
Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize - molecule
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html
======
ObviousScience
> “If you want the car, and you really want to put it in your fleet, let me
> know — I’ll fight for it,” Mr. McMurtry said, addressing law enforcement
> officials on the video. “If you don’t let me know that, I’ll try and resolve
> it real quick through a settlement and get cash for the car, get the tow fee
> paid off, get some money for it.”

> In an interview, Mr. McMurtry acknowledged that he exercises a great deal of
> discretion. “The first offense, if it’s not anything too serious, we’ll come
> up with a dollar amount, depending on the value of the car and the
> seriousness of the offense,” he said. “I try to come up with a dollar amount
> that’s not so high that they can’t afford it, but not so low that it doesn’t
> have an impact. If it’s a second offense, they don’t get it back.”

What a fucking asshole. That guy is a thug stealing from the public, and he
doesn't even try to hide it. He even admits that he's using the practice to
impose fines without due process, in direct violation of the constitution.

He's a criminal, and should be treated as such.

> Prosecutors estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the cars seized were
> driven by someone other than the owner, which sometimes means a parent or
> grandparent loses their car.

They're even aware that they're stealing from innocent people, and that they'd
likely never get any sort of seizure upheld through having to actually file
charges.

Criminals, all of them.

~~~
raarts
Doesn't this completely go against the trias politica principle? The police
effectively playing judge and determining the penalty, without due process and
even worse, for their own benefit?

Frankly I'm at a loss for words here. It's wrong on every imaginable level.
The most worrying to me is, that there seem to be so many people who do NOT
see anything wrong with it.

Do so many people miss a basic grasp of right and wrong, of the building
blocks of our society? And what are they doing in the police force?

~~~
ObviousScience
I'm very disturbed by the callousness with which he brags about violating the
constitution to get extra-legal justice.

I'm also confused why people always (largely rhetorically) wonder why
Americans don't trust officials and are withdrawing from the political process
when there are ample examples of officials bragging about their illegal
activities without any consequence.

------
lazaroclapp
U.S. Bill of rights, article 7: "No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of
a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;[...], nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or _property_ , without due process of law;"

I am not a lawyer, but I do have to wonder, how is 'civil forfeiture' as a
whole compatible with the U.S. constitution (or for that matter, that of any
country with both rule of law and capitalist property rights)?

~~~
Mikeb85
So who's going to prosecute them for it? If the government, police and
judiciary are all in on it, who can stop them?

There's only 2 political parties in the US and they're both in on this, you
can't even vote for a party to reform this...

~~~
Sorgam
No. In America, you can do a "write in" vote whereby you can vote for anyone
you want. So the problem is with the voters. If you voted for Obama, then
you're partly responsible for this. The problem is people who will only vote
for parties that are expensively advertised.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
While it is true that you can "write in" anyone you want, the reality of all
voting means that the winner is (Generally) going to be the person who is most
well known - and like it or not that means campaigning aka advertising.

So in practice, this doesn't get you anywhere.

What we need is a nationwide NOTA (None of the above) vote option, wherein if
the NOTA vote gets a plurality, the race must re-occur with different
candidates. Like in Brewsers Millions.

~~~
acjohnson55
I think instant-runoff voting is a better idea

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-
runoff_voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

~~~
eru
Or approval voting. It's much easier to understand, and not really gameable.

~~~
pateras
The thing I don't get about approval voting is when do you stop voting for
your second choice? It seems like every vote with approval voting is a
strategic vote, whereas with IRV you just always vote for your preferred
candidates in order.

Yes, favorite betrayal is possible, but it requires a very specific set of
circumstances, and the only gaming of the system is people throwing their top
vote to the opponent, which is very risky and requires a freakish amount of
insight into the race to know if the conditions of a spoiler are even
possible.

To me, strategic voting seems much more likely with approval voting than it
does with IRV, and it's that strategic voting that is maintaining the two
party system. I think the possibility of a possible spoiler effect under IRV
is small, and that its chances of actually allowing 3rd party victories are
much higher, and thus worth the risk, especially because, to me, approval
voting doesn't really remove the spoiler effect, but just delays it.

I like approval voting, but IRV seems like a better solution, overall.

Also, I disagree that approval voting is much easier to understand. IRV isn't
significantly more complicated than approval voting, and neither are
significantly more complicated the current plurality/FPTP system.

TL;DR - In my opinion, IRV's rewards outweigh its risks and IRV > approval
voting > FPTP.

~~~
eru
It's strategic voting under first past the post that maintaining the two-party
system, not strategic voting in general.

