Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: New Mexico moves to curb civil asset forfeitures by police
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/ ... l-asset-forfeitures-by-police/
Published: Mar 26, 2015
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2015-03-26 12:15:16 by Tooconservative
Keywords: forfeiture
Views: 12996
Comments: 47
Perhaps it’s just the arrival of Spring which has put me in a more hopeful mood of late, but there seem to be some opportunities for government to actually do something good for a change. The other day I pointed to the possibility that Congress might get together and pass the Sportsman’s Act. Now, thanks to the good folks in New Mexico, there is a glimmer of hope that a more egregious problem might be addressed. Last year we looked at the widespread problem of law enforcement and government officials at the local, state and federal levels using the practice of civil forfeiture to grab up the assets of citizens. This takes place even in cases where there was never a conviction for any crime, with the citizen left to fight their way through the courts to “prove their innocence” and get their cash or property back. Examples of this often literal highway robbery are far too numerous to be ignored at this point. Eric Holder made a couple of moves to scale back the practice, but they were half measures at best which are easily thwarted by determined agencies. (Holder’s effort failed to cover numerous loopholes in the equitable-sharing program.) Things may finally be changing, however. Several states have responded to public outrage over this legalized theft and tried to turn back the tide. The latest effort, as reported by Forbes, is taking place in New Mexico. The two key features of this legislation should be common sense and could provide a model for making this reform go national at the federal level. (More on that below.) Item one is to bar any seizure of assets until someone is actually convicted of a crime related to the assets in question. That should be a no-brainer. Physical assets can be placed on hold (i.e. in an evidence locker) while an investigation and trial is underway, but cannot become the “property” of government or law enforcement, sold off or otherwise liquidated unless there is a conviction. If the suspect is cleared or if the investigation is dropped, the property must be returned. In the case of cash seizures, money in bank accounts or other holdings can have a freeze put on them while the process plays out, but the cash can’t be surrendered to the government agency absent a conviction. Second, the sole motive for agencies robbing their own citizens is removed by mandating that any assets collected from those who are convicted do not go directly into the coffers of the police activity or government agency conducting the seizure. Such profits would instead go into the general treasury and, ideally, be reported to the public in each incident. How either of these provisions could be seen as remotely controversial by the average voter is a mystery, so there should be no trouble instituting such a policy. But how about at the federal level? There’s already a plan on the table and it comes from Rand Paul. The FAIR Act doesn’t go quite as far as I’d like to see in terms of “raising the level of proof” required to take your cash or property – as opposed to waiting until you are convicted – but it’s at least some progress. It might also create enough awareness of the problem that the media and citizen journalists could keep an eye on seizures and shine some sunlight on the process. It would be good to see this taken up as a campaign issue. Whether it plays in favor of Rand Paul or not shouldn’t be a consideration. Let’s find out where all of the candidates stand on it and then get some reporters on the task of asking legislators whether this is going to make it to the President’s desk. Once in a blue moon the government can actually do something productive and this is just such an opportunity. New Mexico is on the verge of a complete turnabout. Both chambers of the state legislature have unanimously passed HB 560 sponsored by Representative Zachary Cook. Cook is a Republican, and the GOP controls the House 37 to 33, but the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, 24 to 17. Nevertheless, it passed without a single no vote and now awaits Governor Martinez’s signature.
The key provisions of the bill include that no citizen will suffer forfeiture prior to conviction of a criminal act, that proceeds from forfeitures in those cases will go into the state’s general fund and not into the coffers of the seizing agencies (thus removing the temptation for, as the Institute for Justice puts it “policing for profit,”) and that state and local law enforcement agencies will not be able to get around the state law by resorting to the federal “equitable sharing” law.Furthermore, civil asset forfeiture is under attack at the federal level. Senator Rand Paul and Representative Tim Walberg have reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR, of course, since most bills these days have catchy acronyms) which, inter alia, raises the level of proof required for seizure, abolishes the “equitable sharing” program, and, as in the New Mexico legislation, eliminates the temptation to grab property for the benefit of the agency’s budget, by requiring that any proceeds go into the treasury.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, Deckard, GrandIsland (#0)
(Edited)
Some good news to report for once. Naturally, no one will bother to read it. : ) This alone should curb a lot of abuse.
It could curb arrests. Coming up with enough evidence for a criminal charge is expensive. Then, if the criminal asset forfeiture goes to the state coffers, where's the incentive to do the investigation? A lower standard for civil asset forfeiture at least allowed law enforcement to disrupt or break up the criminal activity, even though no one went to jail.
