Florida boldly moves to require criminal charges before the government can seize your property [signed today!]

Source: HotAir
Published: Apr 4, 2016
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2016-04-04 16:26:30 by Tooconservative
Views: 5362

Taylor already wrote about the reinstatement of the federal civil asset forfeiture sharing program, which was bad news. The practice of law enforcement using the property of citizens who have not been convicted of a crime as a revenue source is a scourge which needs to be abolished in this country. Fortunately, much of the burden of making this needed change falls on the states and Florida has taken a step in the right direction. (Reason)

Some great news in asset forfeiture reform is coming out of Florida. S.B. 1044, approved by the legislature earlier in the month, was signed into law today by Gov. Rick Scott.

The big deal with this particular reform is that, in most cases, Florida police will actually have to arrest and charge a person with a crime before attempting to seize and keep their money and property under the state’s asset forfeiture laws. One of the major ways asset forfeiture gets abused is that it is frequently a “civil”, not criminal, process where police and prosecutors are able to take property without even charging somebody with a crime, let alone convicting them. This is how police are, for example, able to snatch cash from cars they’ve pulled over and claim they suspect the money was going to be used for drug trafficking without actually finding any drugs.

While not eliminating all seizure of property, the wording of the legislation sounds like it strikes the correct balance. Property may still be taken, but it would only occur in cases where an arrest was made, charges were filed, and the property would be described as “contraband.” Obviously, if you are stealing computers and get caught you don’t get to keep the computers. Similarly, illegal narcotics are already taken. (Though it’s a bit harder for the government to sell them at a profit.) But this law will end the practice of a family losing their home and their car because their kid turned out to be selling dime bags of weed. (Does anyone say “dime bags” anymore?)

One of the major problems with the entire idea of such programs is that the incentive to abuse the system is baked into the cake. Particularly in cases where cash is seized (allegedly for purposes of drug dealing in most cases) it’s far too easy to see that as an easy path to balancing the local budget so there’s not much incentive to make sure that the case was really “dirty” in the first place. Now if we can just get the IRS to stop freezing people’s bank accounts in cases where appeals are still pending we might be getting somewhere.

For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

That case dragged on for ages, basically destroying Mrs. Hinders’ livelihood. The IRS has long been out of control in cases such as these and most of the people who were in rough enough shape to attract their attention in the first place don’t have the resources to fight them in the courts for years on end. The sooner all of these practices are scaled back to the point where they only apply to actual criminals the better.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: buckeroo    To: TooConservative (#0)

Big deal. Mrs. Hinders will never see her money. It all got suckedupped into 0bama's 4,500,000 US government annual pension plan.

buckeroo posted on 2016-04-04 16:32:38   Reply   Private Reply

#2: ConservingFreedom    To: TooConservative (#0)

Some great news in asset forfeiture reform is coming out of Florida. S.B. 1044, approved by the legislature earlier in the month, was signed into law today by Gov. Rick Scott.

Obviously a pinko druggie subverter. /sarcasm

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-04-04 16:34:12   Reply   Private Reply

#3: Deckard    To: ConservingFreedom (#2)

Obviously a pinko druggie subverter. /sarcasm

Cop-hater too.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 16:37:44   Reply   Private Reply

#4: Tooconservative    To: Deckard (#3)

I thought you'd like this one. Very mainstream sources. We see more and more support for reform in more mainstream venues, meaning the tide is turning on the entire issue.

As the article says, the Florida law isn't perfect but it is a big step forward, especially considering what NM already did. Other states are on the move too.

This is the time for a big push in reforming the rampant abuses of asset forfeiture.

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-04 16:48:49   Reply   Private Reply

#5: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#0)

"But this law will end the practice of a family losing their home and their car because their kid turned out to be selling dime bags of weed. (Does anyone say “dime bags” anymore?)"

No it doesn't. Now they'll charge the kid with a felony and seize the property. And they don't need to convict.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 17:22:49   Reply   Private Reply

#6: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#5)

The dream never dies, eh?

