To Protect and to Serve II

#5,729
#5,729
Cdywolfe said:
Now that assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies exceed burglaries, bipartisan bill aims to stop the abuse - AEI

This was the first thing that popped up when I googled it. There appeared to be plenty of other articles if you don’t like this one for some reason. I also tried to google a counter argument and couldn’t find one. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, only that I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...

That is unreal. This sounds like something that would have happened in Nazi Germany, not the supposedly freedom-loving United States of America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,730
#5,730
Cdywolfe said:
Now that assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies exceed burglaries, bipartisan bill aims to stop the abuse - AEI

This was the first thing that popped up when I googled it. There appeared to be plenty of other articles if you don’t like this one for some reason. I also tried to google a counter argument and couldn’t find one. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, only that I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...

No, I just wanted to see the data, and the source.

And at first read, it looks solid. Now...

First off, what with me being an LEO, let me say that I have no stomach for or tolerance of misapplication of the law. And anytime an innocent suffers due to misapplication or overzealous or immoral application of the law, I'm firmly on the side of the citizen.

That being said, Asset Forfeiture / Civil Forfeiture laws are another example of good law that is being abused in too many cases. One of the lawyerly types here can hold a seminar on it if you'd like, but the basic idea is that when law enforcement busts a major (key word, "major") crime ring / drug dealer / financial fraud ring, group, or even individual, they have a means to go after everything that is connected to the crime(s), i.e. - any real property, homes, vehicles, boats, cash, stocks, or any assets that are a direct result or "fruit" of the crimes charged. In theory, it's a really good idea. Take everything they stole or converted to personal assets, and use it to pay for the prosecution, victim's compensation, etc, etc. Good idea.

And there are a zillion "rules" related to it. And as is the case with most laws, all it takes is an overzealous or poorly trained USA, DA, or anyone in that pipeline, including cops, to turn it into something bad instead of something good.

Unless the law has changed recently, that much cash heading to a known terrorist sponsor state should have, and did, raise eyebrows. He either did not have the proper documentation to show the origin of the cash (I know...his money...he shouldn't have to prove anything), or something else didn't match up, because CBP is usually...usually...by the book. So I don't know.

Not taking sides. If it were my money, I'd be mad as hell. Here again, we (maybe) have an example of the 11th Commandment Of Law Enforcement, which states "Lo, Verily...there be no situation that a good cop cannot make worseth."

All I got. Hope it helped.
 
#5,731
#5,731
Context of why he was running in the first place is important, but most of us can give a "damn!" after watching that.

[twitter]1001961844653817856[/twitter]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,733
#5,733
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#5,734
#5,734
hog88 said:
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with this. I’ve got no problem with asset forfeiture tied to a conviction (obviously not the traffic stop crap. That’s just wrong. We have a little town called Lavon near me that got the whole PD busted on corruption over stuff like that. ) But the order should be 1) indictment 2) conviction 3) then forfeiture tied to a conviction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,736
#5,736
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I agree with this. I’ve got no problem with asset forfeiture tied to a conviction (obviously not the traffic stop crap. That’s just wrong. We have a little town called Lavon near me that got the whole PD busted on corruption over stuff like that. ) But the order should be 1) indictment 2) conviction 3) then forfeiture tied to a conviction.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although if I take someone to jail whom I've arrested with a lot of dope on them, and thousands of dollars in cash, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest of seizing their cash.

I've never actually done it, for the record.
 
Last edited:
#5,737
#5,737
hog88 said:
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
 
Last edited:
#5,739
#5,739
orangeblood79 said:
Agreed, although if I take someone to jail whom I've arrested with a lot of dope on them, and thousands of dollars in cash, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest of seizing their cash.

I've never actually done it, for the record.
Click to expand...

Remember, "seizure" and "forfeiture" are two different things. I've seized a lot of cash on stops and warrant service where I found enough drugs to keep Neyland Stadium stoned for a month.

And believe it or not, we ended up giving some...maybe 30%?...of it back because we could not positively connect it to the criminal activity.

Remember, we only catch the dumb ones.
 
#5,742
#5,742
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
Click to expand...

Fair enough and I agree, better to have some bad guys get off than screw over 1 innocent.

Only way I know how to fix it is to do away with it.
 
#5,743
#5,743
orangeblood79 said:
Agreed, although if I take someone to jail whom I've arrested with a lot of dope on them, and thousands of dollars in cash, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest of seizing their cash.

