Tags

, , , , ,

propertyThe 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.

****

From the documentaryIn Search of the Second Amendment.” What you have to understand is that they are not here to protect you or anyone else but themselves. That is why if someone steals your property (Car, Money, etc..) You can’t sue them because they failed to protect it- THEY OWE YOU NO DUTY!! That is why you can’t find the word Police anywhere in the Constitution. Look at 911- The “Constitution” says they are here to protect us and our Rights- yet they come right out and say “we can’t be sued for 911” because they don’t have a duty to protect. Plain and simple folks, we continue to be hoodwinked.

 

 

In Search Of The Second Amendment FULL

 

 

 

 

 

Related:

Asset Forfeiture Program | Department of Justice

The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take …

Asset forfeiture

forfeiture.gov : ABOUT FORFEITURE.GOV

U.S. Marshals Service, Asset Forfeiture, Assets

Obama’s DOJ Sets Back Justice With Asset Forfeiture Program | Op Ed

Victims Of Civil Asset Forfeiture Criticize New Federal Rules : NPR

Asset Forfeiture Program | Department of Justice

The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take …

Politics|Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to …

Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals –

POLICE ADMIT PLANTING GUNS AND DRUGS IN CARS, LAUGH …

Washington DC Council Moves To Protect Its Citizens From Its Cops …

Now Is the Time to Act on Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform .

Property Rights: A Valued American Ideal

Asset Forfeiture | Drug War Facts

Federal Asset Seizure Total In Two Funds Tripled … – The Crime Report

Supreme Court Examines The Sixth Amendment Ramifications Of Pre …

Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect ..

In Search of the Second Amendment

Advertisements