Tooconservative posted on 2016-04-04 17:23:59   Reply   Private Reply

#7: misterwhite    To: TooConservative (#6)

"The dream never dies, eh?"

I don't like drug dealers.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 17:25:55   Reply   Private Reply

#8: tpaine    To: TooConservative (#6)

--- they'll charge the kid with a felony and seize the property. And they don't need to convict. ---- misterwhite

The dream never dies, eh? ---- TooConservative

Good catch.

Every now and then whitey manages a foot in mouth zinger.

tpaine posted on 2016-04-04 17:30:22   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Deckard    To: misterwhite (#7)

I don't like drug dealers.

Forfeiture laws are used to steal money from innocent folks, not just "drug dealers".

But you already know that.

For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:00:29   Reply   Private Reply

#10: Deckard    To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#5)

And they don't need to convict.

There's the problem in a nutshell.

And paulsen continues to cheer government theft from innocent citizens.

Hey, wait a minute - aren't you the one always yammering "if you don't like a law, then change it"?

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:03:02   Reply   Private Reply

#11: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#9)

Despite Hinders having shown a "clear pattern of manipulating bank deposits below $10,000 in order to avoid the reporting requirements," the IRS returned the money.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:05:27   Reply   Private Reply

#12: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#10)

"if you don't like a law, then change it"?

The IRS is federal.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:06:18   Reply   Private Reply

#13: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#11)

Despite Hinders having shown a "clear pattern of manipulating bank deposits below $10,000 in order to avoid the reporting requirements," the IRS returned the money.

Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

Ever owned a business?

It's pretty clear that Hinders was making deposits of less than $10,000 simply for convenience, not for some nefarious reason as you (and the Feds) seem to believe.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:09:16   Reply   Private Reply

#14: A Pole    To: misterwhite (#7)

I don't like drug dealers.

No, you like to grab others people money. And you are a liar and hypocrite.

A Pole posted on 2016-04-04 18:13:26   Reply   Private Reply

#15: rlk    To: TooConservative (#0)

Florida boldly moves to require criminal charges before the government can seize your property [signed today!]

God deal, but it dosn't go far enough. I want to see tough penalties mandatory for anyone, including federal agents, violating the spirit of the law and bounty hunters sent out for out of state capture of violaters at all levels. Twenty years in the slammer at hard labor for a starting penalty. Follow them to Washinton and bring them back in chains when necessary.

rlk posted on 2016-04-04 18:14:26   Reply   Private Reply

#16: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#13)

It's pretty clear that Hinders was making deposits of less than $10,000 simply for convenience

Begging the question. By the way, the court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:14:43   Reply   Private Reply

#17: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#12)

"if you don't like a law, then change it"?

The IRS is federal.

This new law applies to Florida.

But you must be thrilled that the feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take stuff and keep it.

You're the biggest cheerleader for tyranny on this site.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:16:02   Reply   Private Reply

#18: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#17)

This new law applies to Florida.

Not to federal actions in Florida.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:17:35   Reply   Private Reply

#19: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#18)

This new law applies to Florida.

Not to federal actions in Florida.

Look, I know how butt hurt you and white must be that states are passing laws to rein in the criminal practice of cops stealing money from citizens without any evidence of a crime.

I realize that to a couple of cop worshiping yahoos with no regard for property rights, laws like this are going to make you whine about how we "need" these laws to keep drug dealers in check.

The fact remains, stealing from someone is theft, regardless if the one doing the stealing is wearing a badge.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:24:10   Reply   Private Reply

#20: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#16)

By the way, the court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Big deal.

The IRS Is Returning This Woman's Seized Cash But Reserves The Right To Take It Back At Any Time

The government asked the court to dismiss the case "without prejudice" — meaning it can file another action in the future to get Hinders' money if the court grants its motion. The government also reiterated that it was justified in filing the case in the first place.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 18:27:59   Reply   Private Reply

#21: Roscoe    To: Deckard, misterwhite (#19)

I know how butt hurt you and white must be that states are passing laws

Nope, you're just an imbecile. I don't care that Florida changed their laws. I suspect that misterwhite doesn't either.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:41:44   Reply   Private Reply

#22: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#20)

The government asked the court to dismiss the case "without prejudice" — meaning it can file another action in the future to get Hinders' money if the court grants its motion.

