Dutch Approach To Asset Forfeiture Will Literally Take The Clothes Off Pedestrians' Backs
from the take-'em-right-off dept
We've long complained about civil asset forfeiture in the United States. Law enforcement agencies, thanks to a series of perverse incentives, have grown to love taking people's property (usually cash) without charging them for crimes. The excuse is that lifting a few thousand dollars from some random person somehow chips away at drug cartels located overseas.
It would seem to be more crippling if criminal charges were pursued and suspects interrogated, jailed, and flipped. But law enforcement has no time for that, not when a pile of cash is only a few pieces of paperwork away from changing ownership.
They're taking asset forfeiture to a whole new level over in the Netherlands. Dutch cops will now be taking the clothes off people's back if they "suspect" the clothing might be out of the spending range of the person wearing it. (h/t Charles C.W. Cooke)
Police in the Dutch city of Rotterdam have launched a new pilot programme which will see them confiscating expensive clothing and jewellery from young people if they look too poor to own them.
Officers say the scheme will see them target younger men in designer clothes they seem unlikely to be able to afford legally – if it is not clear how the person paid for it, it will be confiscated.
The idea is to deter criminality by sending a signal that the men will not be able to hang onto their ill-gotten gains.
The police say they'll be able to make quick determinations about the legality of… um… clothing by accosting well-dressed youngsters. Presumably, no one will be carrying receipts. The police have used the term "undress" but swear they'll be focused on items that won't leave their former owners in a state of undress (watches are mentioned). Then again, the police also say they'll be packing clothes to hand out to people they've disrobed for dressing too richly, so it's obvious it won't just be watches being watched.
What's propelling this new spin on asset forfeiture? Apparently, it's some form of disrespect Dutch police want to shut down.
Police Chief said the young men targeted often have no income and are already in debt from fines for previous convictions but wearing expensive clothing.
This “undermines the rule of law” which sends “a completely false signal to local residents”, he explained.
The law already gives Dutch police permission to forfeit items procured with criminal funds. Over the last decade, the police have expanded these programs to go far beyond perceived kingpins to reach street hassle levels. Dutch law enforcement have been performing "Rolex checks" on young people for three years now, but the recent expansion into Rotterdam (it originated in Amsterdam), coupled with inflammatory "undress them on the street" comments from the Rotterdam police chief, has resulted in a new wave of backlash.
The police refuse to say how they'll determine rightful ownership of clothing/watches/jewelry they wish to seize. Obviously, the specifics would let "criminals" know what receipts to carry, but also suggests they're not entirely sure how they're going to carry this out either. Of course, the method matters less to the police. They don't have to prove anything. All they have to find is a lack of proof of legitimate ownership. The burden is completely upon those walking around wearing items cops subjectively feel they can't afford. Given the way this deck is stacked, citizens may as well just hand over "expensive" items the moment an officer approaches them. Why go through all the extra hassle if it's not going to change anything?
The police chief has responded to the backlash by blaming the media and the citizens for "rushing ahead" without knowing all the facts. This is a typical response, one that should be greeted with the obvious point that most of the facts came directly from from the police chief, i.e., the threat to "undress" people in public to rebuild "respect" for the "rule of law." Those facts are ugly and indisputable. And they're all attributable to Rotterdam Police Chief Frank Depauuw. He can't blame an extremely awful forfeiture program on all the people who won't be actively participating in it. The facts will continue to develop, but they're never going to reach the point where this program looks like anything but a gross misuse of power.
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, expensive clothing, law enforcement, netherlands
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here's Some Facts
Shops selling expensive clothes will fold.
Stores that sell knock offs of expensive clothes will file for bankruptcy.
Many will become unemployed, and the tax base will consequently drop from a loss of both sales taxes and income taxes.
The first department that should then be targeted should be the one that started Domino Effect, the police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Papers Please
Or just wander the streets naked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Papers Please
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
It was not clear whether police would *only* stop individuals already under parole supervision, or whether they would stop random individuals and find out about their parole status only after the stop (an invitation to profiling).
If this is targeted *only* at parolees with unpaid fines, it might be better than the American approach of keeping such people locked up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corrupt thug Frank Depauuw should come to Baltimore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They're dutch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws
I don't know about the Dutch, but I can tell you from the US that constitutions don't mean what they used to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The rule of law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Papers Please
That would be really suspicous, wouldn't it, if the cops found someone carrying a receipt for years-old clothing? Probably reason enough to arrest.