I've never actually done it, for the record.
Click to expand...

What proof do you have that the money is related to drug activity? Or even if some of it was, how do you know how much is drug related and how much is from other sources? And more to the point, unless the money was stolen from someone or part of a con/racket. Why do you need to confiscate any of it? The money was made through a mutual exchange, not violence or theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,744
#5,744
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
Click to expand...

The problem is that it usually isn't the kingpins getting caught up in these LEO shakedowns, but immigrants from Albania or ordinary people with a large amount of cash for whatever reason.
 
#5,745
#5,745
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
Click to expand...

I’m sure it comes as no shock that if it were up to me we’d simply do away with and that’d solve the problem. But knowing that isn’t gonna happen, I feel like the solution is simple. Hold the departments/officers that abuse it accountable. Tell them they can do it but when they do, they damn well better be able to present a reasonable argument that’s backed with evidence that this property is linked to criminal activity. If they can’t do that then they better not take it or be prepared to face consequences.

Also I’d like to see a rule saying that if charges aren’t filed within 24 hours the property is immediately returned. Forget a conviction... Far too many of these cases involve situations where charges where never filed and the property was never returned. File charges immediately or give it back with an apology.

It’s also a huge conflict of interest how much of it ends up getting funneled to the department that took it. Anybody with an IQ above 70 can see how that’s just begging for corruption and abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,746
#5,746
Rasputin_Vol said:
What proof do you have that the money is related to drug activity? Or even if some of it was, how do you know how much is drug related and how much is from other sources? And more to the point, unless the money was stolen from someone or part of a con/racket. Why do you need to confiscate any of it? The money was made through a mutual exchange, not violence or theft.
Click to expand...

You've always operated under this narrative that drug dealing is not only legal but ok. I've worked 3 OD's this week alone, you're never going to convince me that anything other than weed should be legal (which I do...legalize it and tax the sh!t out of it). I'm not going down this rabbit hole either, we've had this conversation before and neither of us are going to budge.

And if the person whose money is seized wishes to provide proof that he obtained this money through legal means, it's rightfully theirs and therefore should be returned.
 
#5,747
#5,747
GreyWolf1129 said:
Remember, "seizure" and "forfeiture" are two different things. I've seized a lot of cash on stops and warrant service where I found enough drugs to keep Neyland Stadium stoned for a month.

And believe it or not, we ended up giving some...maybe 30%?...of it back because we could not positively connect it to the criminal activity.

Remember, we only catch the dumb ones.
Click to expand...

You're right. My bad.
 
#5,748
#5,748
Cdywolfe said:
I’m sure it comes as no shock that if it were up to me we’d simply do away with and that’d solve the problem. But knowing that isn’t gonna happen, I feel like the solution is simple. Hold the departments/officers that abuse it accountable. Tell them they can do it but when they do, they damn well better be able to present a reasonable argument that’s backed with evidence that this property is linked to criminal activity. If they can’t do that then they better not take it or be prepared to face consequences.

Also I’d like to see a rule saying that if charges aren’t filed within 24 hours the property is immediately returned. Forget a conviction... Far too many of these cases involve situations where charges where never filed and the property was never returned. File charges immediately or give it back with an apology.

It’s also a huge conflict of interest how much of it ends up getting funneled to the department that took it. Anybody with an IQ above 70 can see how that’s just begging for corruption and abuse.
Click to expand...
The department that took the money should have to appear before a judge within 24 hours and show proof that the money is linked to criminal activity. If not it should be returned immediately with interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5,750
#5,750
orangeblood79 said:
You've always operated under this narrative that drug dealing is not only legal but ok. I've worked 3 OD's this week alone, you're never going to convince me that anything other than weed should be legal (which I do...legalize it and tax the sh!t out of it). I'm not going down this rabbit hole either, we've had this conversation before and neither of us are going to budge.

And if the person whose money is seized wishes to provide proof that he obtained this money through legal means, it's rightfully theirs and therefore should be returned.
Click to expand...

I think the legalization of drugs or legalization of certain drugs is a separate debate. I guess my point is why is money even being confiscated when it is highly likely that it was not stolen but obtained through fair commerce. I have no issue with the state returning property to the rightful owner. I'm just wondering why there is a need to keep property that isn't obtained through guile or theft.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top