It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

California Just Made It Harder For Cops To Take Cash From Innocent People

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
California Just Made It Harder For Cops To Take Cash From Innocent People

Civil asset forfeiture laws in CA are taking a BIG hit. A new bill just signed into law will close a loophole that allowed the police to circumvent state asset forfeiture restrictions for state arrests by coupling the investigation as a federal investigation. It also raises the amount of cash on hand that most be proven to be criminal in nature before being permanently seized.


California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Thursday signed a bill into law scaling back a controversial practice that allows police in the state to permanently seize people’s cash and property without obtaining a conviction or even charging someone with a crime.

Law enforcement agencies in California and around the nation have come under fire for using a process known as civil asset forfeiture to pad their budgets on the backs of innocent civilians they suspect of being involved in criminal activity. Taking advantage of lax standards in civil proceedings, police routinely strip owners of their property and funnel the proceeds into department coffers.

Authorities typically don’t have to provide evidence of the alleged wrongdoing. In many cases, owners are forced to fight costly legal battles to prove their innocence and reclaim their property, thereby inverting the American legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Existing California law had limited this process, requiring authorities in most state cases to convict a defendant before proceeding with civil asset forfeiture. But California cops were able to circumvent state law thanks to a federal program known as equitable sharing. By collaborating with federal authorities, state agencies made their seizures subject to more lenient federal statutes, while also giving themselves a larger portion of the resulting funds. This practice brought hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to California law enforcement between 2000 and 2013.

The new law, SB 443, closes this loophole. Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, police departments in California will be largely prohibited from transferring seized property to federal agencies in order to sidestep state conviction requirements. The legislation forbids the transfer of property, like vehicles and homes, and specifically raises the threshold on cash seizures, requiring the government to obtain a conviction before permanently confiscating any amount under $40,000. (The previous cap was $25,000.) For larger cash seizures, authorities must provide “clear and convincing” evidence of a connection to criminal activity before taking the money for good.


This is good news in my book. Civil asset forfeitures are freedom striping artifacts from the "Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's, and it is about time that states are starting to get rid of this #. It isn't fair that the police can decide that your money is criminal in nature without any evidence to show that and steal it (because let's be real here, civil asset forfeiture is just bureaucracy talk for stealing) from you. The ease of abuse is high with these laws and it shows when time after time we hear stories of innocent people getting their stuff stolen. We've talked about a few of these cases here on ATS.

But in case you are unaware of what I'm talking about here are a few cases I just pulled off of Google:
Law Commentary For 8 Years, This Couple Has Been Fighting the Government to Get Back Their Seized Property
Woman sues Albuquerque for seizing car despite ban on civil asset forfeiture
Opinion: Guilty until proven innocent
Police seized $171 from a N.J. man. It'll cost him $175 to get it back.
Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash

And here's the WORST story I've heard about this:
How police took $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage and a church
Yes you are reading the title of that article correctly. If you want something to get your blood boiling, click on that link.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think California's legislature does a lot of incredibly stupid crap.

This is an exception to that.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I 100% agree. CA's legislature does make many questionable decisions, but this certainly isn't one of them. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime right?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Will this allow drug dealers to keep their money?
Mobsters?
I don't have an issue with those types having their assets seized.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Will this allow drug dealers to keep their money?
Mobsters?
I don't have an issue with those types having their assets seized.

No, it can still be taken, but just as was required by the Constitution over 200 years ago, now the police have to once again prove guilt before carrying out the punishment (seizure).
edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
separate laws for separate criminals.

about time. now they need to tackle the CHP and their monthly quotas.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's,


Obama's whole presidency too. Didn't want you to leave that out.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's,


Obama's whole presidency too. Didn't want you to leave that out.

No. There is no tough on crime rhetoric under Obama (other than the Republicans forcing him to crack down on illegal immigration arrests and deportations like no previous President then proceed to never give him credit for it) except for holdover nonsense from those two decades.

Don't muddy this discussion with your lazy, partisan snipes please. This isn't the Mud Pit.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's,


Obama's whole presidency too. Didn't want you to leave that out.

No. There is no tough on crime rhetoric under Obama (other than the Republicans forcing him to crack down on illegal immigration arrests and deportations like no previous President then proceed to never give him credit for it) except for holdover nonsense from those two decades.

Don't muddy this discussion with your lazy, partisan snipes please. This isn't the Mud Pit.


LOl Ok.

Wonkblog
Civil asset forfeitures more than double under Obama


www.washingtonpost.com...