Discrimination on sex and age might raise problems with courts—they even admit it's their plan: "Officers say the scheme will see them target younger men".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is going to end badly. The Dutch police are already well known for beating non-white suspects in custody and denying them basic human rights such as access to toilets and lawyers, but now they can just steal their stuff with no oversight or comeback whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The rule of law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
Not random—they have to be young, poor-looking men (a trifecta of illegal discrimination).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I am going to start by making the lock-screen background on my phone a picture of the receipt for the phone itself. Then, I will at least be able to retain my evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
good luck keeping the phone, it obviously holds evidence, screen locked showing proof of phone or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Big Mistake
I can see this dying a death about oh, 7 minutes after they mistakenly confiscate Princess Catharina-Amalia's Calvin Klein undies...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This reminds me of the Barneys case.
Young black New Yorker Trevon Christian saved his pennies to buy a sweet $350 Ferragamo belt buckle. He was an engineering student working his way through college, but the counter clerks at Barneys on Madison Avenue thought he must his belt-buckle money was ill-gotten gains.
They called the NYPD who stopped him a block away and detained him down at the station, because it's apparently too suspicious in New York for a young black man to wear a Ferragamo buckle.
I believe he was able to sue Barneys and the NYPD and reach a settlement. I don't know the specifics. But he doesn't wear Ferragamo buckles or shop at Barney's anymore.
But yeah. If you look like you should be poor, apparently wearing nice clothes will get you harassed here in the states too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
Contradictions like that are working fine for the TSA:
(Well, not working, but it lets them harass people.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
All very creepy and "Orwellian," but it might be better than sitting in an American jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws
Holland is a much more socialist country; I believe the police are nationalized, or at least at the state level.
So on the one hand, this means that the local beat cop has less incentive to confiscate stuff, as he won't get to see the proceeds. However...
Where I'm from, that describes a lot of the rich kids with foreign millionaire/billionaire parents. It also describes a bunch of poor folks who buy knockoffs from China.
So how are the police supposed to tell if something's stolen, bought with ill-gotten gains, bought with Daddy's money, bought BY Daddy, or a cheap fake?
From their perspective, it appears they want this so they can take the stuff from punks they already know, who are racketeering etc. and displaying their gains with bling. But there's not much of a step between going after these guys and going after someone who just rubs you the wrong way, and NO controls in place to separate these two groups.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Darkies and Thugs on Jan 29th, 2018 @ 10:27am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
14th amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A high school student could identify the unconstitutionality of CAF. I read the case Bennis v. Michigan (1996) which opened the floodgates for this rampant abuse of legalized theft. Considering how bad it is now, I don't understand Why it has not reached the SCOTUS again with so many publicized cases of this highly unconstitutional act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Doing otherwise would fly in the face of Dutch law, as there are only three ways of asset Confiscatie through criminal proceedings, and this is none of the three. Two require a conviction, and one requires the confiscated item to be unlawful or its possession against public interest.
Civil Inbeslagneming is even more complicated and involves lengthy proceedings, so you can't just walk up to someone and make them forfeit their clothes. Inbeslagneming can eventually lead to forfeiture, but this involves court proceedings and mostly involves debts.
I should say that I am not myself a lawyer, but this information is quite easily accessible. Stop freaking out and turn your eye back to your own problems. U.S. Asset Forfeiture is an order of magnitude worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Onus
I mean, without any evidence, they should have no right to discovery or investigate. "Prove us you own it"...so, you f'ing prove something illegal happened.
Pathetic. Any office who follows this is a piece of crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's the definition of "too poor"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mONKEYS WATCHING MONKEYS??
Double charging and humiliating PEOPLE who cant Pay the state for FINES???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
And not hypothetical or new: some people are already forced to wear trackers on their ankles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 14th amendment
"We're the court, we say it's totes okeydokey, where's our cut of the loot?"
Sort of slows the "due process" part away, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Just because the US has worse problems doesn't mean we should ignore problems elsewhere. Besides which, when it becomes a trend (like Mussolini's fascism) that implies a larger paradigm.
Still, it looks like one of those things where you can't beat the ride even if you beat the rap. And it's telling that the Dutch police are now being issued changes of clothes for when they have to disrobe someone. That sounds like clothing confiscation is commonplace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Got His Name Wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
But doesn't help anyone anywhere when get the problem WRONG as this apparently Dutch person believes.