Apparently, law enforcement cannot exist if cops don't have a personal profit motive to grab stuff from the proles. And if no one went to jail, then it was no crime other than the cops being guilty of grand larceny under color of authority.
How about the fact that it is their job? Shouldn't that be the "incentive" to investigate? I mean, honestly people, the LE's job is to arrest criminals, investigate those crimes, and ensure that our rights are protected. It is basically an extension of the Executive Branch where the laws are to be executed and enforced. Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that LE needs incentive to enforce the law? Pack your BS up and hit the door if you think money should do the talking when it comes to "law enforcement"!!!
There is decades worth of Republican mind think where they hated big govt except the cops and the military to overcome. Once Libertarians started appearing in force this GOP contradiction collapses.
The GOP jackboot-lickers are still quite strong and a fair number of Dems lean the same direction, despite mouthing occasional pieties about civil liberties.
No one wants to be accused of being soft on crime or weak on defense - that is a winning 1 - 2 punch the GOP perfected during 70s onwards (before that the gOp was about shrinking the military and getting out of wars like Korea - you even had VP candidate Dole declare the Democrats started wars unlike the peace loving Republicans). Most of our politicans came to office during that post 70s era so old habits die hard. It's like an instinct at this point. The younger politicians are grasping the sea change like Rand Paul did over police abuses in Furgeson and jailing of so many people over drugs to make the USA the worlds largest jailer. I forget who they were but you had 2 LF members on here try and argue that police pulling people over for minor ticketed offenses keeps America free or safe or some such rather than what it really does - bog America down. That is still a powerful scare tactic for the old people who freaked out over the high crime of the 70s and 80s while people who grew up in the low crime 90s and 00s don't buy this line much anymore.
Good move, it is about time.
I agree.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Spun well by a liberal that wants to spend my tax money to keep a convicted rapist alive in prison because Pericles is too weak to kill it.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
If you want to kill people for non capital crimes feel free to move to Saudi Arabia.
If you wanna live in a society where nobody gets pulled over for breaking traffic laws... BUY AN ISLAND and live by yourself.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Like speeding without being pulled over? You mean move to Germany?
They have traffic laws there besides "speeding".... and German police make traffic stops. Don't be ignorant.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
The government has infinite funds: the slave taxpayer to pay for every nook & crainey at the beckon call of government. You need not worry about expenses.
Don't be ignorant. The police are revenue hunting rather than keeping anyone safe - all I wrote - which freaked you out - is that we eliminate pull overs that are designed only to issue a ticket - make it an automatic charge to be paid later. In any case, as computers take over most driving functions on the near future traffic cops - glorified meter maids - will go the way of the dinosaurs.
All government, no matter the perspective you maintain, is simple to understand in format: exclusions & provisions. The exclusions are enumerated in the US Constitution. The provisions are contemporary actions of force, to enforce laws. What it all means is the exclusions have been usurped by provisions.
Police don't collect "revenue". The courts do. Different part of the criminal Justice system. Direct your anger and dysfuntional ideology towards the courts.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Not unless we change the constitutional standards for jury trials. There will always be the need for on scene identification of the traffic law offender... and an officer that can testify to DIRECT KNOWLEDGE that the defendant was in fact driving. I've told you this already... you either are unable to learn or your reading comprehension is challenged.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Umm, it's their job? Lemme guess, you don't think we are taxed enough as it is, and the gov needs more money?
As computers take over the driving I have seen schemes where the driver enters an ID. And in the near future - like within our lifetime - cars will drive themselves within the speed limits of the law - no offenses would even be possible.
They have lots of jobs. Lots of criminals out there besides drug dealers. Plus, they have a limited budget, and they're judged by the number of bad guys they get off the street. So, do they spend time, money and resources to get a criminal conviction on one drug dealer, or do they use the same amount of time, money and resources to go after 10 other criminals?
Civil Asset Forfeiture says otherwise. Police will collect the "funds" and it never hits the court system. Many jurisdictions allow the proceeds to go directly to the LE agency and to pay for the "costs" associated with seizing the assets. The courts normally are involved when assets are not seized yet, or when the disposition of seized assets are being decided upon because of events like personal exoneration or new evidence that severs the ties between property and crime. Playing games with words will not erase the fact that police can, and do, use CAF as a revenue stream.
