
Law allows police to seize and sell cars of non-lawbreakers, keeping proceeds - clouddrover
https://kstp.com/news/controversial-law-allows-police-to-seize-and-sell-cars-of-non-lawbreakers-keeping-the-proceeds-august-24-2020/5838303/
======
aazaa
> A controversial law that allows police in Minnesota to take and sell
> someone's personal property is coming under more scrutiny after the state
> patrol seized a woman's car during a drunk driving stop late last year, even
> though she was not driving or charged with a crime.

> ...

> Troopers seized Dietrich's car under Minnesota's forfeiture law that has
> allowed police agencies across the state to take close to 14,000 vehicles,
> generating nearly $10 million for those departments in just three years,
> according to a review of statewide data by 5 INVESTIGATES.

How can any patriotic American read something like this and not at least start
to wonder what happened to this country?

The system of "checks and balances" that we're taught (maybe not anymore) has
clearly failed here and in hundreds if not thousands of other cases, ranging
from ravenous petty theft of private property owned by people charged with no
crime:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States)

to secret courts and clear violations of the constitution:

[https://www.npr.org/2019/12/22/790281142/scathing-report-
put...](https://www.npr.org/2019/12/22/790281142/scathing-report-puts-secret-
fisa-court-into-the-spotlight-will-congress-act)

This is not what freedom looks like. It resembles another system, though. One
that gets trotted out pretty regularly to smear political candidates and
organization that try to effect change.

~~~
NoOneNew
Here's the issue that lots of people fail to understand. Once it's figured
out, a lot of fixes can happen.

The "Police" are departments of city/state politicians. "Sheriff" is an
elected offices for a county.

The current dialogue of "the police are doing XYZ" is extremely stupid and
unproductive. The reality, "mayors/councilmen/governors/politicians are
telling police to do XYZ".

Within a county, the sheriff has the highest law enforcement jurisdiction
below the US Marshal cowboying in and taking away their badges. They can even
arrest FBI, ATF and ignore Fed requests in general (limitations to this,
especially due to paperwork, but the legal right is there). This is why you
get plenty of Sheriffs saying, "I and my deputies will not enforce XYZ law".

Why?

Because the Sheriff reports directly to "the people" of the county. He/she is
an elected official. Sometimes, they're not even prior law enforcement. But
they have a direct dialogue with their voter base (most of the time) because
they have a rather direct cause/effect of their time in "office". Also why
it's called a Sheriff's Office instead of department (when people know what
they're doing... some states are weird/dumb).

The "police" report to the politicians of their jurisdiction.

When certain mayors say, "The police are doing naughty things"... dude...
they're on the mayor's orders. The chief can be instantly booted out by the
mayor. "It's a travesty that police are overly patrolling certain sectors".
YOU APPROVE THE SECTORS AND MADE THE LAWS FOR THEM TO DO SO! "The cops
shouldn't be funded through forfeiture/tickets/etc." The politicians are the
ones who put that system in place! Police don't make laws, they enforce them
according to their hiring governing body... their city/town.

Please, people of the USA, for the love of all things good, learn about your
local politicians and vote. Quit this crap of these mayors acting surprised
and shifting the blame to the police. The politicians are the ones telling
them what to do. Stop being surprised and ignorant.

In the end, the public is to blame for, "Politicians have our best interests
at heart if we don't pay attention to what they're doing." I don't care what
party you belong to, it's your responsibility to keep a politician in check,
no matter their party as well.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The current dialogue of "the police are doing XYZ" is extremely stupid and
> unproductive. The reality, "mayors/councilmen/governors/politicians are
> telling police to do XYZ".

If you actually follow local politics, you'll often find that, if the police
are even following directions are all, that behind those directions, the most
powerful interest group promoting those local policies and able to defeat
politicians that displease them is...the police.

~~~
mdavis6890
Only because people consistently vote with the police. So if we the voters
stopped voting for whoever the police tell us to, things would get better.

I think there's a union component to this as well. A lot of people vote along
with unions, especially public unions. This is an interesting case where the
people most upset with the police are also the ones who tend to like unions
(and where unions have political/voter influence), creating a bit of tension.
I think this results in focusing on the police themselves, rather than the
upstream causes that you're identifying.

Anyway, in case it wasn't clear - I'm totally agreeing with you :-)

------
csilverman
My undertanding of asset forfeiture was that its original intent was to target
criminal enterprises. If you bust a drug cartel, their (often significant)
assets might as well go towards the common good.