In approval voting you are always best off voting your preference. The only
thing you have to decide is your cutoff for how many people you want to
approve. From what I've read, people are pretty good at that intuitively.

~~~
ClayShentrup
www.electology.org/threshold

------
declan
Police abuses of civil asset forfeiture have been around longer than many HN
readers have been alive. Here's an example of civil asset forfeiture abuse in
1991 (the practice extends back to at least 1985), which was the subject of
congressional testimony in 1996: [https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-
liberty/statement-rep-he...](https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-
liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never)

I remember going to DC policy seminars on the topic that groups like the ACLU
and the Cato Institute held 10-15 years ago, and Cato published a lengthy
paper about these abuses in 2006:
[http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whit...](http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf)

There's even an organization devoted to ending civil asset forfeiture abuses:
[http://fear.org/](http://fear.org/)

But after roughly three decades of this practice, and over two decades of
well-documented abuses, nothing has changed. Why this remains the case, even
though every politician and judge is aware or should be aware of these abuses,
is left as an exercise for the reader.

~~~
whoopdedo
This is a bigger issue than just civil asset forfeiture. This kind of conflict
of interest encompasses ticket "quotas" (technically disallowed but tacitly
followed) or when someone with an out-of-state license plate is targeted on
the assumption that they're less likely to fight the ticket. I've heard of
cops bragging about the tickets they write and how they're putting money in
the city's coffer.

But I'm at a loss what to do about it. Is there a way to disassociate
enforcement from penalizing?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Is there a way to disassociate enforcement from penalizing?

You could just not give the government the revenue. If you get a traffic
ticket the fine is paid to your choice of any 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization.

In theory you could still have police issuing tickets because they want to
increase donations to the Red Cross or something, but the cops have no control
over which organization gets the money, and they certainly don't get to ride
around in toys the money bought.

~~~
Sorgam
Why not destroy the money? That way it increases the value of all the other
dollars and benefits everyone.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The federal reserve would then have to create new money to replace what was
destroyed or it would cause deflation (which is very bad), so what you're
suggesting is equivalent to giving the money to the federal reserve.

------
adamnemecek
John Oliver's show had a segment on this very topic not that long ago
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

~~~
stefantalpalaru
Comedy is not a substitute for public discourse.

~~~
adamnemecek
I didn't say it was.

------
Everlag
It says 'the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012
fiscal year' which means that, spread across every American, is an extra $1400
tax which is off the books. For perspective, on the highest minimum wage of
$9.32 per hour, that's around 150 hours of work. THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE MONTH OF
40 HOUR WORK WEEKS TO AN ILLEGITIMATE, OFF THE BOOKS, EFFECTIVELY UNREGULATED,
AND FOR PROFIT TAX.

Disgusted should not even begin to describe the mood of the American people.

EDIT: My math is bad and I feel bad. Its ~$14 a year which is still an hour
but oh my, that was an order of a magnitude error!

~~~
jcampbell1
$4.3 / .31 ~= $14.00

I think you mean $14.00, not $1400.

~~~
Everlag
Oh no, this is what happens when I take 5 minutes to HN and don't check my
math.

I put an edit in the bottom as a testament to my eternal shame.

------
antmldr
IANAL, but in Commonwealth countries this seems to be mitigated by the use of
consolidated revenue funds[0].

It's explicit in s81[1] and 83[2] of the Australian Constitution that all
revenues must be deposited into the CRF and you then need a law to appropriate
the revenue elsewhere. Similarly, state law seems to point to revenue from
civil seizure is paid into treasury.[3]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Fund)
[1]
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s81.html)
[2]
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s83.html)
[3]
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara199027...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara1990272/s27.html)

~~~
YokoZar
Yes, this is the ultimate solution. Fines and forfeitures should never go to
the local government responsible for crafting them, or worse, directly to the
police department enforcing them.

Remove that incentive, and suddenly the darker motive goes away. The officials
can no longer emotionally rationalize excessive fines, misplaced priorities on
seizure rather than crime prevention, or even outright theft. The only thing
that remains is a desire to actually do the job of protecting the public.

~~~
ericHosick
People seem to greatly undervalue the importance of aligning incentives with
desired outcomes.

------
sremani
This is John Oliver's commentary on this issue.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

note: Not sure if we can post youtube videos here, but the commentary on the
video very relevant to the topic

------
stephengoodwin
I am not a lawyer, but I have heard that cases literally suing property (as
opposed to the property owner):

* United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency[1]

* United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins[2]

* United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola[3]

\---

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_and_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-
Cola)

------
ck2
We should stop saying seize. It's "steal". It is outright theft.

Even if by some chance the people they were taking it from were doing
something wrong, it is still theft because it is done as them being judge,
jury and executioner.

------
zaroth
It's great the media at least has woken up to this. So they crank out an
article every month or so, basically saying the same thing over again. But
even the media isn't willing to fully recognize how much the system has
turned, how stacked the deck, how all-seeing, and highly discriminatory, lady
justice has now become. "The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire
in recent months..." just comes off as a meek response to the truth on the
ground.

Is the system so overrun by spineless pricks there's literally no one left to
inject some sanity? No prosecutor who can't understand the irony of sizing up
citizens like a thug on a smash-and-grab (go for the flat screens!) Not a soul
left in the justice department with enough common decency to make a career out
of killing this?

The legislators aren't willing to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs.
Is it up to referendums? Who is organizing the offense, and what is the game
plan? Where is the coordinated counter-attack? Because without one it's not
going to curtail this. I don't think you can simply shame these departments
(police and prosecutor) into taking the handcuffs off their belts and slapping
them on their own wrists where they apparently belong.