But we would not want to mention that huh?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

From the OP:

Civil asset forfeitures are freedom striping artifacts from the "Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's

Just because more money is stolen than ever doesn't mean these are new things that Obama is pushing.

Plus you clearly didn't even read your own source. The increase has nothing to do with Obama anyways.

While many factors likely contribute to the increase, one major component is the rise in post-2001 "stop and seize" traffic stops documented in the Post article.

The Post piece notes that under civil asset forfeiture laws, the burden of proof is on the owner of the assets to show that they are not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence. In essence, you're considered guilty until proven innocent.



Previous attempts at reform have largely been stymied due to intense lobbying from law enforcement groups, for whom asset forfeiture can be a significant source of revenue. From a political standpoint there's something for everyone to hate about the practice. Liberals note that it disproportionately affects poor and minority citizens, while conservatives are inclined to see it as a gross overreach of state power.

edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

From the OP:

Civil asset forfeitures are freedom striping artifacts from the "Tough on Crime" days of the Reagan years up through Clinton's Presidency in the 90's

Just because more money is stolen than ever doesn't mean these are new things that Obama is pushing.

Plus you clearly didn't even read your own source. The increase has nothing to do with Obama anyways.

While many factors likely contribute to the increase, one major component is the rise in post-2001 "stop and seize" traffic stops documented in the Post article.

The Post piece notes that under civil asset forfeiture laws, the burden of proof is on the owner of the assets to show that they are not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence. In essence, you're considered guilty until proven innocent.



Previous attempts at reform have largely been stymied due to intense lobbying from law enforcement groups, for whom asset forfeiture can be a significant source of revenue. From a political standpoint there's something for everyone to hate about the practice. Liberals note that it disproportionately affects poor and minority citizens, while conservatives are inclined to see it as a gross overreach of state power.


BUt what has Obama done to change it. Nothing because more is being taken under his watch then ever before.

But its Reagans fault from the 80s.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


Where does the Buck stop?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

There is no buck stopping. The government is a large organization. Obama isn't a king he only has so much authority. I hate this cop out. "Durp. The government screwed up! Blame the President!" No that is lazy and shows a clear disregard for nuance of the situation. Unless the President is DIRECTLY involved blaming the President because he is the President is useless. It's just an easy snipe that opponents of the President can use to hold against him for something he has little control over because it allows them to disassociate the President's real authority with what they THINK the President's authority is. "Where does the buck stop?" You sound so partisan brainwashed saying that...
edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.

I see you need to go restudy civics, most notably checks and balances. Chapter 1 goes over responsibilities of each branch of government, and HEY I'll give you a free lesson. The executive branch (the branch the President falls under) doesn't create or end laws. That falls under the purview of Congress or the Legislative branch.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.

I see you need to go restudy civics, most notably checks and balances. Chapter 1 goes over responsibilities of each branch of government, and HEY I'll give you a free lesson. The executive branch (the branch the President falls under) doesn't create or end laws. That falls under the purview of Congress or the Legislative branch.


I could definitely use some learning I will admit.

But I get so tired of watching the left blame the right and vice versa when their guy is sitting at the top.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right .



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.


That's not how government works.

So now Trump supporters are proponents of EO's? You guys have whined and complained about Obummer and his use of them, but if Trump does it, it's all good?

Lol. Brainwashed by blue and red "patriotism."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.

I see you need to go restudy civics, most notably checks and balances. Chapter 1 goes over responsibilities of each branch of government, and HEY I'll give you a free lesson. The executive branch (the branch the President falls under) doesn't create or end laws. That falls under the purview of Congress or the Legislative branch.


I could definitely use some learning I will admit.

But I get so tired of watching the left blame the right and vice versa when their guy is sitting at the top.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right .

Don't bring this up in my thread. I didn't blame a SINGLE President for the civil asset laws. I just cited that they are a holdover from the Reagan to Clinton years. So you are either pitching a strawman or are offtopic.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imsoconfused

It's Obama's fault because police organizations excessively lobby (using assets seized with civil asset forfeiture I might add) to prevent asset forfeiture law reform? Lol. Like I said lazy, partisan snipes.


I hate Reagan but if ha can start it Obama can stop it. Watch Trump stop Obamacare.


That's not how government works.

So now Trump supporters are proponents of EO's? You guys have whined and complained about Obummer and his use of them, but if Trump does it, it's all good?

Lol. Brainwashed by blue and red "patriotism."


I have whined that I want Obama to use more EOs alot of times.

Obama was supposed to be our guy. He is a generation xer, was a pot head in high school ,he seemed cool, and honest.

I was hoping for big things from him. But it is all just status quo.




top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join