First time in recorded history, police seized more money and property through asset forfeiture than all burglars and thieves combined.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-17/police-civil-asset-forfeitures-exceed-value-all-burglaries-2014

Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually.

In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989.

Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year.

Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

lol

Wasn't our country founded on the principle that the government shouldn't be able to do this shit?

If they are taking assets from criminals and criminals are taking assets from the innocent does that mean the cops are taking from the innocents?

You're so right op. You should do something about this!

The First U.S. Congress passed forfeiture laws, so apparently not.

Only four posts in and the victim blamers out themselves.

I personally liked this article the first time it was posted in GD...  in 2015.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1808530_-ARCHIVED-THREAD----Police-Civil-Asset-Forfeitures-Exceed-The-Value-Of-All-Burglaries-In-2014-.html&page=1

Three months passed between the Constitution going into effect and the first federal civil asset forfeiture law being passed.


ETA:  I was wrong.  It was just under five months, not three.

Civil Asset Forfeitures is government protected theft.

Amendment V - 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.

I have been saying it for years.............if there was one issue that people should lose their shit about (on both sides of the aisle), it should be asset forfeiture.  

We should be fucking ashamed for letting this shit happen, let alone letting it happen to the degree that it has.  

This shit should outrage you 10 times more than any magazine or AWB...it's literally legalized theft by the government.

You do know who 99% of those assets are taken from right?  I'll give you a hint, it's not from the people in the stories posted in GD that twist your panties.

In this thread most of GD explains that they know jack shit about asset forfeiture.  

No, I don't know so tell us please.

Anyone know what percentage of the forfeited assets are returned?

This is my shocked face.

My jimmies aren't rustled.

Criminals shouldn't profit from their illegal activities.

Courts provide due process in these cases.

Well considering that I do it about 3 times a week I could probably walk you through it step by step. But if you think you're being a hero by standing up for the felons that commit crimes for a profit then nothing I say is gonna convince you otherwise. 

Serious question...do you believe that a drug dealer that sells indiscriminately to any and everyone, including the police, should get to keep the money he makes from it or the car that he bought with that money?  If you do then I applause you for standing your ground. But if you don't you may need to educate yourself before making statements about something you know nothing about

We didn't all just take a class on it

Well played sir...well played

IBTL

Almost impossible to answer, in part because it is a bad question, but I'll stab at it:

Firstly, if by "returned" you mean returned to the person from whom they were forfeited, in broad terms, the answer is zero----once forfeited, which is done via the court, the assets are, well, forfeited.  If you mean returned to the person from whom they were seized, because they were not in fact forfeited by a court, then you would need to specify state (and which state,) or federal.  Few federal seizures fail to be forfeited in my experience, so few assets are returned by the feds.  For states, it varies wildly, with ME having a fairly high rate of forfeiture failure (meaning the seized assets are returned,) and TN having a fairly low rate.  LA falls in the middle, with an asterisk, explained below.

If by "returned" you mean returned to/given to some person or other entity that was directly harmed by a criminal activity, or to a community that (by general consensus) was harmed in some way by the criminal activity, again you see very little from the federal side of things, and states are just too varied for me to have a handle on anything but LA.  In LA, assets seized, and successfully forfeited, via Title 40 involve the proceeds of the illegal narcotics trade, and in general terms about 20-30% of the assets forfeited in such proceedings end up being used to pay for drug rehab programs and anti-drug abuse education stuff (which is still done even though it's been pretty much proven to have at best zero effect on usage rates, and in some studies, to actually increase juvenile drug use.  Topic for another day though.)  

Of the assets seized via Title 15 proceedings, which involve conspiracies, organized crime, and racketeering type stuff, 99% of all successfully forfeited proceeds are returned to people who were actually victims---most typically the actual victims of the thefts, robberies, extortions, etc., that were the underlying crimes, but if the actual victim(s) in those cases is/are deceased the assets are used to pay assistance to surviving dependent parties of the victim(s) or, if such person(s) do not exist or cannot be found, are used for victim assistance programs for other victims of crime (only violent crimes though---you ain't getting any money from this if crackhead Bob broke into your house while you were away.)  It's only 99% because the state takes 1% to cover admin costs.  I will say that in general the failure of forfeiture seems to be higher in Title 15 proceedings than in Title 40 proceedings, at least in my AO, which has always kinda baffled me.