The court already dismissed without prejudice.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 18:44:02   Reply   Private Reply

#23: goldilucky    To: misterwhite (#5)

No it doesn't. Now they'll charge the kid with a felony and seize the property. And they don't need to convict.

Charge the kids with a felony and no conviction on their record? Really? Sounds to me like fraud and abuse of forfeiture of property laws.

goldilucky posted on 2016-04-04 18:45:31   Reply   Private Reply

#24: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#9)

"Forfeiture laws are used to steal money from innocent folks, not just "drug dealers"."

Who says they're innocent? Oh yeah. They do.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:23:28   Reply   Private Reply

#25: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#21)

"Nope, you're just an imbecile. I don't care that Florida changed their laws. I suspect that misterwhite doesn't either."

Correctamundo. I don't live in Florida, so why should I give a shit what they do?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:25:26   Reply   Private Reply

#26: Logsplitter    To: misterwhite (#7)

Weed ain't a drug. It's a weed.

Logsplitter posted on 2016-04-04 19:27:47   Reply   Private Reply

#27: misterwhite    To: goldilucky (#23)

"Charge the kids with a felony and no conviction on their record?"

I'm saying they don't need a conviction to seize the assets. Just a criminal charge.

If they charge the kid with felony drug dealing out of his parent's house, they probably will get a conviction. And seize the assets.

Now, isn't that better than simply seizing the assets?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:30:11   Reply   Private Reply

#28: misterwhite    To: Logsplitter (#26)

"Weed ain't a drug. It's a weed."

Are you trying to tell me a weed is a weed? You expect me to believe that?

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:32:14   Reply   Private Reply

#29: goldilucky    To: Logsplitter (#26)

No, it is an herb.

goldilucky posted on 2016-04-04 19:33:12   Reply   Private Reply

#30: goldilucky    To: misterwhite (#27)

Well now that depends on the evidence that may be planted on the kid's parent's property.

goldilucky posted on 2016-04-04 19:35:13   Reply   Private Reply

#31: misterwhite    To: A Pole (#14)

"No, you like to grab others people money. And you are a liar and hypocrite."

Pile on, why don't you.

These people will have their day in court to explain their side.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:36:41   Reply   Private Reply

#32: misterwhite    To: goldilucky (#30)

"Well now that depends on the evidence that may be planted on the kid's parent's property."

If he's dealing, they'll have plenty of testimony from the users he supplied.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-04 19:38:53   Reply   Private Reply

#33: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#22)

The court already dismissed without prejudice.

Good grief man, are you really that dense?

The IRS Is Returning This Woman's Seized Cash But Reserves The Right To Take It Back At Any Time

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 19:52:10   Reply   Private Reply

#34: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#33)

The court already gave the IRS that right as part of its decision.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 19:56:58   Reply   Private Reply

#35: Deckard    To: Roscoe (#34)

The court already gave the IRS that right as part of its decision.

That's my point you fucking moron!

What the hell is your problem?

We're done here idiot.

Deckard posted on 2016-04-04 19:59:18   Reply   Private Reply

#36: buckeroo    To: misterwhite (#25)

Correctamundo

Is that some bona-fide Southern Western Mexicana smackdown used in an authentic way for our viewing audience?

buckeroo posted on 2016-04-04 20:21:07   Reply   Private Reply

#37: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#35)

1. if the court grants its motion.

2. That's my point

The court already granted the IRS motion.

I don't see why you're so hysterical. It's not like you're ever right about anything anyway.

Roscoe posted on 2016-04-04 20:34:30   Reply   Private Reply

#38: misterwhite    To: buckeroo, Roscoe (#36)

"Is that some bona-fide Southern Western Mexicana smackdown used in an authentic way for our viewing audience?"

Nah. We like Pulp Fiction is all.

misterwhite posted on 2016-04-05 09:34:05   Reply   Private Reply