
The crazy perversities of civil asset forfeiture - rglovejoy
http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/pagenum/all/
======
bd_at_rivenhill
Civil forteiture is one of the most egregious abuses of civil rights in
America. As far as I'm concerned, having a court case entitled "United States
v. One Mercedes-Benz Sd Vin Wdbcb20c6fa177831" is tantamount to Reductio Ad
Absurdum. How can a piece of property be guilty of a crime or a tortious act?

------
hga
From Radley Balko (as usual):

" _Take the Money and Run

"The crazy perversities of civil asset forfeiture._"

New development:

" _But allowing unelected_ private _attorneys to oversee a county's forfeiture
proceedings on a contingency basis is the worst option yet._ "

Plus the usual corruption, e.g. a judge changing his mind about a case after
asking for $5K in forfeiture money for A/V equipment and getting turned down:
" _'Since then Judge Headley has had, well, I'll just say he's had a much
different demeanor in forfeiture cases.'_ "

Balko notes that Indiana's constitution requires forfeiture money goes to
schools ("'child' is the root password to the Constitution"), but of course
they have dodges to get around that.

------
tptacek
I think I agree with Radley Balko, but it's hard to tell, because in his
crusade against civil asset forfeiture rules, he leaves out quite a bit of
detail. To read him, you'd think that any police officer can take your car and
stick it in an impound by executive fiat. Not so.

In Illinois, which he refers to in many of his blog posts on the topic, Balko
insinuates that the state can hold your property for as many as six months
without going to court (in other places, he says it can be over a year).
That's not true. Property owners can file claims for their assets and get them
back in less than 2 months after a court hearing (the "2 month" number is a
statutory time limit).

It's only if _both_ sides of a case stretch their time limits to the absolute
maximum (the defendant by failing to file timely claims, and the prosecutor by
dragging their feet) that the limit hits 180 days.

Furthermore, Balko's definition of "not having a day in court" apparently
excludes "days in court for the specific purpose of getting your stuff back";
in other words, he appears to only be counting the actual criminal trial. But
that's silly. Either way, it's still an impartial judge making the call, not
the revenue-hungry police force.

To read my comment, you might think I'm fine with civil asset forfeiture. I
don't think that I am. But I'm definitely not fine with sloppy arguments.

~~~
bd_at_rivenhill
Depriving a person of access to his or her property without charging the
person with a crime is a violation of due process. I shouldn't need to file a
claim for the return of my property if I haven't been accused of wrongdoing. I
also disagree with your argument that "property owners" (not "defedants" since
the property is accused of the crime, not the person) simply need to file
timely claims because hiring a lawyer to file a claim costs money that the
property owner may not be able to afford if they have few assets and the
seized property is something like an automobile, the loss of which causes them
to also lose their job. The constitution exists to protect citizens from this
sort of thing.

~~~
tptacek
I don't understand how you can claim a lack of due process. The deprived is
explicitly granted multiple hearings in court by a criminal judge. They in
fact get _more_ due process than a simple criminal defendant, because if they
win any one of those hearings, they get their stuff back.

The rest of your comment, whatever. You're missing my point. I'm not taking on
civil asset forfeiture, just sloppy reporting.

~~~
madair
I think he's referring _reasonably and ethically due_ in _due_ process. These
things start to sound like cliches, but both words are important here. Just
because the corruption is legal doesn't make it ethical, or _due_.

------
fnid2
For more info about the original topic, see this documentary about the legal
system in the u.s. It shows cops driving around in SUVs and using guns and
stuff they seized without warrant or arrest or conviction of crimes. It also
clearly shows the conflict of interest when discussing the issue with some of
the police officers.

This policy was created, according to the documentary, as an incentive for
local law enforcement to team with the federal government in the drug war by
rewarding them for investigating drugs crimes and seizing property in the
effort.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbsI1j--XaE>

------
johnohara
There's nothing civil about asset forfeiture.

------
pmichaud
Completely outrageous, and completely unsurprising.

------
CapitalistCartr
While this is outrageous, it is a state matter. Each state has the right to be
idiotic in it's own fashion. I say this as a native Floridian.

~~~
lionhearted
> Each state has the right to be idiotic in it's own fashion.

Actually, no, they don't. We have these things called habeas corpus and due
process and civil rights that are supposed to protect us from governments
being idiotic - on any level.

Edit: Emphasis mine "[N]o Person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseised of
his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life,
Liberty or _Property_ but by due process of Law."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#In_the_U.S>. - 1788 as a condition
for New York State to ratify the Constitution

~~~
hga
Well, after the passage of the 14th Amendment they were supposed to protect us
from lower level governments, but that was quickly eviscerated by the Supremes
(e.g. _Slaughterhouse_ ) and only bit by bit is being fixed.

