Police use departments wish list to determine which assets to sieze

[PeaShooter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/u...when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?_r=1

This needs to end soon. At least make it only applicable after a conviction.

 

[OakRiver]

It should apply after conviction if it is going to apply at all. Seizing assets without owner being convicted of a crime is putting the cart before the horse. Has it been argued yet that it may violate an accused's right to a fair trial? I'm sure that a jury may find the fact that assets have been seized prejudicial

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In an interview, Mr. Connelly said that the Las Cruces ordinance does only what the State Supreme Court has said is permissible.

Oh well...I guess that's that. The court has ruled.

How far we've evolved from (to turn a phrase): It is better that ten drug dealers' property escape seizure than that one innocent person suffer.

 

[PeaShooter]

Nothing more than legalized theft. We have so many laws on the books, it is nearly impossible to go through the day without violating at least one. And just doing that could give the police cause to take whatever they have had their eyes on.

 

[Denny347]

Nothing more than legalized theft. We have so many laws on the books, it is nearly impossible to go through the day without violating at least one. And just doing that could give the police cause to take whatever they have had their eyes on.

While I'm not automatically siding with the depts on this, since you described this as legalized theft, what part of the process is wrong? What part of the process is theft? Just curious.

 

[KLB]

While I'm not automatically siding with the depts on this, since you described this as legalized theft, what part of the process is wrong? What part of the process is theft? Just curious.

Taking property from someone not convicted of a crime.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

While I'm not automatically siding with the depts on this, since you described this as legalized theft, what part of the process is wrong? What part of the process is theft? Just curious.

I'm not PeaShooter and am not answering for him, just myself. What part of the process is wrong? No charges need filed a LEO can seize property basically on a whim at the moment. A claim that a drug dog hit on a vehicle with no contraband found can result in a seizure of cash and/or vehicle with no charges filed. Also the owner doesn't count as the injured party, he/she is essentially a third party to the proceedings. The seizure isn't against the person it's against the property, such as State of Indiana vs $3452. Or Marion Co vs 2009 Mercedes Benz vin # xxxxxxx. The person the property seized from has to fight from a third party stand rather than first party.

 

[88GT]

Oh well...I guess that's that. The court has ruled.

Kirk, you changed you avatar

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Hi, Kirk Freeman here. You know, the guy that has defended civil forfeitures in state and federal court for over 15 years now. The guy that has sent detailed reform plans to the Indiana General Assembly. The guy that has spoken out against the abuses in Marion County and the failure of special prosecutors to divert confiscated monies to the school fund. Yeah, that's me.

Sorry about the butthurt. Put some ice on it.

 

[Rocket]

Any part that allows it to happen before a conviction

 

[PeaShooter]

I'm not PeaShooter and am not answering for him, just myself. What part of the process is wrong? No charges need filed a LEO can seize property basically on a whim at the moment. A claim that a drug dog hit on a vehicle with no contraband found can result in a seizure of cash and/or vehicle with no charges filed. Also the owner doesn't count as the injured party, he/she is essentially a third party to the proceedings. The seizure isn't against the person it's against the property, such as State of Indiana vs $3452. Or Marion Co vs 2009 Mercedes Benz vin # xxxxxxx. The person the property seized from has to fight from a third party stand rather than first party.

Yeah, this pretty well sums it up. The entire practice is open to abuse by people who actually gain by its use. I bet that if the departments in question didn't profit from their confiscations, the practice would drop drastically. That is why they take the case federal, instead of local, to bypass any state law on forfeitures and to get the kickback percentage from the federal government.

I am not anti-police. My father was a policeman for 30+ years. But this is wrong, I don't care if it works.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Kirk, you changed you avatar

I am...we are the INGOBorg. Assimilate or die. Resistance is futile.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am not sure if this applies anymore or not.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It says more than "Keep your mouth shut".

 

[2A_Tom]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you are paid to in force it.