This is just another TYPICAL Techdirt click-baity re-write from flawed source, topped off by this time another country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here's Some Facts
Actually, the clear suspicion is that the clothes are stolen, therefore it'd be likely that sales would increase.
However, if you'll read an apparently credible Dutch native's comment below, you'll find this is likely mistaken translation, not so bad as claimed.
Now, don't you feel like a fool? -- Because I do, for reading Techdirt and not doubting every claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fashion Police
I wonder if citizens can reverse this, take expensive clothes & jewelry from young male police officers, police no can afford clothes & jewelry with police pay; young male police must use illegal methods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not that I agree with this policy, but I can certainly agree that a debtor or homeless person walking around in a jacket that could pay them three months of rent is suspicious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Darkies and Thugs on Jan 29th, 2018 @ 10:27am
Moreover, if you still have a knee-jerk reaction to our culture, recently there are variants on this sidekick that do not wear black facepaint, and are fully white, showing that white people can also be sidekicks, or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The police can take the items, but they have no right to them, and must either return the items or prove that they were used criminally in a court of law. Dutch law does not allow the state to seize items like this.
Criminally, the state may only seize items that have been used in a crime or are unlawful or against public interest to posses (which this is not).
Civilly, the state may only seize items to pay a person's debt, and with prior notice. If the person can pay in cash, the item cannot be seized. The only exception to this is that an asset can be seized if a judge orders it. (Which this is also not).
Therefore the state cannot actually take the items permanently, only hold on to them temporarily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: mONKEYS WATCHING MONKEYS??
I should mention by the way that this article is embellished, either because of a faulty translation or journalistic incompetence. The state has no right to the items they've confiscated and by law they must be returned, unless the police can prove that the items were used criminally. This is an issue entirely unrelated to asset forfeiture in that regard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Unless they can prove that you illegally aquired it, it's going to be returned to you.
To which the next question is: 'How quickly?'.
While it's better that they need to demonstrate guilt rather than the accused demonstrate innocence if you're correct, the fact that they can take it in the first place and only keep it with a showing of illegal acquisition originally isn't that much better.
Two require a conviction, and one requires the confiscated item to be unlawful or its possession against public interest.
His explanation seems to cover that last one if a court cares to agree with him.
'This “undermines the rule of law” which sends “a completely false signal to local residents”, he explained.'
It's justified, and therefor legal, because it 'undermines the rule of law', and as such combating the practice of people wearing clothes they 'shouldn't have' is in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: Darkies and Thugs on Jan 29th, 2018 @ 10:27am
"Sinterklaas or Sint-Nicolaas is a legendary figure based on Saint Nicholas, patron saint of children... The feast of Sinterklaas celebrates the name day of Saint Nicholas on 6 December... Sinterklaas is the primary source of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus... Sinterklaas is assisted by many mischievous helpers with black faces and colourful Moorish dresses."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas
So there's the character Sinterklaas, more or less equivalent to Santa Claus, and the holiday of the same name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws
However, luckily things are not as this article describes it and the issue in fact appears entirely unrelated to asset forfeiture. The following comes from my understanding of Dutch law regarding confiscation.
Legally, the state has no right to confiscated items. Of course one can confiscate items for the purposes of an investigation, but in criminal proceedings the state can only secure the right to these assets if they can be proven to have been used criminally, or if they're illegal or against public interest to own. Expensive jackets are not illegal, and it'd take charging the owner with a crime involving the jacket to meet the other option.
Civilly, this can only be done to pay debt or as ordered by a judge. Since the police do not carry a judge in their pocket to order the items to be seized, they can legally only hold them temporarily until the investigation concludes, unless they want to go through a lengthy civil procedure (which without due cause they would lose). If the person is charged and the item was involved in the crime, it can then be legally seized permanently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Darkies and Thugs on Jan 29th, 2018 @ 10:27am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
The argument here is that it undermines the rule of law because it's been illegally obtained, and yet the police can do nothing to prevent this sort of thing.
You cannot make the argument that because it undermines the rule of law, it's against public interest; Only if it undermines the rule of law can it be shown to be against public interest, in other words, if the person is a criminal. The whole argument falls flat on its face if the person hasn't done anything wrong and any court will recognise that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would like a source on this please. I've looked it up and I can't find any of this anywhere. The only thing I can find is a single report five years ago where all of 3 people have spoken out against a very small subset of police.
