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.
In this case, seizure laws are spelled out by US Code.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Advantage
My involvement is Law Enforcement for those setups. I am not going to go into detail for obvious reason, but the confiscation of personal food storage was nowhere in any of my briefings or the information I have access to, including the disaster plans.
Also we saw how well it worked out for New Orleans Police when they decided to confiscate personal firearms from people. They, rightfully so, had their asses handed to them by FEderal Courts, which said it was illegal to do that even though a state of emergency existed.
...I dunno.. I think the Government does go to far at times with regards to placing themselves into what should be a personal or local/county/state manner. I think Congress concentrates on the wrong issues.. Instead of debt and spending, securing the borders etc they want to deal with topics that are not pressing....
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Advantage
I have had a few conversations with people who work for the Hospitals and we have talked about Mass Disaster and the Feds. I always found their arguments funny since they think their facility will be under their control. Ive tried to point out to them that their own disaster plans, the ones they have signed off on, move authority to a centralized location who can move staffing around as needed based on whats going on without their permission.
Its along the same manner for the LEO agencies and how that works as well.. We at least understand all of that, where I think the Hospitals will get a nice shock.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Bunch of legends in their own minds thinkin' they are the alpha males marking their
"territory"....LEOs are just as bad as doctors...there are more in it for the "money" and less in it
for those they are sworn to protect and serve. Kind of does mess it up for the few, the real, that
are not jaded yet.
Thanks for the post.
LOLOLOLOl... I gurantee you we did not go into law enforcement for money. Is it possible for people to actually do some research in these areas before spouting misinformation and inuendo?
Your personal views are fine, but not always based in fact.
That's all i'm asking, do some research and ask questions before jumping onto the bandwagon.
Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Bunch of legends in their own minds thinkin' they are the alpha males marking their
"territory"....LEOs are just as bad as doctors...there are more in it for the "money" and less in it
for those they are sworn to protect and serve. Kind of does mess it up for the few, the real, that
are not jaded yet.
Thanks for the post.
LOLOLOLOl... I gurantee you we did not go into law enforcement for money. Is it possible for people to actually do some research in these areas before spouting misinformation and inuendo?
Your personal views are fine, but not always based in fact.
That's all i'm asking, do some research and ask questions before jumping onto the bandwagon.
Heh heh... Darn skippy Leo...I do tend to have personal views on many things...
Thing is, I've seen a lot of this go on in the small towns I've lived in. Lived across the street from a LEO back east in a small town once, and this guy always seemed to be coming up with money and "goodies" (boats, muscle cars, etc.) Asked him how he could get things like that on what he's being paid...I knew that he wasn't making that much money...he looked at me and winked and said..."sweetie, there are sooo many ways."
Before ya jump on it...nope, it wasn't the police auction, hon. His kids also had some big mouths too.
He wasn't the only one that I've run into over the years. So, as you can see....there may be rules...but those rules will be broken, even by those that know better if they feel it will get them a bigger piece of the pie.
Originally posted by lastrebel
reply to post by bozzchem
You probably wouldnt get a chance too, the 55 yearold (at the time) woman I spoke had 20 cops with machine guns and body armor storm her business, threw her to the ground, putting a gash on her head from the counter she was behind, hand cuffed her while a couple 250 pound men knelt on the 120 pound womans back.
Her crime?
one of her customers had a joint and was pulled over leaving her store, they told him they would drop charges if he "admited" he had got it from her at her business
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
The only time we can seize assets is if its attached to the investigation. For the County Sheriffs Office, since they are responsible solely for civil process within the county, if a civil court case is finished, and the judge issues an award to one party, and the other parrty refuses to pay, the judge will sign off on a court order that allows Deputies or Court Officers (depending on jurisdictions - Court Officers work for the court itself) to go seize property from the person who is not paying.
This property will be auctioned off in order to satisfy the debt. The person whose property has been seazied has legal recourse, and provided they make a daily contact to the entity who seized the items, the agency is unable to auction them.
The other type of forclosure of property for municpal departments is going to be drug related. If it comes down to trafficing (not small personal amounts) any cash attached to the crime as well as property can be seized. Generally if its large enough the investigation will go to the Feds. If a local agency keeps the investigation if it was declined by the feds, any property seizures involved are locked into evidence until the entire case is done, all appeals are done, and only then a judge has to sign off on the property either being destroyed, or used.