So, do they spend time, money and resources to get a criminal conviction on one drug dealer, or do they use the same amount of time, money and resources to go after 10 other criminals? Despite Ever-Expanding Police State Measures, Cops Worse than Ever at Solving Crimes, Here’s Why.
Before anything is finally forfeited, a COURT decides the forfeit. The item then belongs to the county city or state. Not the PD. The state must pay hundreds of thousands to incarcerate the person that the property was seized from. They aren't "paying revenue" by getting property seized... they are just giving the tax payer a down payment for a bill they will never fully pay off, the cost of their criminal debt to society. The property seized was bought with proceeds of illegal activity. You think if I was paid 50,000 for killing you, and I buy a new car with the money, i should keep the car?
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
How many items have you seized from a criminal arrest? As many as me? I bet none at all. You wanna challenge me on how it normally works? lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
No. The police grab the proceeds of the forfeiture for their own agency. The taxpayers pay the prison tab out of the general treasury. Pure "profit" for police with taxpayers paying the bills.
The department I worked for only kept 5% of the cars seized. The vehicles were the property of the county... most vehicles were given to the highway department. One vehicle seized by us was given to the counties Fire Coordinator.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
When did I suggest otherwise? I was merely trying to say that the expense of incarcerating a criminal will never be paid by the criminal... but I'm to feel like he or she is paying "revenue" to a police department by forfeiting a vehicle he or she purchased with criminal proceeds? Bullshit.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It's the laws of the state being enforced, not a local police agency or county. The state dictates the laws, sets the penalties (including financial), pays the tab for prisons. If you're forfeiting assets under laws passed solely by the local authorities and paying the tab for local incarceration, then fine, keep the forfeiture proceeds local. But if you're seizing vehicles/houses/cash under the laws of the entire state and forcing all the taxpayers of the state to pay the prison tab, then the proceeds of forfeiture should go to the state. It's a case Chomsky would describe as "public subsidy, private profit". In this case, "state subsidy, local profit".
There is good news blooming all over the county. But "conservatives" are so depressed because of the horrible situation in D.C. Fuck D.C. Look at what the states are doing...
But "conservatives" are so depressed because of the horrible situation in D.C. The feds are doing bad things at record pace. The states are barely limping along. It is not an optimistic situation.
WTF are you talking about??? Michigan -- the home of the UAW -- is now a right to work state. Michigan's jobless rate is the lowest in 14 years. From 13.5% to 5.9% in the 5 years Rick Snyder has been governor. In addition, Snyder is the first governor ever to attempt to tackle the city of Detroit's problems. I am proud of my home state of Michigan. This is why we need business people in politics. John Kasich has done such a great job as Governor in the blue color swing state of Ohio, that he won re-election in 2014 by a whopping 31 points. Washington, Texas, Florida and many other states without an income tax are BOOMING. Most of the construction cranes on the West Coast are in downtown Seattle. Seattle is on fire! Again, WTF are you talking about???
The states are no more than a Dutch boy with his finger stuck in a dyke...er...dike.
Don't be naïve, the cost to house local shitbirds in local county jails (for up to two year jail terms) on state law convictions is monumental. Your local jails are revolving doors for career criminals. Then, when some turd is finally sentenced to state prison time while he's housed at your local jail, the state drags its feet intaking the new prisoner... and the county foots that bill too. There is no amount of illegally obtained property that could be seized that would even ease the tax payers pain caused by the convicted criminals that you so often bleed your heart over.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Then don't arrest them. But don't justify taking their property for the local police agency by saying that the total numbers of such prisoners costs more than the counties get from the states.
Then you won't have any freedoms and liberties if the hundreds of millions of American, drug addled, generational welfare and career lazy criminals run amuck. You won't be able to leave your home without some lazy Xbox playing pothead breaking in your home to raid your fridge. Here's a novel idea, stop indirectly defending their criminal activities by directly condemning the different ways the state decides to punish them... including seizing illegally obtained assets.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You are almost as dishonest in debate as tpaine. Nice spin, I never justified that. One doesn't have anything to do with the other In our criminal justice system design. Of course a tax base is designed to pay for the correctional part of the criminal justice system. All I tried to do is show you that THEY ARENT VICTIMS when they lose a car they bought with funds from illegal activity... the tax payer is the victim. You know, the group you don't often defend.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
All because the local cop shop can't seize their cash/cars/property for their own enrichment while pawning off the costs of their incarceration on the state? What a drama queen.
Then put the forfeiture proceeds in the state's general treasury, not in the pockets of the local cop shop.