With the lack of google results when I search things like "Dutch police beating blacks" I can confidently assert that the Dutch police is not in the slightest well-known for this, or, slightly less confidently, at all known to do this. I'd be particularly interested in sources about denying people in custody basic human rights.
Unless you can provide credible sources (including the idea that this policy is primarily targeted towards black people), your entire comment is a big falsehood. That's actually pretty impressive, but not in a good way.
> now they can just steal their stuff with no oversight or comeback whatsoever.
This article mistakenly asserts that this policy is similar to asset forfeiture, which it's not. The police can only temporarily seize assets unless the asset can be proven to be involved in criminal activity, or one other circumstance which doesn't apply to this policy to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
The whole argument falls flat on its face if the person hasn't done anything wrong and any court will recognise that.
Even assuming that the courts do indeed not buy the argument, the problem is that, unless I'm missing something, that happens after the property has been taken in the first place. It's nice and all that someone will get their stuff back, the problem is that they stand to lose it and be forced to deal with the courts in the first place on accusation alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Laws
It's not the case that they'll just walk up to some random guy who looks "too poor" to ask for his receipts. They're specifically targeting people whom they know.
So in practice it is like this: They spot a guy they know has a criminal record and they know he's on welfare but still he's wearing expensive clothing and watches or, for that matter, he's driving a brand new BMW M3. In that case they'll want to check how he can afford these things.
While there is an asset forfeiture procedure in The Netherlands, as mentioned above, it can only start after you have been convicted of a crime and the prosecution has to prove they are ill-gotten gains.
That is not to say that the procedures from the article do not have their problems. Cases of racial profiling do happen and the rules are not always implemented properly. It's however a bit over the top to suggest that if you look "Moroccan" and you wear an expensive coat you'll have to carry your receipt with you at all times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
And, because I'm a deep-rooted cynic, I wonder how much stuff will somehow be 'lost'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
However, since seizing it properly must be done through the appropriate proceedings, it's going to look really bad on anyone's record if they do "lose" it; especially since for the intended target of this policy the held item is going to be part of a criminal investigation. "Losing" that sort of item is highly suspect, and cannot be done inconspicuously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Since police don't deal out charges at random, it follows that either you get back your item without having to do anything, or you become a suspect in a credible criminal investigation.
The bigger fish to fry in this case is making sure you don't go to jail, and the item they're holding is just an added deterrent from doing bad stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The state can take your stuff. Then, by law, they have to give it back unless they can make and prove their case for hanging on to your stuff. That. Is. The. Problem.
Warrant based on probable cause/reasonable suspicion FIRST, then court order, then forfeiture, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I've got some designer gear at home but I got it from a second hand shop. On my salary, I'd struggle to afford to buy it new. Should it be confiscated till I can prove where I got it from (I threw away the receipt ages ago and paid in cash)? That is what I'd have to do to get my fancy Monsoon blouse back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
1) prove that the asset has been used criminally. They won't try this route without a strong indication that you've actually done something illegal, because to do this they'd need to launch a full-on criminal investigation into you. At the point where that goes to court you'll have bigger fish to fry like not going to jail, which, hey, if you succeed you'll also get your asset back. Or:
2) if applicable, give them the chance to pay their debt in return for the item, which given the involved debt, if they can't do that, they would have lost the asset to the debt collector anyway. Of course, this entire option doesn't exist if you don't have debts.
Sure, it's a problem that they can just take it. That's why this policy is controversial here as well. But it's far from a bureaucratic maze to get it back, since they can't legally assert forfeiture in any way, shape or form unless it's preceded by a lot of effort on their part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
I can't help but feel that you keep focusing on the wrong issue as you try to defend this practice(or at least downplay how bad it is). You've said multiple times that 'unless you're charged, you'll get your stuff back', but as I and others have tried to point out that completely ignores that someone can have their stuff taken on accusation alone in the first place.
If someone took your property(clothes, phone, whatever), claiming that you 'looked suspicious', would you be mollified when they told you that you'd get it back eventually? The original taking of property is the problem, that they don't get to keep it does not make that problem go away or make it any better.
Even assuming that Dutch police are paragons of virtue who would never abuse this to harass someone they don't like(for whatever reason), that core problem remains, and it doesn't get any better by repeatedly pointing out that they aren't allowed to keep the items unless they want to go to court for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Police here is not like in the States. Cases about abuse of power are very rare and are taken very seriously. Police works at a national level too, so individual departments will get cracked down on hard for stepping out of line.