~~~
navait
If the media hasn't fully recognized the problem, how did you become aware of
it fully?

~~~
zaroth
Fair enough, I should have wrote "mainstream media".

------
PythonicAlpha
Unbelievable.

What kind of training get the police men? Is it police training or training
how to be a crook?

There is one saying in the bible -- I don't want to preach, but some wisdom
can be even found in old books -- "A man reaps what he sows".

It seems, this state sows crooks.

------
dan_sullivan
Combine this sort of behavior with the fact that they now have unchecked
surveillance powers and what do you get?

~~~
adventured
Rapidly expanding increases in quasi-legalized crime by the State.

A $17 trillion economy, with $200 trillion in assets, and all private citizens
are now guilty until proven innocent. It's Christmas day for the gangsters in
government.

------
viggity
Harry Connelly, the one discussing "little goodies" to be seized can be
contacted at harryc@las-cruces.org

I've sent him an email expressing my displeasure at his use of Civil Asset
Forfeiture.

I'd like to send a similar email to Sean McMurtry, but came up empty trying to
find his email address.

~~~
arbuge
Be careful he doesn't have the laptop you emailed him from seized.

More seriously, although your anger is laudable, complaining to criminals is
rarely productive. In this case complaining to whoever can put a stop to this
practice is what's really needed. I'm not a lawyer, but stopping it seems
unlikely to happen unless it's brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
Pressure in that direction would likely be more fruitful.

------
lukev
What is the likely outcome if a victim of civil forfeiture were to file a
lawsuit against the law enforcement body for restitution, on constitutional
grounds? Is that legally possible, or is there a precedent for this?

Seems like the ACLU would be all over funding such a suit and taking it as far
as necessary.

~~~
zaroth
The likely outcome is that it costs you more than the property which is at
stake. It's not that you won't win, it's that it's too expensive to even try!

TFA mentions seizing entire houses? I assume those cases do get filed and won
since there's enough at stake. But there's a reason the cops "go for the flat
screens" it's a calculated cost/benefit designed to make it just expensive
enough to not be worth fighting.

This is why we need large punitive damages awards, but my guess is the law is
written specifically to preclude that.

~~~
lukev
But surely that's built into the structure of the legal system? People I do
business with don't routinely defraud me of amounts too small to sue over: why
can't the same legal reasoning apply to these cases?

~~~
baddox
One reason people (and particularly businesses) tend to not defraud you over
amounts too small to sue over is that the value of continued business and/or
word of mouth is larger than the one-time payout of defrauding you. This
effect is obviously diminished when dealing with the state, since the
difference in physical power between the two parties in the transaction is
immense, and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly
nonsensical.

~~~
eru
> [...] and the idea of you ceasing to do business with the state is mostly
> nonsensical.

Why? You can move away. (Or, more likely, a bad reputations will deter people
and businesses considering moving in.)

~~~
baddox
All I mean is that the cost of moving to the jurisdiction of another
government is generally massive compared to the cost of switching business
partners in most situations.

~~~
lsaferite
And when all the state you can move to are like this to some degree or other?
Moving countries is not simple and certainly out of reach of the majority of
the people these laws impact.

------
lsaferite
Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. I'm truly ashamed of my
country.

------
mathattack
The challenge here is that people fighting this have to be convinced to pay
higher taxes rather than "Stick it to the criminals." When you ask people to
pay for higher principles, sometimes they balk. Of course we know about the
road to hell, and today it's a drug dealer's car, and tomorrow it's the
opposition party's mayoral candidate.

------
forgetaboutit2
The Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Ammendments haven't been
enforced for over 10 years!!

------
Paradigma11
Why are there no specialized Law firms that take the case for a cut of the
assets?

------
Istof
Can civilians thieves use civil forfeiture, in small claim court, for example?

------
misiti3780
anyone what the "last night with john oliver" special on this ?- he got some
great video clips of police employees saying some outrageous stuff.

------
ender89
Always wanted to live in a police state.....