If the property seized is going to be used for law enforcement purposes (how some agencies will have seized vehicles that go to the DARE program and want not) there is a pretty strict guideline that must be followed. Some states have laws that require either all seized, or partial amounts seized, to go to the school system.
Law Enforcement cannot just randomly take items from people and sell it. The video is wrong and not showing the entire process involved. Any items legally seized cannot just be taken by the Police and sold or used. They have to go through a process that respects it as evidence, must await for all appeals / court cases to be resolved, in addition to any challenges by people who might be owed money who want to stake a claim.
Please do not beleive everything you see on youtube.
For Federal guidlines, the US Marshall's are responsible for Federal Seziures of Assets
Asset forfeiture program - US Marshal's
Their authority comes from the Criminal Control Acts passed by the FEderal Government in the 1930's. The laws were not touched again until an onmibus bill in 1984, which updated fedral criminal laws, seizure of property, sentencing guidelines etc.
The affected US Code is - Title 18 - US Code
Seziures at the State level are dependant upon the states law, any state court cases that created case law dealing with it, and any Federal appeals rulings that have occured in their respective circuits. I am not going to provide any links since the state level is all over the place depending on state law.
I can tell you that any items sezied by local, county, state or federal officals must be inventoried and securely stored. The owner of the seized property must be given a detailed list of items taken. The value of the items is not based on fair market value, but what it can get at an auction.
There is recourse for citizens at both the FEderal and State level to challenge seizures. If a seizure occurs its either by court order, or by criminal statute, which means a legal reason based on current statutes must exist for the sizure to be valid.
Hope this helps clear some of this up.
"Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Today I hold out the olive branch of comity to my libertarian friends. The Institute for Justice has just released a lengthy report on "civil asset forfeiture," the ability of state and federal agencies to seize property used in the commission of a crime even if no one has actually been convicted of a crime, and I recommend reading it. The practice is appalling all by itself, but it's even worse than it sounds:
In most states and under federal law, law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeitures. This incentive has led to concern that civil forfeiture encourages policing for profit, as agencies pursue forfeitures to boost their budgets at the expense of other policing priorities.
These concerns are exacerbated by legal procedures that make civil forfeiture relatively easy for the government and hard for property owners to fight. For example, once law enforcement seizes property, the government must prove it was involved in criminal activity to forfeit or permanently keep it. But in nearly all states and at the federal level, the legal standard of proof the government must meet for civil forfeiture is lower than the strict standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal convictions.
Likewise, many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea it was involved in a crime. However, in most places, owners bear the burden of establishing their innocence. In other words, with civil forfeiture, property owners are effectively guilty until proven innocent.
"In March 2007, Camden County, Ga., deputies pulled over Michael Annan, a 43-year-old immi-
grant from Ghana, for speeding on I-95 on his way home from work. After a search, officers found
no evidence of illegal activity but confiscated $43,720 in cash. Annan said the money was his life
savings and that he was afraid to put it into a bank.
A canine search found no trace of drugs and a background check on Annan yielded no drug
arrests.
Nevertheless, officers kept the money for further investigation and told Annan to call back in
two weeks. Annan says that he did call, multiple times, but made no progress securing his money.
A visit to the county seat in person was unsuccessful—the sheriff was too busy to see him.
Finally, Annan hired a lawyer, who faxed tax and work records to the sheriff’s office proving An-
nan earned his money legitimately. The county did return the $43,720; however, Annan had to pay
$12,000 to his attorney—more than a quarter of his life savings.1
Months after Annan was pulled over, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation began looking into
expenditures by then-Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith, who had helped orchestrate the seizure of
some $20 million over 15 years.
Smith used the forfeiture fund for extravagant purchases with questionable utility for law
enforcement—such as a $90,000 sports car and a $79,000 boat. He also used the fund to retain
a private lawyer, to pay tuition for favored deputies at area colleges and to buy gas for employees’
personal vehicles, among other improprieties.2 Smith further paid jail inmates to work on his own
property, his girlfriend’s and his ex-wife’s.3
Camden County voters unseated Smith, who had been sheriff for 23 years, in July 2008.
(a) Prohibition on confiscation of firearms
No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.