Majority of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture but theres one problem.

And that problem is that most Americans havent even heard of civil asset forfeiture...

L ink.

Have you heard of the term "civil asset forfeiture"?

Yes . . . . 28%
No . . . . .72%

Which of these three options comes closest to your opinion about what SHOULD be legal?

Law enforcement should only be able to permanently seize money or other property if that person is charged with and convicted of a crime . . . . . . . . . 71%

It should be 95% but ok, maybe they interviewed some cops.

Even more disturbing, when states or local municipalities try to reform civil asset stealing, I mean forfeiture, LAW "ENFORCEMENT" ie cops, line up to stop it!

Forfeiture programs are under more scrutiny these days, but attempts to roll back these powers, or introduce conviction requirements, have been met with resistance from law enforcement agencies and police unions

So public servants being paid by the tax payers are now dictating legislation?

The police state is alive and well.

Scary times indeed.

a reply to: gladtobehere

It's definitely disturbing. I've read of horror stories where people have a few thousand dollars cash on them to go buy a used car or something, get stopped and searched, and the money taken. WTF. Hell, I like paying cash for incidental purchases and things, so I'll hit the ATM once a month and carry around a few hundred dollars. I also heard, not sure if it's true, that quite a bit of money in circulation would test positive for drug residue.

My opinion is that any property should only be seized AFTER being convicted...period. Anything else is a violation of due process.

Hmmm well, I don't think the police are going to just give up a lucrative means to get money for nothing so they can purchase new toys. Its not like they use the taken funds and use it for the homeless or cancer research, I think people should be allowed to carry whatever they want on them and I agree a conviction should be made to which their is overwhelming evidence that backs up the money was going to be used for illegal activity, fund terror, or election fraud etc.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Part of the problem is that some municipalities essentially factor in such seizures as part of their operating budget. It's sick and disgusting.

I can't tell you how many stories I've read that would make steam come out of your ears. Reason.com has done a great job staying on top of this for quite some time now.

In some cities, they'll actively advertise that certain police units are funded by asset seizure; things like mobile CCTV systems (a van with CCTV cameras on the roof), stop and search patrols and weapon hand-in events.

Aside from the money they can take everything you own just on a suspicion of what ever they want.dont have to prove it.i remember reading a few years back a pilot lost his jet and cash for fuel landing fees just because he mite have trsnsprted a drug dealer at one time in the past...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Yes, the final nail in the coffin in my opinion. No more can law enforcement be given the benefit of the doubt (not that they ever should have enjoyed that unjustified privilege).

Many people think that civil asset forfeiture and criminal asset forfeiture are one and the same but, they are not.

Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Under state and federal law, police departments can seize and keep property that is suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home, or other property. And according to a new report published by the Institute for Justice, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” most state laws are written in such a way as to encourage police agents to pursue profit instead of seeking the neutral administration of justice. The report grades each state and the federal government on its forfeiture laws and other measures of abuse. The results are appalling: Six states earned an F and 29 states and the federal government received a grade of D. Please join us for a discussion of policing, constitutional rights, and government accountability.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Not only is it lucrative, but it is often used as additional coercion in gaining the State's will:

Waco police have impounded about 135 motorcycles and 80 cars and trucks from the parking lot where nine people were shot dead on May 17. Police have said the vehicles were needed for evidence.

It’s possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values.

...

But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail.

...

Since 1989, Texas has given government agencies the ability to seize property through a civil lawsuit even if there is no criminal case. The claim is filed not against the owner but the property, such as a bag of coc aine, a speedboat or a sum of cash. One recent Texas lawsuit was styled “U.S. vs. approximately 64,695 pounds of shark fins.”

Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows prosecutors to claim property that was bought with proceeds from a felony, or that was used in the commission of a felony. Between 2003 and 2012, Texas law enforcement confiscated some $486 million through asset forfeiture, according to a December 2014 report to the Texas Legislature by the Public Policy Research Institute.

Civil forfeitures are “extremely profitable” for district attorneys, who on average spent $702 prosecuting a forfeiture case in return for $15,182 in proceeds, the report states.

