Civil Forfeiture

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Sweet flip flop.

Where have I flip flopped?   I still disagree with it.   Should I become a Democrat over this?   Most of them support it too.  Jesus at least try to make sense.

LooseGoose wrote:Public Safety‏@publicsafety 19h19 hours ago
More
.@konnieburton leads the fight against civil asset forfeiture in the Texas Senate:

A Firestorm Over Civil Assets Forfeiture

GRR Spartan wrote:Your boy Trump loves this stuff as do most of the Republicans you vote for. Seizures keep your taxes lower.

Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday signalled that the abusive practice of civil asset forfeiture is ripe for expanded constitutional scrutiny.

The case is Lisa Olivia Leonard v. Texas. James Leonard (the petitioner’s son) was stopped by police for a traffic infraction in 2013 “along a known drug corridor.” Police searched Mr. Leonard’s vehicle and discovered a safe containing $201,100 and the bill of sale for a home. Arguing that the money was either proceeds from a drug sale or going to be used in such a sale, the state initiated forfeiture proceedings and took the money. The safe actually belonged to James’ mother Lisa, who brought suit to protect her property from the government seizure.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari for procedural reasons, but Justice Thomas had some harsh words for civil forfeiture anyway, and suggested that it’s time for the Supreme Court to take another look at the practice:

Civil proceedings often lack certain procedural protections that accompany criminal proceedings, such as the right to a jury trial and a heightened standard of proof.

Partially as a result of this distinct legal regime, civil forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable. And because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.

This system - where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use - has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses…

Justice Thomas also noted the disparate impact these types of abuses have on the poorest and most vulnerable communities:

These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.

The opinion goes on to explain that while the court has historically upheld the constitutionality of civil forfeiture, the modern practice of forfeiture has strayed far from its narrow historical use and purpose:

LooseGoose wrote:Remember this the next time you're hating on Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas Is Skeptical of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday signalled that the abusive practice of civil asset forfeiture is ripe for expanded constitutional scrutiny.

The case is Lisa Olivia Leonard v. Texas. James Leonard (the petitioner’s son) was stopped by police for a traffic infraction in 2013 “along a known drug corridor.” Police searched Mr. Leonard’s vehicle and discovered a safe containing $201,100 and the bill of sale for a home. Arguing that the money was either proceeds from a drug sale or going to be used in such a sale, the state initiated forfeiture proceedings and took the money. The safe actually belonged to James’ mother Lisa, who brought suit to protect her property from the government seizure.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari for procedural reasons, but Justice Thomas had some harsh words for civil forfeiture anyway, and suggested that it’s time for the Supreme Court to take another look at the practice:

Civil proceedings often lack certain procedural protections that accompany criminal proceedings, such as the right to a jury trial and a heightened standard of proof.

Partially as a result of this distinct legal regime, civil forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable. And because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.

This system - where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use - has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses…

Justice Thomas also noted the disparate impact these types of abuses have on the poorest and most vulnerable communities:

These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.

The opinion goes on to explain that while the court has historically upheld the constitutionality of civil forfeiture, the modern practice of forfeiture has strayed far from its narrow historical use and purpose:

In total, the Inspector General reports the DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007, accounting for 80 percent of all Justice Department cash seizures. Those figures do not include other property, such as cars and electronics, which are favorite targets for seizure by law enforcement.

All of this is possible through civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it's connected to criminal activity, without having to file criminal charges against the owner. While law enforcement groups say civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug traffickers and organized crime, the Inspector General's findings echo the concerns of many civil liberties groups, which say asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize property.

LooseGoose wrote:By the Administration most of you loved so much....


THIS IS JUST GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED THEFT: DEA Seized $4 Billion From People Since 2007. Most Were Never Charged with a Crime: A new government watchdog report finds the DEA grabs cash just for the sake of grabbing cash, raising civil liberties concerns.

DEA Seized $4 Billion From People Since 2007. Most Were Never Charged with a Crime

In total, the Inspector General reports the DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007, accounting for 80 percent of all Justice Department cash seizures. Those figures do not include other property, such as cars and electronics, which are favorite targets for seizure by law enforcement.

All of this is possible through civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it's connected to criminal activity, without having to file criminal charges against the owner. While law enforcement groups say civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug traffickers and organized crime, the Inspector General's findings echo the concerns of many civil liberties groups, which say asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize property.

“This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote in his statement. He cited a New Yorker article on a small Texas town where police and prosecutors collaborate to seize cash and goods from out-of-town motorists passing through, then split the proceeds between themselves. “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings,” he noted.

LooseGoose wrote:Justice Thomas's Doubts About Civil Forfeiture

“This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote in his statement. He cited a New Yorker article on a small Texas town where police and prosecutors collaborate to seize cash and goods from out-of-town motorists passing through, then split the proceeds between themselves. “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings,” he noted.

