
These states let police take your stuff even if you haven't committed a crime - dankohn1
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states-map
======
eganist
For those of you whose privacy badger configurations block the infographic and
you don't feel like accommodating Vox on the matter, here's the map:

[http://i.imgur.com/kQc13Fy.png](http://i.imgur.com/kQc13Fy.png)

------
OliverJones
yah. Don't carry much cash or jewelry in your car on road trips. Some
jurisdictions' police treat the presence of cash / jewelry as evidence of
criminal activity. They grab it to defray their budgets. They don't have to
obtain a conviction to keep it, and they don't have to give it back.

~~~
sdegutis
Why are so many laws so stupid and unethical, and yet still being used? How
have we let it get to this point?

~~~
bobwaycott
The Founders forgot to grant voters a check-and-balance role on the 3 branches
of government by allowing them to _unvote_ laws that are passed by their duly
elected representatives and otherwise tell the various executives and judges
across the country that they are doing things wrong. They thought it was
enough to let voters focus on securing representatives. They were wrong, and
we continue to see the effects of just how well things work for the People
when we only get asked to be involved every couple of years.

~~~
tamana
Many states have voter initiatives, they don't succeed in the way you
hypothesize, sadly.

Looks at CA. The voters are _even worse_ than the legislators.

~~~
yoshamano
Here in Michigan we have as part of our state constitution the ability to
enact and repeal laws through voter referendum.

[http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-
II-9](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-II-9)

However, our legislature has a fun little loophole for when they are going to
pass a law they know the public will try to repeal through a voter referendum.
They add a token appropriation to the bill.

[http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/07/m...](http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/07/michigan-
voters-disenfranchisement-local-millages/78404712/)

Some examples from that article:

"From 2011 through 2014, unnecessary appropriations shielded a number of
controversial bills from voter referendum. That includes right-to-work, the
repeal of item pricing, the implementation of emergency managers and myriad
anti-union laws."

"This past year, the Senate added a $75,000 appropriation to a bill that would
repeal prevailing wage in our state, a practice that guarantees competitive
wages to people working on public projects. The pretext? That appropriation
was supposedly necessary to “disseminate information” to the public about the
new law. The reality? Republicans knew voters would oppose the law."

~~~
bobwaycott
Not even surprised. There needs to be a way for citizens to take their
representatives to court for depriving them of their rights.

------
vaadu
How is civil forfeiture not a 5th amendment violation?

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."

~~~
beeboop
The TLDR is that they are essentially "arresting" the property because it was
used in a crime, regardless of who did the crime. The fact that it belonged to
someone, often times the person who committed the crime, is sort of irrelevant
in the government's opinion.

~~~
bobwaycott
That's a bit generous of a TL;DR, don't you think?

The reason civil asset forfeiture is controversial is that property can be
seized even _when a crime has not actually occurred but is merely alleged, and
the owner of the property has not been proven guilty of a crime_.

There are dirty cops who have taken people's cash on the basis of trumped up
charges. This isn't the first time this has been reported on in the US.

~~~
tamana
"Charges" is rather generous, isn't it? They don't even charge the property
before seizing it.

------
snowwrestler
The article says this:

> But local and state cops in these states can still use federal law for civil
> forfeiture.

But does not mention this:

> Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police
> from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without
> warrants or criminal charges.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-
se...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-
sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-
police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html)

~~~
vaadu
The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take stuff and
keep it.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-f...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-
feds-have-resumed-a-controversial-program-that-lets-cops-take-stuff-and-keep-
it/)

------
awqrre
Kids, stealing is ok...

------
didhdjjd
8 comments (now 9) 102 points, 3 hours, second page.

Fuck the pro state mods on HN you bury anti government sentiments you
worthless shits

~~~
beeboop
I also have beefs with the way HN works but I think the easier explanation
here is that this isn't especially interesting because it's decades old, it's
somewhat political which lots of HN users don't like on HN, and it doesn't
really provide anything new. The only reason this article exists is because a
state got rid of civil asset forfeiture before a conviction a few days ago. So
there should really just be a link to that article, which I believe there was
days ago.

