Maybe in the state you are from, but not in all states. In some states, it is a criminal offense. So when you pull someone over for an infraction, it is not because they broke a law? What differentiates between what makes it civil vs. criminal? The amount of the fine? If it's not a crime (making it a criminal case) then what is the basis for the ticket? |
So you're ok with them pulling people over at random and asking permission to search? I take that back, not people at random, but people specifically NOT breaking the law? |
I have yet in years of posting here had any officer report that their speeding tickets are criminal in nature, but I could be wrong. The offender has broken the vehicle and traffic law when they get pulled over for speeding. The state has defined a moving violation of that type to be a civil offense. |
You seem really comfortable in assuming that all that money being seized is "criminal money".  |
That is exactly correct, Dave_A. What we are saying is that Asset Forfeiture has made Law Enforcement forgot that. |
Well, if you have money left over after all of the taxes we pay, you must be doing something illegal. |
If its legitimate, the possessor should be able to account for its origins, shouldn't they? |
If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about right? Papers please... |
NO!!!! it's not the government's business if I'm carrying a bunch of cash around. |
It appears that the standard for proving legitimacy is "make the cops believe that the money is really yours". This opens the door for rampant abuse of the system and allows seizure of property with no evidence of wrongdoing. Hell, you don't even need a real suspicion of wrongdoing. |
Seems to me that something as simple as a bank statement could prove that. |
We can all agree to disagree on the WOD, etc....saying things about someone's dead wife is below the belt. Have some class  Hell...don't have class...have some basic human dignity. |
|
Listen, I like generally like cops. Hell I have been toying with the idea of going into LE now for sometime. I have friends who are cops. However, I have nothing but contempt for those in law enforcement who think their sole duty is to be a revenue generating force. |
Its not about revenue, its about interdiction. The revenue from seizures is simply a positive benefit from the drug interdiction. |
However, there are still ways of earning cash without records. I could take all of my guns to the next gun show as a private seller and leave with about $20K in cash. How could I prove it was mine and that it was legally earned? How about the hippies who sell sandwiches and shit in the parking lots at Phish concerts? That is certainly a cash business and I doubt that they are filing for concession licenses. What's to keep a dishonest cop from seizing all of their money as "evidence" of drug dealing? |
|
But of course bank statements are trivial to forge, so next you need a notarized letter from a bank employee showing that the amount is correct. And then, because of money laundering, you need a sworn affidavit taken in front of the clerk of a court from the person you received the money from stating they paid you that amount, and precisely what for. Of course, that's only after they've shown that they received the money legitimately. But it's all reasonable so long as we can keep people from using plants to feel good. |
The point remains that its easy to show where the money came from. Just how easy do you figure it is to forge your monthly bank statement? |
|
You shouldn't have to carry it, but you should be able to produce it to verify its really your cash Asset forfeiture is a great way to deprive criminals the proceeds from their criminal activity. |
 Busting into people's houses with out warning or a warrant is a great way to squelch criminal activity too, but it doesn't make it right. |
And where does that happen? Not counting mistaken addresses, or in-progress situations or any of the other warrant exceptions? |
You claim that taking people's property with the only justification being that you suspect they got it from nefarious purposes is a great way to combat crime. I countered your arguement with the example that conducting no-knock, no-warrant raids would be a great way to combat crime too, but it doesn't make it right. In other words, just because something *may* help deter crime, doesn't mean it should be a legit crime fighting tool. |
I think what he was saying is that seizing assets without evidence of wrongdoing is just as unfair as warrantless searches. I agree. If you can prove that the assests are from drug transactions, seize them. If not, move on. |
Ten minutes with Photoshop. Maybe. |
|
All I'm saying is that if HS students can forge report cards (which have more security features than my bank statement does), it wouldn't surprise me
|
The owner will get their day in court to prove its legitimate cash. If you don't seize it pending a hearing,it'll just disappear. Forfeiture isn't just about cash, either. If you don't seize the cars, houses, etc and have a day in court, you wont find that stuff, either. |
Certainly the bank records would be very difficult (though not impossible, witness people like Kevin Mitnick), but a good forgery (fooling 99% of experts) is certainly not out of reach of someone with modest graphics editing skills. Bank statements have almost no security features, they were never meant to be secure documents. Thus, they're easy to forge. |
That's right. No charges = no forfeiture. Charge but no conviction = money returned immediately. |
I think the issue he's raising is that the burden of proof is on the owner of the cash, not the police seizing it. IE you take $10k from me, have 0 evidence that I am involved in any drug related business, but I have to prove it's legit to get it back. If I have no way of doing so, you keep it without any proof I was involved in illegal activity. That's the issue. The police should have to prove guilt, rather than the accused proving innocence. |
|
If we keep asset forfeiture, we should ensure 100% of the funds do not go to the department. They should go to the school system on a state level, or the state general fund. That eliminates any chance of 'LE for profit". it removes even the appearance of impropriety, and yet allows LE to retain the tool they say they need. LE should be all for this. They keep the "tool", they lose the potential for abuse and the appearance of possible impropriety or abuse. a win-win for all involved. Of course, who here being honest about it thinks that LE would conduct themselves in exactly the same manner? Who here thinks those counties in GA that have multiple deputies on I-75 and I-95 trolling for drug trafficking still will? I don't. That's alot of money to spend on something just passing through. Some agencies use forfeiture as a means to an end- higher budgets. It got so bad in LA they had to change the law. Of course, I have always said the same should be true of traffic tickets..no money to the department/city/county. In NC all $$ goes to the state general fund. as a result you don't see the "speed trap" type operation like you do in GA or FL. Traffic tickets are used solely to address the problems with traffic. Just like you see different enforcement patterns in areas where departments can get money from tickets and areas where departments can not, you will also see things change if departments no longer get $$ from forfeiture. |
|
In my line of work I often work shows where I take in a whole lot of cash. Gun show dealers selling ammo are a good example of a similar deal. If a dealer loads up and goes to the big show in Tulsa and sells $10,000 in ammo and is on the way home, he has no "paper trail". It is absolute bullshit that he could be stopped and that siezed, and he would have to spend time and money trying to get it back. |
That's not what I suggested. Reading is fundamental. I said you should have to prove it's illegitimate to keep it post-hearing. Seizing it and holding it until the hearing = ok. However, you should be required to prove that the money was not legally obtained to keep it. The burden of proof must rest on the accuser, rather than the accused. |
We wouldn't tolerate a person being thrown in jail for looking like a drug dealer and told not to worry about anything because he can prove he isn't guilty at trial, so why should we tolerate asset forfiture under the same theme? |
|
Its bad enough that I would have to protect it from criminals, these days you need to protect it from teh cops as well. |