For those that don't read the AP News page, I am double-posting this. This is a very important change in U.S. legal procedures.
http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/con...haring-process
For those that don't read the AP News page, I am double-posting this. This is a very important change in U.S. legal procedures.
http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/con...haring-process
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
It never should have gotten where it did or gone as far as police took it. I don't really have a great opinion of Holder generally as I think he has really politicized and office that should NOT be. But I wholeheartedly agree with this change in policy. Thanks for remembering the Constitution of the United States.
"Women and cats will do as they please, and Men and dogs should just relax and get used to the idea" --- Robert A. Heinlein
I don't think there is going to be any change regarding police seizures. The article states that this change does not negate State seizures by any means. The police seem like there is no 4th Amendment and they will continue to violate the rights of citizens in this country whether right or wrong. That's the way I see it and I've had my 4th Amendment right violated by several cops. All that high end military gear and armored cars is for the citizen, to keep the public in check while they gang rape the public and split anything they confiscate. I don't believe it. I'll toast a drink the day Eric Holder steps out of office.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 01-17-2015 at 01:13 AM.
Quote from the article:
"Civil asset forfeiture is one of the most powerful - and unusual - law enforcement tools. Police don't need to prove a crime to use it, because it is a civil action against an object, such as currency or a car, rather than a person.
As a consequence, protections common in criminal law do not apply. In fact, owners who want to recover their cash or property generally must show it is theirs and demonstrate it is not tied to a crime."
So they view taking your property as not an action against you but as an action against an object!!!
It is okay to do it this way because there is no crime causing higher protection for a citizen under the law but in order to get your property back you must prove there was no crime? Doesn't that very logic imply that the property is only seized because it is assumed to be associated with a crime? If so shouldn't the protections common in criminal law automatically apply? How can they say you must forfeit your property because we believe it is associated with criminal activity and then say you protection afforded you for criminal law does not apply because we have no evidence this property is associated with a crime if you can prove it isn't associated with a crime maybe you can get it back. This very procedure says at both points, seizure and recovery, it is predicated on the assumption it is associated with a crime unless proven otherwise and would fall under the protections of criminal law.
ANOTHER QUOTE:
"Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said, 'There is some grave concern about possible loss of significant funding while local police and state police are being asked to do more and more each year'."
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this statement. The police have become dependent on asset forfeiture proceeds and won't meet budget unless they meet some sort of quota? That means like tickets on the road each month as the end of the quota period approaches the bar for harassing people into agreeing to searches is lowered and the corruption for seizing assets believed to be unassociated with crime is increased. It is obvious this has created a criminal subculture of thieves and thugs in the police force trying to rob all citizens of their legal property if they ever take it on the highway. There should be jail time for officers making seizures that are returned. They are in fact thieves and thugs and should not have protection under the law. Interest that is at a rate of the highest allowed to be charged by credit cards under the law should be paid to people recouping their property as well as lawyers fees and court costs. All proceeds from seizures should be put in a fund that pays for these prosecutions, interest payments, court costs, lawyers fees and any other incidental losses suffered by the innocent person that the property was seized from. An example of the latter is restoring the restaurant owner who lost his business due to lack of operating capital because it was seized should be bought a new restaurant in an equally desirable location.
The funds from seizures should never go to the seizing authority or any part of the government that gives it that authority. A policy that clearly violates the 4th Amendment that protects use from unreasonable search and seizure should use the funds to make the innocent parties damaged by the infringement of their rights not only whole but compensated in every aspect for the inconvenience.
“It seems like a continual barrage against police,” said John W. Thompson, interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. “I’m not saying there’s no wrongdoing, but there is wrongdoing in everything.” Let's think about what this guy is saying. Basically he's pissed off that anyone would question why cops can't just fleece anyone they want to for their property, cash and assets if they get a hard-on for them! Never mind right, wrong, all that... Never mind having cops out on highways committing what they call "theft" where I come from. He is questioning, "What do you mean cops shouldn't just be able to shake people down on our nations highways for their cash??!"That is the opposite of what cops are supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be working against the criminals, not being one of the types of criminals that people have to watch out for! Anyone that does lots of casino-hopping carries cash in varying quantities on them. The thought of adding the cops to the list of people that wish to rob you so you basically lump them right in there with any other criminal is appalling to me but that's how I look at it after all I have heard about this matter.
Last edited by Tarzan; 01-17-2015 at 10:31 AM.
This is fantastic! The Feds refusing to share money with state and local police should curb a lot of the BS seizures.
Still waiting for the day that the Supreme Court upholds the constitutional right to be free from having assets seized without a criminal conviction, but this is a big step in the right direction. If this is an important issue to you, support the IJ, who fights these cases all the time.
The Cash Cow.
Kudos to DJ for a step in the right direction. However, besides bringing some attention to this issue, its not likely to have much of an impact very some. Only a few states limit asset forfeiture funds to the state's general fund (the most obvious way to limit incentives for abuse).
Unless a crime has been committed and you have been proven guilty, anyone who confiscates your money without cause is nothing but a thief and should be treated as such, badge or no badge. A badged thief is the worst kind. As far Holder is concerned, no kudo's for him. He's just buckling under pressure.
[ADMIN Edit: Sorry, highly political source removed]
Last edited by Norm; 01-20-2015 at 09:53 AM.
Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson
I agree, but I'm going to try to stick to law, and not get into politics.Originally Posted by Bodarc
As a matter of law, which is directly relevant to APs, I believe that the best arguments center on the 5th, 7th, and 14th Amendments:
1. The 5th Amendment (Federal) and 14th Amendment (states) require due process of law before someone is deprived of property.
2. The 7th Amendment (only applies to Federal) requires a jury trial in all suits for money damages.
The issue is lack of a jury trial, and the standard of review. In a criminal seizure, you get a jury, a public defender if you're broke, and they have to show beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil seizure, you argue before a judge, you don't get an attorney, and the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (greater than 50% chance).
In some cases, like IRS seizures for alleged violation of structuring regulations, you don't get ANY hearing. They just take your money and have an ex-parte hearing with the judge (you don't even get to attend!) You have to sue to get it back.
Policy recommendations that would help:
1. Don't give money to the police force, prosecutors, or judges that are engaging in the forfeiture action.
2. Require a jury trial in civil forfeiture cases.
3. Have a higher burden of proof: conviction of a crime, or showing of beyond a reasonable doubt. Even a clear and convincing standard (probably, but not 100% sure) would vastly improve the situation
4. Enforce damages against clear violators. This amounts to an illegal seizure, and a government taking without compensation. A few judgments on law enforcement officers who clearly broke the law would have a chilling effect on the "snatch and grab" mentality, and cause officers to think twice if they aren't 100% sure.
The Cash Cow.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks