretty much never coming back to you. Shit's going towards buying the police station an espresso machine, or covering their raises or something. It became a habit where when police pull someone over for minor violations, they would ask if you have any large sums of money on you.

[Millhouse]

(07-18-2017, 11:41 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, in most states they can do it without a conviction, or even a charge.

Then it's 100% on you to show how you got the money legally to a judge in court and convince them to overturn it, and even then it's pretty much never coming back to you. Shit's going towards buying the police station an espresso machine, or covering their raises or something. It became a habit where when police pull someone over for minor violations, they would ask if you have any large sums of money on you.

If that happened to me, that would be one of those times I wish I was a Jason Bourne to get revenge. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 11:50 AM)Millhouse Wrote: If that happened to me, that would be one of those times I wish I was a Jason Bourne to get revenge. 

Someone took your car?



That's the twist... John Wick is actually just a movie about Civil Asset Forfeiture. (Feel free to let your mind be blown.)

[xxlt]

(07-18-2017, 09:59 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Going in the exact opposite direction that asset forfeiture needs to go in... awful practice that is ripe for abuse and corruption, and I can't imagine how it was ever considered Constitutional.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jeff-sessions-wants-police-to-take-more-cash-from-american-citizens/ar-BBECcJm?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Alternative Story Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/sessions-signals-more-police-property-seizures-coming.html

He's new. Give him a chance. Hillary's AG would have been worse.

[xxlt]

It really is about time we got tough on crime, and the allegation of crime. Damn bleeding heart liberals been coddling criminals and alleged criminals for too long. Don't want your stuff taken? Pretty simple. Don't get accused of a crime. Or at least be smart enough not to own a house, a car, or a boat. If you don't have it they can't take it. That's just plain and simple freedom man. And don't accumulate a lot of cash, stocks, or other assets. I mean, to do otherwise is to just ask for it to be taken. It's like those stupid chicks who wear make up and heels. Cops and Jeff Sessions, like rapists, are only human.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 01:15 PM)xxlt Wrote: He's new. Give him a chance. Hillary's AG would have been worse.

(07-18-2017, 01:20 PM)xxlt Wrote: It really is about time we got tough on crime, and the allegation of crime. Damn bleeding heart liberals been coddling criminals and alleged criminals for too long. Don't want your stuff taken? Pretty simple. Don't get accused of a crime. Or at least be smart enough not to own a house, a car, or a boat. If you don't have it they can't take it. That's just plain and simple freedom man. And don't accumulate a lot of cash, stocks, or other assets. I mean, to do otherwise is to just ask for it to be taken. It's like those stupid chicks who wear make up and heels. Cops and Jeff Sessions, like rapists, are only human.

If you're going to make two completely pointless and useless garbage posts in the same thread within 5 minutes of each other with nobody's reply in the middle of them, you could at least have the common decency to combine them into one bigger useless garbage post.

Even hamsters have the decency to put all their poop into one corner of their cage so it's not just spread all over the place, creating a sea of shit that nobody wants to be around.

[xxlt]

(07-18-2017, 01:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you're going to make two completely pointless and useless garbage posts in the same thread within 5 minutes of each other with nobody's reply in the middle of them, you could at least have the common decency to combine them into one bigger useless garbage post.

Even hamsters have the decency to put all their poop into one corner of their cage so it's not just spread all over the place, creating a sea of shit that nobody wants to be around.

Great post.

[xxlt]

I'd like to reiterate what a great post post #9 was. And I am not saying that just because Carson Palmer wore number nine. No, that's not it at all. It combined so many elements of great writing with a scintillating analysis of rodent stools. I mean, you aren't going to find that kind of quality just anywhere.

[xxlt]

Kind of sickens me though, to be honest, to see people question Our President's choice for Attorney General. Whatever happened to patriotism, loyalty, supporting law enforcement? The swamp is getting drained. Sessions and Trump are winning. Why do the haters have to keep attacking them for standing up for America?

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 01:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:
If you're going to make two completely pointless and useless garbage posts in the same thread within 5 minutes of each other with nobody's reply in the middle of them, you could at least have the common decency to combine them into one bigger useless garbage post.

Even hamsters have the decency to put all their poop into one corner of their cage so it's not just spread all over the place, creating a sea of shit that nobody wants to be around.

Well, at least one person did see a point.

We have this AG, who supports these illegal and unethical seizures, because of who was voted president.

When you choose the POTUS, you also choose his choices for cabinet.

