• Holder limits seized-asset sharing process

    This looks to be an extremely important ruling reducing a three-decade problem, positive for APs and so many others. And it's about fucking time.


    Comments 5 Comments
    1. MJGolf's Avatar
      MJGolf -
      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.
    1. Three's Avatar
      Three -
      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.

      "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 tat 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.
    1. Aslan's Avatar
      Aslan -
      It is a step in the right direction. It does not end questionable confiscation of property be either Federal or state governments, but it does begin to curb abuse of police power in that regard. I hope to see the same inroads in the misuse, at least what I believe is misuse, of eminent domain.
    1. Three's Avatar
      Three -
      Yeah. Now eminent domain is used when a company wants your property and the state feels it is in everyones best interest that the company owns your land.
    1. Frank Galvin's Avatar
      Frank Galvin -
      Self-deleted rant on eminent domain.

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.