LOL

Good answer and good correction.

I have no issue in theory with asset forfeiture but I think it ought to come with more protections. A successful challenge to a seizure should result in interest at whatever rate that court charges, compensation for economic damages caused by the seizure and repayment of attorneys fees, all at the expense of the seizing department.

And if any of that worries someone they should stop taking people's money without probable cause.

That's a stretch and a half right there.

I can only speak for my state and I whole heartedly agree with you.  But in my case we are only allowed to seize with probable cause.  Sometimes they get some or all of it back.  Most times they get nothing but a jail sentence.  But money and property is seized on the spot not post conviction.  It is forfeited post conviction.  I have seized money without the presence of drugs.  But there were other circumstances like the manner of packaging, methods of concealment, discrepancies in purpose, search warrants for phones showing it was proceeds of drug sales or intended for purchase of drugs, K9 alerts, etc.  I have to have a reason to sieze not just a suspicion.  

ETA:  I don't agree with seizing money on the side of the road just due to the amount.  Is it done?  I don't know, never seen it done.  If it is I think it is unlawful and unconstitutional.  But I agree with asset to forfeiture WHEN DONE CORRECTLY.  As with most things in life. I have no issue with taking from criminals if they earned it from illegal means.  Drugs, scams, taxes, whatever.

Fuck criminals.

But if criminals were the only people who got their assets taken this process is something the public would have never heard of.

Quite.

Do you ever actually take a side...or rather make a statement?  In all your lols I've not got the sense that you enjoy the people who post here or even have fun here.

We criminals now. 

As I understand it, the problem is the police don't have to prove anything to take your property under this law.

I don't feel that I need to explain my art to you, Warren.

That's regular criminal asset forfeiture.  This is about Civil asset forfeiture, where items are seized, often without the person being charged with anything or the items themselves are charged ().  The owners then have to prove that their property was earned or purchased legally

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/cops-in-texas-seize-millions-by-policing-for-profit/#6b1cc8211a81

What's your favorite flavor of boot polish? 

Yes, but the question is "should the Government profit from illegal activities?"  A good argument could be made that it should not.  There's a slimy feel to it.

Well it makes me feel terrible having grabbed a brand new Mercedes paid cash for by a 19yo who I caught low riding with a oz of cocaine and a tech-9 with that gun powder smell of a fresh shoot. If gangsta's aint free to do gangsta shit then nones of us be free.

Another time I caught a kid in a Rolls doing his drops and pick ups. A Rolls! Who in hell is stupid enough to do drug shit in a Rolls Royce?

    You havent made clear why any assets not gained through illicit means become your property.

Ok Fred.  Thanks for clarifying the ambivalence.

This.

You understand correcrtly

What this nation was founded on and what it is today are not anything alike.

So!?

"Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals." 

You're both very mistaken.

Get stopped with 100k in cash on a highway (that you legally obtained), and get back to me on how you feel about how the courts (and costs, deprivation of your funds) providing due process to you.

It's not the law that's the problem, it's the degree to which it is applied and the presumption that merely possessing something means you likely didn't get it legally (even though there are many people in this nation that have enough money that transporting 100k in cash could happen.

Yep. We forfeit stuff all the time and have to establish a value.

Guess GD wants the police to sell the 100 kilos of cocaine from last week's drug bust or just return it.

But the government is entitled to that money/stuff, right?

no, its a fine in the form of physical property.

When was the last time someone had 100k stolen from their house? I know this week that was taken out of a car in Kansas where both occupants denied ownership. Weird, why would they deny ownership.....

Civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced should be illegal. Assets should only be taken after a criminal conviction and then only for the value of the lawful fines/penalties imposed by law and/or the fair value of items stolen or destroyed by the convicted. If the crime harmed a citizen, all assets seized and fines/penalties should be given to that citizen or their family. Nothing in excess of that should be legal.