XXLT was expressing anger through a mode of writing called "militant satire," which is a mode of social critique.

 According to everyone's favorite source: "This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

So when XXLT claims Hillary's choice for AG "would have been worse," he is using irony, making a point by saying the opposite of what means. This fits because, incredibly, so many trumpsters still believe Hillary would have been worse.

I could add something to this as well, namely that all those things XXLT ironically professes to approve are de facto approved, even if those who approve won't put that approval into words.

Both you and XXLT agree that forfeitures are bad, Leonard. XXLT was just linking them to the current regime.

[Benton]

I'd say this practice is going to get plenty of support at the federal level. Trump and Sessions have both made it clear: if the government wants your stuff, they're getting your stuff.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-sheriff-asset-forfeiture-texas-234740

Quote:President Donald Trump invited the sheriff of a small Texas County to “destroy” the career of a state senator who sought to ban a controversial law enforcement practice by naming the lawmaker during a White House meeting.

From 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.ed7523887354

Quote:For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property….

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-border-wall-land-acquisition-eminent-domain-2017-3

Quote:On January 12, her daughter, Yvette Salinas, received a legal notice from the Department of Homeland Security with a 21-page "Declaration of Taking," offering Flores $2,900 for 1.2 acres of her property along the river.

"The United States of America is acquiring property along its border with Mexico in order to construct a fence and related improvements designed to secure the border," the letter said. "The purpose of this letter is to confer about the amount of just compensation in this case."

...

And the budget proposal submitted by President Donald Trump on Thursday suggests his administration is gearing up for a fight over properties like the Flores family's.

At least she's getting paid.

[NATI BENGALS]

Mandatory minimums. Asset seizure. And for profit prisons.

MAGA!.. ?

[Vas Deferens]

It will be interesting to how they handle bank deposits from legitimate marijuana businesses. I'll bet they won't do anything to the banks or the cc processors themselves, only take money directly from the small business owners.

Is that great enough for all you trumpatools?

[Millhouse]

(07-18-2017, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, at least one person did see a point.

We have this AG, who supports these illegal and unethical seizures, because of who was voted president.

When you choose the POTUS, you also choose his choices for cabinet.

Obama had 8 years to end these 'illegal and unethical seizures', but he obviously didn't.  

That said Sessions sucks, and I agree these are illegal and unethical unless the person is convicted of a crime and the cash & property seized is directly related to the crime.

Quote:"Additionally, many states allow law enforcement officers to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.
Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General." 

[Benton]

(07-18-2017, 07:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Obama had 8 years to end these 'illegal and unethical seizures', but he obviously didn't.  

That said Sessions sucks, and I agree these are illegal and unethical unless the person is convicted of a crime and the cash & property seized is directly related to the crime.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-04-11/obamas-doj-sets-back-justice-with-asset-forfeiture-program

Yup, not a partisan issue. Both parties since the 80s have enjoyed taking your stuff

[SunsetBengal]

I am of the mindset that asset forfeiture is theft, unless there is a conviction that merits the seizure of assets that were the gains of committing crime, or necessary for the restitution of a crime.

However, I understand the need and reasons to seize a person's assets during the legal process, and for accounts to be frozen, etc. It prevents criminals from building a high paid defense, using ill gotten gains, that may never be recovered, as well as preventing criminals from grabbing all their loot and fleeing the Country, etc.

But, should those citizens be found Not Guilty in a Court of Law, they should be entitled to have all of their assets returned, accounts unfrozen, etc. No questions asked.

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 07:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Obama had 8 years to end these 'illegal and unethical seizures', but he obviously didn't.  

That said Sessions sucks, and I agree these are illegal and unethical unless the person is convicted of a crime and the cash & property seized is directly related to the crime.

That is a good point, but also a kind of base from which we can measure the difference between T and O.

I am not sure Obama (or Trump) could just end the search and seizure laws, since they were state laws.   He has been justly accused of passivity regarding the failed drug war. Just last year he had a chance to remove Marijuana from its Schedule I status and refused--after vowing to let science and common sense determine drug policy. http://time.com/4448202/obama-drug-war/
Possibly he could have moved states to reform their laws with federal incentives and disincentives, although I am not sure--almost anything he did was steadfastly opposed in red states.

You are correct to note Obama did nothing, but clearly, though, neither he nor any of his AG's set about ramping up search and seizure practices, as Sessions is apparently doing.

So far the consensus on this thread seems to be these seizure laws are bad. So a question for anyone--would any state politicians support repealing them?