 

[KLB]

Hi, Kirk Freeman here. You know, the guy that has defended civil forfeitures in state and federal court for over 15 years now. The guy that has sent detailed reform plans to the Indiana General Assembly. The guy that has spoken out against the abuses in Marion County and the failure of special prosecutors to divert confiscated monies to the school fund. Yeah, that's me.

Sorry about the butthurt. Put some ice on it.

Wouldn't it be more useful to suggest people start writing their representatives than this?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wouldn't it be more useful to suggest people start writing their representatives than this?

Absolutely, ice is actually horrible for INGO butthurt. Reforms have been accomplished in other states.

My hope is that Minnesota provides a model. We shall see.

Minnesota Now Requires A Criminal Conviction Before People Can Lose Their Property To Forfeiture - Forbes

 

[Denny347]

Taking property from someone not convicted of a crime.

I'm not PeaShooter and am not answering for him, just myself. What part of the process is wrong? No charges need filed a LEO can seize property basically on a whim at the moment. A claim that a drug dog hit on a vehicle with no contraband found can result in a seizure of cash and/or vehicle with no charges filed. Also the owner doesn't count as the injured party, he/she is essentially a third party to the proceedings. The seizure isn't against the person it's against the property, such as State of Indiana vs $3452. Or Marion Co vs 2009 Mercedes Benz vin # xxxxxxx. The person the property seized from has to fight from a third party stand rather than first party.

I am not sure if this applies anymore or not.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It says more than "Keep your mouth shut".

Ah I see. So a civil trial is NOT "due process". The state taking the suspect to civil court is a separate court procedure to the criminal process. Just like you can sue a criminal who you were a victim of regardless of the criminal case. The OJ Trial is the most notorious of these.

 

[cobber]

Ah I see. So a civil trial is NOT "due process". The state taking the suspect to civil court is a separate court procedure to the criminal process. Just like you can sue a criminal who you were a victim of regardless of the criminal case. The OJ Trial is the most notorious of these.

Don't talk sense. We'll have none of that on INGO.

Apparently we are not to take into account that the legislature passed the law, a prosecutor has to file the forfeiture, and a judge has to grant the forfeiture.

Let's see, that is one legislative action, two executive actions (police and prosecutor are separate) and one judicial action. In each case.

And it's a civil action because it involves money, and not a personal liberty interest. And the State still has to show criminal involvement. Just as an aside, how many INGOers walk around every day with $1000 cash in 20s and 50s rolled up in their pockets?

IC 34-24-1

Seems to me, once again, that the fellows and gals in the black robes are getting off easy. (When was the last time a judge was voted out of office for holding the State accountable?)


As to the contention that a canine alert alone, with no other evidence, resulted in: 1) police seizure, 2) forfeiture filing, and 3) court ordering forfeiture in favor of the State. Cause number and police report, please. And not some anecdote about ISP stole my wallet...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Cobber, what you say is all well and true, but the problems in civil forfeiture exist when the state (government) uses it as a backdoor to criminal prosecution, a tax if you will on behavior that it cannot prove criminally. Further, some confiscation acts are disproportional in the extreme, almost Sheriff of Nottingham in nature (e.g., confiscating tens of thousands of dollars for a single cigarette of dope).

As well, civil forfeiture is becoming the polestar of law enforcement (in places) instead of enforcement of the rule of law. This is dangerous on many different levels in that citizens begin to see law enforcement as opportunistic predators, instead of investigators of criminal acts.

I like Minnesota's reform very much. I think such things as raising the burden to clear and convincing, right to jury trial, and implementation of the English rule when defendant prevails are needed first steps.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Taking property from someone not convicted of a crime.

And if they have been convicted? Why then should that criminal offense mandate forfeiture of property to the State?
I'm vehemently against the State seizing private property, even the private property of - gasp! - criminals.
A world, an environment, in which anyone who does anything wrong has their property forfeit to the State? Didn't we fight a war over that?

As I read it: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Amendment V