Comments (41 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest ...eliminates the temptation to grab property for the benefit of the agency’s budget, by requiring that any proceeds go into the treasury.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
"This alone should curb a lot of abuse."
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
A lower standard for civil asset forfeiture at least allowed law enforcement to disrupt or break up the criminal activity, even though no one went to jail.
#4. To: misterwhite, ALL (#2)
if the criminal asset forfeiture goes to the state coffers, where's the incentive to do the investigation?
#5. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#3)
Apparently, law enforcement cannot exist if cops don't have a personal profit motive to grab stuff from the proles.
#6. To: Pericles (#5)
Once Libertarians started appearing in force this GOP contradiction collapses.
#7. To: TooConservative (#6)
(Edited)
Once Libertarians started appearing in force this GOP contradiction collapses. The GOP jackboot-lickers are still quite strong and a fair number of Dems lean the same direction, despite mouthing occasional pieties about civil liberties.
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
#9. To: TooConservative (#1)
This alone should curb a lot of abuse.
#10. To: Pericles (#7)
I forget who they were but you had 2 LF members on here try and argue that police pulling people over for minor ticketed offenses keeps America free or safe or some such rather than what it really does - bog America down.
#11. To: GrandIsland (#10)
#12. To: Pericles (#11)
#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)
If you wanna live in a society where nobody gets pulled over for breaking traffic laws... BUY AN ISLAND and live by yourself.
#14. To: Pericles (#13)
#15. To: misterwhite (#2)
Coming up with enough evidence for a criminal charge is expensive.
#16. To: GrandIsland (#14)
(Edited)
They have traffic laws there besides "speeding".... and German police make traffic stops.
#17. To: TheFireBert, misterwhite (#4)
I mean, honestly people, the LE's job is to arrest criminals, investigate those crimes, and ensure that our rights are protected.
#18. To: Pericles (#16)
(Edited)
The police are revenue hunting rather than keeping anyone safe
#19. To: Pericles (#16)
In any case, as computers take over most driving functions on the near future traffic cops - glorified meter maids - will go the way of the dinosaurs.
#20. To: misterwhite (#2)
where's the incentive to do the investigation?
#21. To: GrandIsland (#19)
#22. To: Dead Culture Watch (#20)
"Umm, it's their job?"
#23. To: GrandIsland (#18)
Police don't collect "revenue". The courts do.
#24. To: misterwhite, Dead Culture Watch, GrandIsland, TooConservative, buckeroo, Pericles, TheFireBert (#22)
Lots of criminals out there besides drug dealers.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#25. To: TheFireBert (#23)
Civil Asset Forfeiture says otherwise
#26. To: TheFireBert (#23)
(Edited)
The courts normally are involved when assets are not seized yet, or when the disposition of seized assets are being decided upon because of events like personal exoneration or new evidence that severs the ties between property and crime.
#27. To: GrandIsland (#25)
The state must pay hundreds of thousands to incarcerate the person that the property was seized from. They aren't "paying revenue" by getting property seized... they are just giving the tax payer a down payment for a bill they will never fully pay off, the cost of their criminal debt to society.
#28. To: TooConservative (#27)
(Edited)
#29. To: TooConservative (#27)
The taxpayers pay the prison tab out of the general treasury.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)
#31. To: TooConservative (#0)
#32. To: cranko (#31)
There is good news blooming all over the county.
#33. To: TooConservative (#32)
The states are barely limping along.
#34. To: cranko (#33)
#35. To: TooConservative (#30)
(Edited)
The state dictates the laws, sets the penalties (including financial), pays the tab for prisons.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#35)
Don't be naïve, the cost to house local shitbirds in local county jails (for up to two year jail terms) on state law convictions is monumental. Your local jails are revolving doors for career criminals.
#37. To: TooConservative (#36)
(Edited)
Then don't arrest them.
#38. To: TooConservative (#36)
(Edited)
But don't justify taking their property for the local police agency by saying that the total numbers of such prisoners costs more than the counties get from the states.
#39. To: GrandIsland (#37)
(Edited)
Then you won't have any freedoms and liberties if the hundreds of millions of American, drug addled, generational welfare and career lazy criminals run amuck. You won't be able to leave your home without some lazy Xbox playing pothead breaking in your home to raid your fridge.
Not my X-box!
#40. To: GrandIsland (#38)
All I tried to do is show you that THEY ARENT VICTIMS when they lose a car they bought with funds from illegal activity... the tax payer is the victim. You know, the group you don't often defend.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]