Asset Forfeiture: Legal Theft

[Rageaholic]

Though it shouldn't be legal. Here are a couple of articles. This guy wasn't even charged with a crime (medical marijuana is legal in Michigan), but they stole 11000 in cash, his tv, automobile, and attempted to take his home.

Not that it would make it any better if he was charged with a crime (war on drugs is bullshit), but jeez!

[Gravekeeper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

>.>

[Andara Bledin]

I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't been fought up through the Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure the 4th Amendment specifically prohibits precisely this sort of activity.

[s_stabeler]

Asset Forfeiture is broken because it's a civil proceeding- with the burden being "preponderance of evidence"- that, and the fact that technically, all the feds have to prove is that the item was used in a crime- NOT that the owner used it in a crime. ( or at the very least, the burden shifts to the owner to prove they are innocent of the crime)

How I'd handle it is abolish civil forfeiture, and have it as something that can be tacked onto the sentence for a crime- and ONLY when the owner of the item gained it due to the crime. ( so, for example, if you bought a house with money from selling drugs? it's fair for it to be forfeited. But the feds have to prove that you specifically bought it with the drug money. It would also be fair, incidentally, to require you to turn over the amount of money gained from crime- with the amount you paid for any assets seized deducted, of course.)

[HYHYBT]

The only time forfeiture without conviction makes sense is when the item itself is illegal for anyone to own.

[Rageaholic]

Asset Forfeiture is broken because it's a civil proceeding- with the burden being "preponderance of evidence"- that, and the fact that technically, all the feds have to prove is that the item was used in a crime- NOT that the owner used it in a crime. ( or at the very least, the burden shifts to the owner to prove they are innocent of the crime)

How I'd handle it is abolish civil forfeiture, and have it as something that can be tacked onto the sentence for a crime- and ONLY when the owner of the item gained it due to the crime. ( so, for example, if you bought a house with money from selling drugs? it's fair for it to be forfeited. But the feds have to prove that you specifically bought it with the drug money. It would also be fair, incidentally, to require you to turn over the amount of money gained from crime- with the amount you paid for any assets seized deducted, of course.)

That makes more sense and was most likely what the original law was trying to accomplish.

It also makes me wonder, if someone is arrested for theft, who does the police keep the loot or is it returned to it's rightful owner?

[KabeRinnaul]

That makes more sense and was most likely what the original law was trying to accomplish.

As I recall, civil asset forfeiture was originally implemented as a weapon against organized crime. It allowed the police to really tear into an operation by gutting their finances if they caught a major player. But like most such things, it was extremely broad, and is now applied against many things it was never meant for because it provides financial incentives.

[s_stabeler]

That makes more sense and was most likely what the original law was trying to accomplish.

It also makes me wonder, if someone is arrested for theft, who does the police keep the loot or is it returned to it's rightful owner?

it depends. Do they know who the legitimate owner is? if so, it gets returned. If not, they hang onto whatever it is for a certain amount of time- and, IIRC, they ARE required to make efforts to track down the legitimate owner- in case someone can prove they own the item. After that length of time, the police can keep the item. It's one reason it's a good idea to report anything stolen to the police- if they catch the thief, they will return the stolen item.

[Canarr]

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this just struck me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-and-keep-it/

Asset forfeiture is fast growing -- in 2014, for instance, federal authorities seized more than $5 billion in assets. That's more than the value of assets lost in every single burglary that year.

So US citizens should be more worried about their LEOs taking their property than all the country's burglars. And here I always thought the conspiracy theorists urging armed resistance against the government were crazy...

[TheHuckster]

Wow, they call it the "Equitable Sharing Program"? That's Onion-grade absurdity right there.

[s_stabeler]

It's because Asset Forfieture is difficult to fight. First, in Civil Forfieture, there's the a**-backwards situation that the owner actually has to prove the asset was not subject to forfieture. Second, the legal procedure is... labyrinthine if you want to get your money back. (assuming it is money at stake) Third, this is one of those situations where attorneys fees can eat up a fair amount of the money (typically, half the amount originally seized will go on legal fees to get it back) All in all, it's been estimated that 1% of assets seized by police are returned.

Oh, and equitable sharing is NOT the forfeiture itself- more or less, it means the feds and state police share the proceeds when both are involved in seizing the assets.