Since Reyna was took office in 2011 he has boasted of taking more than $1 million of contraband through forfeiture, including cars, computers, eight-liner machines, even fancy hubcaps. He used the process to acquire a 2004 Freightliner trailer-tractor rig that was seized by state troopers in 2011, a truck that ended up with County Commissioner Ben Perry’s precinct.

Reyna’s office uses 30 percent of the proceeds from the forfeitures and shares 70 percent with the agency that seized the goods.

Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting

The Waco biker shooting has this angle to it as well as the other atrocities visited upon the people who were present that day.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Don't expect it to change. Loretta Lynchloves civil asset forfeiture!

a reply to: gladtobehere

Its keeping our legal system, courts and police in business so it won't stop in the UK, despite its draconian and well below the standard of proving guilt beyond doubt any more - just the probability but the lawyers, police and legal nasty little beavers love it.

originally posted by: deadcatsrule
Aside from the money they can take everything you own just on a suspicion of what ever they want.dont have to prove it.i remember reading a few years back a pilot lost his jet and cash for fuel landing fees just because he mite have trsnsprted a drug dealer at one time in the past...

I wonder if this is the case of a confiscated Learjet that was covered on 60 Minutes probably 15 years ago?

In that case the owner/pilot of the Learjet flew a legal charter from somewhere in Texas out to Los Angeles. A first time walk in customer, the owner did not know the man, and did not know he was being followed by DEA. He flew the charter and they seized the airplane in California. He hired an attorney to get his airplane back and they actually went to court over it. The judge ruled in the man's favor and ordered the plane returned. The DEA refused to follow the court's order.

I'm not sure how the case ever did end, but they refused to return the plane.

s&f good thread thanks. I believe more often than not this is put into practice in localities. Also the problem would be in most don't question it because they assume it's only linked to those being 100% tried and guilty of having drugs associated with their property.

The law enforcement is just the thugs paid to make sure we're all paying our taxes and staying in line.

I got a notice in the mail this week- soon I'll have a bill to pay for the rain that falls on the property I pay tax on. How long before they take my property away from me if I refuse to pay it? They'd have police there in a few months, I bet.

It's not so much that the police call the shots, it's that that their thug-like behavior is what they were hired for, the people up the line want them to rape and pillage the general population. That's their purpose.

The only way out is to not own anything- but they've made that against the law so they can lock you up in a for profit prison, owned by the people who make the laws.


Circling the drain, here...

a reply to: gladtobehere

I've been giving the Civil Asset Forfeiture phenomenon some serious pondering. To me, there are several things to consider the "WHY":

1. In the short-term it benefits law enforcement and municipalities
2. In the long-term it can aid in the "narrative" to push us toward a cashless society

So, consider that TPTB are playing chess. The first move pisses us off. The second move allows the idiots in the populace to have a knee-jerk reaction and support a cashless society.

a reply to: WCmutant

Not only that, but the Army and reservists have been practicing 'crowd control' fot almost 20 years now

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: gladtobehere

It's definitely disturbing. I've read of horror stories where people have a few thousand dollars cash on them to go buy a used car or something, get stopped and searched, and the money taken. WTF. Hell, I like paying cash for incidental purchases and things, so I'll hit the ATM once a month and carry around a few hundred dollars. I also heard, not sure if it's true, that quite a bit of money in circulation would test positive for drug residue.

My opinion is that any property should only be seized AFTER being convicted...period. Anything else is a violation of due process.

Neat fact for you. Asset forfeiture was originally designed and written into law in order to seize smugglers ships when no evidence could be found to charge them, but everyone knew what was going on. Best of all, it was passed into law by one of the people who wrote the Fourth Amendment, John Adams.

originally posted by: WCmutant
I've been giving the Civil Asset Forfeiture phenomenon some serious pondering. To me, there are several things to consider the "WHY":

1. In the short-term it benefits law enforcement and municipalities
2. In the long-term it can aid in the "narrative" to push us toward a cashless society

So, consider that TPTB are playing chess. The first move pisses us off. The second move allows the idiots in the populace to have a knee-jerk reaction and support a cashless society.

I don't think that's how things would go. If drug deals start being made using electronic methods, they'll simply confiscate bank accounts rather than cash.