Judges aren't part of the police force, and will dismiss frivolous allegations. This likely also opens up an opportunity for the suspect to take them to civil court for unlawful arrest, and will prompt an investigation into the police department, likely with involved officers losing their jobs.
If even the judge can't be trusted to be impartial, they can be replaced by any of the involved parties, including in this case the suspect. The House of Substitution presides over these requests and the judges making up the substitution panel themselves have no stake in the result of the trial.
A request to substitute will always be heard by at least 3 judges, and they themselves are not immune to substitution. Hence it is possible to have members of a substitution panel substituted.
If all this fails, the decision can still be appealed and be heard by a more important and centralised court, less likely to have any stake in the outcome of the trial. Even then you can still submit a request for the case to be monitored by the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court monitors a case, the decision they make can cause a judicial crisis if it's made in bad faith, since any ruling in bad faith by the Supreme Court will turn the entire system on its head. This decision is made by 11 Supreme Court judges. If you request a Supreme Court judge to be substituted, this decision will be made by three or five of the highest ranked judges in the country. Like, these people are no joke.
As a government employee, trying to compromise this process will put your career on the fast track back to the labour market. Not to mention, none of the parties mentioned inherently have any sort of stake in taking your item. They won't get anything for getting it forfeited.
Even if you assume that the state has some sort of incentive to encourage unlawful forfeiture, you just can't pay off all the involved police officers from the price of a forfeited item, let alone a public prosecutor, a dozen judges and half the Supreme Court.
In conclusion, this just doesn't work. Even in bad faith, there's no way to make this profitable for the state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
Yes, they can take the item on accusation alone, and yes, that's bad. All I'm trying to do is show that other concerns people have voiced really are not applicable.
I will say one more thing, and that's that it's unlikely that the police will try to take an item without having a reasonable belief that you did indeed obtain it illegally, due to the extra hassle it causes for them to have to hold on to the item, investigate its origins, and return it to you if you're innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
However, you wouldn't have to prove where it came from. The police will have to prove you obtained it illegally. The burden of proof is on them. You have to do nothing at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whenever they take something and have to give it back because there was no underlying illegality, they've punished an innocent person - and that should require them to compensate the innocent person for the inconvenience (and, potentially, the public humiliation) involved.
Is there any provision in the law for appropriately compensating those whose property was taken when they had in fact done nothing wrong? And does that compensation in any way come from the police who committed the offense against the innocent person?
I'd be extremely surprised if so, but if there is, that would at least serve to provide the police with an incentive not to overreach themselves and abuse the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Random profiling or reasonable parole enforcement?
No one discussing parole mentions that in many cases, parolees have to pay for the "costs" of their parole? As if a parolee can get a well-paying job straight out of the box. It's all kinds of fkd up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 14th amendment
Due process is not so well-defined. Only some judges, well after any fact, make reasonable rulings on what "reasonable" means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
At some point a lawyer is involved, and that means either court or the cost of going to court. That's the problem.
Please can you talk me through the procedure for retrieving seized items?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
So basically it's a way to harass people, who can then apply (please can you advise as to how they can apply?) to get their seized items back.
That the cops risk being called to account may or may not be a deterrent but the fact is this will be abused. Where there's an opportunity to abuse, there's abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Dutch, and I believe there has been a translation mixup.
I will say one more thing, and that's that it's unlikely that the police will try to take an item without having a reasonable belief that you did indeed obtain it illegally, due to the extra hassle it causes for them to have to hold on to the item, investigate its origins, and return it to you if you're innocent.
Perhaps you're right, but I can't help doing a mental countdown to "I told you so."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the question not being answered here is, when the cops have decided that you're too poor to be wearing a jacket with "Moschino" written on it, what do you do to get it back? What is the procedure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Looking poor...
If they have a nice enough tan that they obviously don't work indoors under factory fluorescent lights, but not a dark enough tan to suggest they work out in the fields.
That nice beach / salon golden-orange tan. And sun-bleached hair. Everyone else is too poor to wear clothes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Papers Please
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Men only
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hope the Dutch government arent TOO religious.
Because when the oceans rise by 2026 and begin to wash their country back into the ocean, it'll almost seem like some angry deity has decided to expunge them from the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"assisted by many mischievous helpers"
Have you considered changing them to Oompa Loompas?
It would be pretty awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]