Civil Forfeiture And You

News from the great state of Oklahoma.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...latest-state-to-consider-curbing-police-power

In May, Loveless introduced a bill to reform the forfeiture system in Oklahoma. The latest version, filed on Jan. 20, would raise the burden on law enforcement to justify seizures. It would also create an oversight board to determine how forfeiture revenue is spent and would prevent the government from keeping most confiscated assets unless it has obtained a conviction. Cops and prosecutors have rushed to oppose the bill. “I think I bit the tail of Moby Dick,” Loveless says.
 
You sound like the kinda guy who beats is wife and then when it's over says "Look what you made me do!".

You are comparing two entirely separate actions or possible outcomes.

In one event, you have a family which supports the actions of their son by allowing him to live in their home until he gets caught and they have to force him out by law or you have someone who overreacts and strikes someone.

In the first case you have a whole group of people supporting the actions and are punished for it. In the latter, you have one person acting against another and blames that person for their actions.

Blame should rest on the son and the family for allowing their loser son to deal drugs and live in their home instead of telling him to get lost because they don't support his actions.

The same way a company can be sued for the actions of an employee, a family should be forced to take responsibility for their part of the family member's actions.

Are you the loser son and trying to raise awareness to your family's plight?
 
The same way a company can be sued for the actions of an employee, a family should be forced to take responsibility for their part of the family member's actions.

What a wonderful vision you have for society. Turn in your relatives to the police or kick them out into the cold, otherwise have all your shit confiscated. All because the government has no choice but to persecute a small number of the nation's drug users.

What drugs have you taken in the last week or month? Alcohol? Pain killers? Anti-depressants? How about your wife? Women love those prescription meds.
 
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-govt-cant-freeze-assets-unrelated-crimes

The government cannot freeze the financial assets of people accused of crimes if the money has no connection to criminal activity and is needed to pay legal defense costs, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

Five justices agreed that federal prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of a Miami woman accused of Medicare fraud when they put a hold on more than $40 million in assets, including money unrelated to the criminal charges.

Sila Luis argued that the forfeiture prevented her from hiring the defense lawyer of her choice with "untainted" money.

Writing for four members of the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Sixth Amendment guarantees a fundamental right of defendants to be represented by a lawyer they can afford to hire.

"The government would undermine the value of that right by taking from Luis the ability to use the funds she needs to pay for her chosen attorney," Breyer said.

The government long has used asset forfeiture laws to seize property involved in a crime. Such seizures often are used in cases involving organized crime and drug deals. The Supreme Court previously has upheld the government's ability to put a hold on property and money connected to illegal conduct.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...every-belonging-then-the-charges-are-dropped/

Annette Shattuck says that since the charges have been dismissed, the Drug Task Force has returned some of her property. But much of it is damaged. Electronic items are missing power cords and remotes. Her and her husband's phones were smashed. They returned her husband's guns and the safe he stored it in, but they didn't return the key. Two of the kids' insurance cards are missing. Shattuck says her marriage and birth certificates haven't been returned, and since the Task Force does not itemize seized documents in its paperwork, it has no record of taking them in the first place.

"We had plans to get the property back and sell a lot of it to pay for legal fees," she said. "But now we can't."
 
Civil Forfeiture would make for a great moniker for Bernies tax plan.
 
This looks like a positive development.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-attorney-general-bans-asset-seizure-local-police-195542428.html
State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.

I Am Not A Lawyer but "evidence of a crime" is pretty subjective, such as "the arresting officer smelled burned marijuanana". I'd like it a lot better if it said "a conviction or guilty plea."
 
I Am Not A Lawyer but "evidence of a crime" is pretty subjective, such as "the arresting officer smelled burned marijuanana". I'd like it a lot better if it said "a conviction or guilty plea."

Maybe evidence is to be considered something other than the word of law enforcement?
 
I don't work with our Narcs very often but my understanding of how it is applied at our department is you have to prove that the item/property you want to seize was bought with drug money. Simply using a house to sell doesn't fly for seizure.
well, then what the fuck am i selling drugs for? Huh, i need to buy mah shit bro, then like if the cops steal my shit i gots to sells more dope to buy more shit. Fuck.
 
Thanks Obama.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/obama-just-gave-cops-the-ok-to-simply-take-your-stuff/

When Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided late last year that the Justice Department would end the federal civil asset forfeiture program, criminal justice reform advocates proclaimed it a “significant deal.”

But late last month, less than four months later, the Obama administration reversed itself and reinstated the Asset Forfeiture Fund’s Orwellian “equitable sharing” program.

That’s a shame, particularly when the only supporters of the policy are the law enforcement agencies that directly benefit from it. Indeed, the federal program’s combined annual revenue has grown more than 1,000 percent in the last 15 years, filling the coffers of federal, state and local police departments.

