The Nation's Criminals Can't Keep Up With The Government's Legalized Theft Programs
from the the-only-solution-is-a-more-productive-criminal-element dept
The Institute for Justice has released its latest report on asset forfeiture. Despite some recent legislative attempts to add a much-needed conviction requirement to the seizure of property, most of the country still allows law enforcement to proceed under the assumption that money, vehicles and houses are "guilty," even if those they take this property from are, for all intents and purposes, innocent.
The absence of this key factor has resulted in decades of nationwide abuse. The IJ's updated chart ranking states' asset forfeiture policies on an A-F scale shows only one A rating: New Mexico. The state's recent passage of significant asset forfeiture reform is the only highlight in the report. The rest of the nation continues on its path of underachievement, preferring to defer to law enforcement's best judgment on how to fight the Drug War. (While also occasionally used to target fraud and organized crime, forfeiture programs are now mostly deployed to take money from people/vehicles that smell like marijuana.)
The largest amount of resistance to asset forfeiture reform efforts come from the agencies that benefit most from the liquidation of seized property.
The highest grades correspond directly to states where local agencies have the least to gain from seized assets. Unsurprisingly, removing the incentive to simply take money/property has resulted in less abuse of forfeiture programs.
But these (few) speed bumps have done next to nothing to slow the asset forfeiture machine. It's been on a downhill roll since the late 80s, resulting in $12.6 seized at the federal level from 1989 to 2010. Since 2010, though, the year-to-year increases have been exponential. In 2014 alone, US Attorneys "forfeited" $4.5 billion. This dollar amount now places federal law enforcement at the top of the list of of "People Who Take Stuff That Belongs To Others."
According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.Of course, there are several legitimate (i.e., tied to convictions) forfeitures included in that amount, whereas no burglary can ever be considered "legitimate." And, as the DOJ points out, some recent sizable seizures have produced gaudy forfeiture numbers.
A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year.So, there are mitigating factors in this law enforcement-to-criminals comparison, but that doesn't mean asset forfeiture programs are largely "right" or free from abuse. The federal government has argued it has the right to seize even "untainted" funds and a majority of cash seizures -- especially at the local level -- don't rise to "drug kingpin" levels. As was noted, when Washington, DC moved forward with asset forfeiture reform, its local police force more resembled pathetic stickup men than the dismantlers of drug empires.
In addition, the bill sets other limits. Vehicles may not be seized unless "clear and convincing evidence" exists that they were used in the commission of a crime. Cash amounts under $1,000 would be presumed "innocent," i.e., not subject to forfeiture. This stipulation cuts to the heart of the DC PD's abuse of asset forfeiture -- more than half of its $5.5 million in cash seizures were for less than $141, with over 1,000 of the 12,000 seizures being for less than $20.Further watering down the comparison is this depressing fact: in asset forfeiture, the government (both local and federal) tends to place the burden of proof on the former owners of seized property. Arrested burglars, however, are given the Constitutional benefit of a doubt (presumed innocent) when they end up in court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, crime, legalized theft, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dumb vs Smart
Dumb criminals steal from people at gun-point, and suffer penalties when they get caught.
Smart criminals steal from people at badge-point, and face no penalties at all when they get 'caught'.
If you want to rob someone, get a badge first, as it doubles as a 'Get out of jail/trial free' card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm being robbed! Please send someone!"
"Can you describe the thief?"
"Yes, one's wearing a police uniform and the other an expensive suit. They're claiming 'civil forfeiture'. Help!"
"I'm sorry, sir, but 911 cannot assist you with your request. There's no one to police the police and the prosecuting attorney has a financial gain here. You're fucked, so just bend over and deal with it. Have a nice day."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm being robbed! Please send someone!"
"I'm sorry, we don't take sloppy seconds."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not much sense in us coming if you have already been relieved of your valuables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither can the law abiding citizens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was the total amount seized through asset forfeiture between 1989 and 2010 really only $12.60? (Or is this supposed to be $12.6B?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture#sthash.Jek9lLnP.Ha5psQtY.dpbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now all we need to do to battle the largest criminals is rescinding the forfeiture laws. Too bad that they won't let us.
And that's why we have a Bill of Rights and why it was a bad idea to ignore it. Any genie you let out of that bottle has an agenda to stay outside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloak it how they will; use what language they will; civil asset forfeiture is neither more nor less than legalized theft.
PERIOD.
There is and can be no excuse for this behavior.
There is and can be no 'mitigation' of this behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armed robbery!
I prefer the term "armed robbery". Call it what it really is.
It's just incredible that anyone can justify confiscating less than $200 cash from somebody on the pretext of drug crime. Who keeps voting in these "tough on crime", "war on drugs" politicians? Don't these politicians give one hoot what their stupid laws result in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, cash amounts under $1000 will be seized on charges of deliberately circumventing law enforcement by knowing and following the law. If the IRS can do it, and Aereo can lose court cases on it, then why can't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fail to see the difference...
So on the one hand, a burglar is presumed innocent until theft is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, the police officer is presumed innocent until theft is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where's the difference, other than that one of them gets to say "see, it's all legal?"
In both situations, the citizens' property is gone, and not likely to be recovered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I fail to see the difference...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I fail to see the difference...
Ah, but you see, in an armed robbery at badge-point/'asset forfeiture' case, the officer(s) involved aren't the ones on trial, the stolen property is, and it is automatically assumed to be guilty. It's up to the former owner of said property to prove otherwise if they want to recover their stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but...
... or did the cops get a "finder's fee" for finally stumbling onto what was apparently the most obvious pyramid rip-off in decades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Told you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe to simplistic. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe to simplistic. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PATH OF THIS COUNTRIES FUTURE
fORGOTTON,ha,ha now IF HE HAS A NET WORTH OF ! bIllion us $$ we'LL CONSIDER him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of the world
Stand with the indigenous people of the occupied West in what is called America as the call of Australia
Freedom of the world begins to bring down the United Nations and its resolutions since its inception
To all the inhabitants of the occupied continents under the lie of the discovery of America
First, it must strike at the so-called United Nations and all its resolutions
Because they were founded to protect the murderer from prosecution
To the inhabitants of the Far West who were colonized by the colonizer
They are the owners of history, civilization and land occupied under the lie of discovery
Is occupation of the land owned by people is called discovery
I hope that all of the Aboriginals belonged to the three continents that were named North America, South America and Australia
I can read these books and then you can respond to us with any response you consider the response of men who have blood and others
If you find that I am sad for a people who have been killed and seek punishment from the murderer
So I carry a weapon and liberate the land and the ruler who killed people and stole the identity and civilization and history and must be one line from the north of the continent to the far south
You will not be defeated and you are the owners of a cause forgotten by the world and called murder and occupation discovery
Read. Then take your weapon and liberate the land from the European colonization that imposes immigration. People of the world come to your land to form a people. It is illegal and prevents the original people of the land from acting in your land and making walls and armies to kill you
Canadian writer
William Carr
Theft of a Nation. Pdf
- Pawns in the game (stones on the chessboard). Pdf
- Jews .. behind every crime. Pdf
Satan rules the world. Pdf
Red fog rising sky of America
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=009/llrd009.db&recNum=376
[ link to this | view in chronology ]