Alongside Sen. Rand Paul, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has become one of the most high-profile critics of “civil forfeiture.” Under this appalling practice, police can confiscate property, even from those who haven’t been charged with a crime. In a concurrence released last month, Justice Thomas surprised many when he slammed the practice as “egregious” and questioned if it’s even constitutional. Although his concurrence was brief—just six pages—Justice Thomas identified many of the glaring defects in civil forfeiture.

Since it takes place in civil court, those proceedings “often lack certain procedural protections that accompany criminal proceedings, such as the right to a jury trial and a heightened standard of proof.” Fewer safeguards means it’s even easier for innocent owners to lose their cash, cars, or their own homes.

Perversely, “forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.” Justice Thomas cited how police in Tenaha, Texas seized cash from motorists and even threatened to hand their children over to Child Protective Services if they didn’t relinquish the money.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

"We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers," Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

GRR Spartan wrote:So poor schlep in Oscoda County gets pinched in a marijuana bust and could see assets seized.

Don't think that's supposed to happen in convienient conservative world.

Turtleneck wrote:Loose's all-time favorite AG...

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.

"We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers," Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/jeff-sessions-wants-police-to-take-more-cash-from-american-citizens/?utm_term=.7b6bf32ea5e2

I look at pictures like this and am amazed we have any honest cops. I respect any cop that doesn't take a stack of those and report 5K less taken. If you guys tell me you have no doubt you wouldn't take any I won't disagree but my month from mid June: Dad I need 18000 dollars for an orgo Chem class at Oakland, Dad if we pay 3K for rent by July 5 we get a 500 dollar discount and don't pay till December again. Dad my orgo Chem book is 280. Dad I need a new laptop by September. Then regular college costs. I'm giving a dwags example and I know cops are in my same position and worse. Temptation would be there and it would be hard not to. I'd say I'd be 70/30 in not grabbing some. I know my wife would be 100/0 in not doing it. But damn guys, cops who are honest get much respect

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Loose's all-time favorite AG...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/jeff-sessions-wants-police-to-take-more-cash-from-american-citizens/?utm_term=.7b6bf32ea5e2

Please post any evidence to support this assertion. I won't bother waiting since it's your normal made up bullshit.


Sessions needs to go between this and pot he's out of his mind.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:So we know Trump and Sessions both like forfeiture. But here's the million dollar question: how does Gorsuch feel about it?

Judge Neil Gorsuch, nominated by the President to the Supreme Court of theUnited States, does not have an extensive record of written opinions on asset forfeiture issues. In his decade on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he has apparently authored only four opinions of note.

The most significant involved the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the Government’s effort, when trying a criminal case for the second time, to forfeit property that the jury declined to forfeit in the defendant’s first trial.

Another case concerned the calculation of the amount of money subject to a criminal forfeiture order and whether the trial judge had improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on that issue.

Finally, the other two cases concerned civil lawsuits filed against law enforcement agents, their agencies, and a local municipality, alleging various violations of the plaintiffs’ rights in the course of a civil forfeiture action.

In all of these cases, Judge Gorsuch’s opinion resolved the matter in favor of the Government or the law enforcement agent or agency.

Turtleneck wrote:

Judge Neil Gorsuch, nominated by the President to the Supreme Court of theUnited States, does not have an extensive record of written opinions on asset forfeiture issues. In his decade on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he has apparently authored only four opinions of note.

The most significant involved the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the Government’s effort, when trying a criminal case for the second time, to forfeit property that the jury declined to forfeit in the defendant’s first trial.

Another case concerned the calculation of the amount of money subject to a criminal forfeiture order and whether the trial judge had improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on that issue.

Finally, the other two cases concerned civil lawsuits filed against law enforcement agents, their agencies, and a local municipality, alleging various violations of the plaintiffs’ rights in the course of a civil forfeiture action.

In all of these cases, Judge Gorsuch’s opinion resolved the matter in favor of the Government or the law enforcement agent or agency.

https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/?p=1114

Thanks to new reporting requirements enacted into law in Michigan, it’s become clear just how abusive the state’s asset forfeiture laws really are.

A new report from the Michigan Department of State Police shows that last year charges were never filed in nearly 10 percent of the cases that collected more than $15 million in forfeited cash and property. State, county and local agencies documented 5,290 civil asset forfeitures. But no one was charged with a crime in 523 of those instances, and in another 196 cases, people were charged but not convicted.

After selling items or donating property, police reported $12.3 million in net proceeds between Feb. 1 and Dec. 31, 2016.

That’s outrageous.

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft. Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime. Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit. Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit. That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice. A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.

LooseGoose wrote:Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft. Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime. Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit. Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit. That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice. A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.

LooseGoose wrote:Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft. Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime. Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit. Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit. That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice. A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.