Civil forfeiture allows police to seize private assets, often without any proof of wrongdoing, and often the agency doing the seizing gets to keep all or most of the proceeds. The federal civil forfeiture program was passed in 1984 as part of President Ronald Reagan’s Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It was intended for use against major drug traffickers and cartels.

Now police use the “adoptive forfeiture” aspect of the law to avoid the higher burdens of proof and other restrictions on asset forfeiture that states have been enacting. If the underlying actions that state officials are investigating also constitute a federal crime — like simple possession of marijuana — then the relevant assets may be forfeited to the feds.
 
You are comparing two entirely separate actions or possible outcomes.

In one event, you have a family which supports the actions of their son by allowing him to live in their home until he gets caught and they have to force him out by law or you have someone who overreacts and strikes someone.

In the first case you have a whole group of people supporting the actions and are punished for it. In the latter, you have one person acting against another and blames that person for their actions.

Blame should rest on the son and the family for allowing their loser son to deal drugs and live in their home instead of telling him to get lost because they don't support his actions.

The same way a company can be sued for the actions of an employee, a family should be forced to take responsibility for their part of the family member's actions.

Are you the loser son and trying to raise awareness to your family's plight?

If only there was a system of government where there were 3 independent powers that watched each other, in this system of government those who enforce the laws wouldnt be the same as those that judge over said laws.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grantsmith/california-poised-to-pass_b_11563924.html

For instance, California law generally requires a conviction before property can be permanently forfeited to the government, but federal law does not require the same. In order to circumvent state laws like California’s, state and local law enforcement engage a federal program at the U.S. Department of Justice known as the Equitable Sharing Program.

This federal program enables state and local law enforcement agencies in California and most other states to transfer seized property to the Department of Justice in circumvention of the laws of the state in which the seizure occurred. As much as 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property are returned by this federal program to state and local law enforcement for their own operations, which creates a financial incentive for law enforcement to seize property.

However, California’s SB 443 would rein in law enforcement’s ability to profit from civil forfeitures in this way. The legislation will require that California law enforcement obtain a conviction in most cases in order to profit from civil forfeiture.

This same rule will connect federal Equitable Sharing Program payments to a criminal conviction requirement, which will prevent California law enforcement from profiting from cases that involve real estate, cars or other personal property, or cash less than $40,000 unless there is a conviction. Together, these reforms are expected to affect the majority of civil asset forfeiture cases in California. Data from the Department of Justice and the state Attorney General’s Office in fact show that the majority of cases involve cash under the $40,000 threshold.


At the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected take up a civil asset forfeiture reform bill in September. This legislation, known as the DUE PROCESS Act, would help give property owners fighting a federal civil asset forfeiture action greater leverage to contest a government seizure and increases the federal government’s burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings. The DUE PROCESS Act, however, as currently formulated, does not address the incentives for law enforcement to seize property from innocent people that are perpetuated by the federal Equitable Sharing Program.

A separate bill introduced in 2015 by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in the Senate and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) in the House and known as the FAIR Act would eliminate the Equitable Sharing Program, but the FAIR Act is not expected to advance in Congress any time soon. However, lawmakers in Congress should follow the lead of the California legislature and eliminate the Equitable Sharing Program when they take up the DUE PROCESS Act this fall.
 
I don't work with our Narcs very often but my understanding of how it is applied at our department is you have to prove that the item/property you want to seize was bought with drug money. Simply using a house to sell doesn't fly for seizure.
There's a Cops episode where they act as a street corner dealer, $10 bags of pot, and when they bust the people they seize their cars.
Now how the fuck is that legal?
 
There's a Cops episode where they act as a street corner dealer, $10 bags of pot, and when they bust the people they seize their cars.
Now how the fuck is that legal?

They attribute guilt to the cars. Cars don't have due process protections. Fucking retarded, but that seems to be the rationale.
 
They attribute guilt to the cars. Cars don't have due process protections. Fucking retarded, but that seems to be the rationale.

I think the seizure part of the 4th is reffering to medical seizures. That would make sense, as cars can not have a seizure.
 
I think the seizure part of the 4th is reffering to medical seizures. That would make sense, as cars can not have a seizure.
Apparently you've never owned a Dodge
 
I don't work with our Narcs very often but my understanding of how it is applied at our department is you have to prove that the item/property you want to seize was bought with drug money. Simply using a house to sell doesn't fly for seizure.

Using a house to sell does fly for seizure. If someone borrows your car and sells a five dollar doobie then your car can be seized.

These laws are fucked.

And lets not forget that asshole police will seize cash from people. They will pull them over and ask if they have a large amount of cash and if they do they take it. They can legally take your money.

And you have to fight forever and lawyer up to get it back
 
Back
Top