And somehow, that turned into a system where cops can stop you and take your
property according to mere _presumption_ of guilt, as in this stupefying
example from a few years ago:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/30/drug-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/30/drug-
cops-took-a-college-kids-life-savings-and-now-13-police-departments-want-a-
cut/)

Any system with such a glaring conflict of interests and profound lack of
accountability is going to be abused to the hilt, as this is. I don't have a
problem with confiscating cars from habitual drunk drivers, but there has
absolutely got to be more justification for it than this—to say nothing of due
process—and it should go without saying that the confiscating agency should
_not_ directly benefit from these actions.

~~~
csharptwdec19
The other part of it was to be able to 'chip away' at criminal enterprises.
Especially in the past (i.e. before the age of digital surveillance,
cheap/easy video, etc.) it was much more difficult to get enough evidence to
catch some of the more-organized criminals. Remember, for a criminal act you
are supposed to be considered guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

That's a huge part of why asset forfeiture is civil and based on 'presumption
of guilt'. Remember, the only thing they every got a solid conviction on for
Al Capone was Tax Evasion. Unfortunately it is a system that provides perverse
incentives for law enforcement that have been abused more and more over time.

~~~
gus_massa
Presumption of innocence is a feature, not a bug. It is not there because
thought it was cool to write it. It is a reaction of previous abuses.

Take a look at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760)
(510 points | June 30, 2016 | 206 comments)

Now imagine that the cop says "I don't care if the judge thinks he is
innocent, and I don't care that we can find no evidence. I believe he is
guilty. Let's make his life miserable with extrajudicial punishment because we
can use presumption of guilt. Let's seize his car, his home and whatever we
can imagine."

------
dougmwne
I think I'm more bothered by the misaligned incentives in this situation.
Since the police department gets to keep the proceeds of the asset
forfeitures, they will take as many cars as they can. Maybe a good fix would
be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare. And the arresting
officer shouldn't make the decision because it might lead to an abuse of
power. An uninvolved third party should decide if they take the person's
stuff. I'm not personally in favor of asset forfeiture but I do understand
that enough people probably are that the law isn't likely to get repealed.

~~~
DarthGhandi
> asset forfeitures, they will take as many cars as they can. Maybe a good fix
> would be to have proceeds go to education or social welfare.

Try public defenders and legal aid services instead. Seems like a fair balance
to strike.

~~~
torstenvl
I like the idea but it's probably a conflict of interest. As a defense
attorney, am I going to fight as hard to invalidate a warrant and get property
returned to my client if I know otherwise the money will go to my office?
Maybe, maybe not, but we aren't supposed to put ourselves in that position to
begin with.

~~~
Anechoic
The bar wouldn't be sufficient motivation to prevent this?

------
sbuttgereit
Whenever I see a story pop up like this, and given the amount of advocacy I
see on other topics discussed here on HN, I think it's fair to point out some
charitable organizations that have been fighting this fight where it matters:
in the courts.

The Institute for Justice has long long fought against unjust takings such as
described here: [https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-
forfeiture/](https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/)

The Pacific Legal Foundation is also involved in this fight:
[https://pacificlegal.org/civil-asset-forfeiture-resist-
refor...](https://pacificlegal.org/civil-asset-forfeiture-resist-reform-
repeal/)

Of the charitable giving that I do, these organizations are at the top of my
list. If you're in the U.S., I would urge you to consider contributing as
well.

------
pjc50
And people wonder why there are massive anti-police protests all across the
US.

------
ausbah
between this, qualified immunity, and their unions - its hard not to see how
cops are nothing more than state protected racketeers

------
LatteLazy
Confiscation\Destruction of items used in crimes irrespective of ownership is
pretty standard, even a little old fashioned. Owner\Lender beware is the
principle here. Sometimes laws even specifically ban the loaning of items (say
guns) to give added culpability. The point being, that you're at least
somewhat responsible for the things people do with what you lend them...

~~~
Meph504
I think you are missing the bigger point of civil asset forfeiture. 1) there
does not have to be criminal action involved 2) this isn't about seizing the
property of one person's possession from a criminal that has possession of
them, but your assets can be seized and kept by the dept taking them, if you
can not prove that those assets weren't intended for criminal purposes. 3)
There is a massive conflict of interest that exist when a police department
keep assets they take from people who haven't been convicted of a crime.

~~~
LatteLazy
The articles case isn't civil asset forfeiture. It's criminal. I agree about
civil asset forfeiture.

The vehicle owner tried a reverse civil asset process to get the car back, so
that's interesting but a bit of an aside...

------
arnonejoe
What if the car is a lease?

~~~
Dirlewanger
Guarantee there's probably some obscure clause in lease agreements that allow
the dealership to sue you (or allow them to seize collateral from you) if you
can't produce the car at the end.

~~~
kube-system
You don't need an obscure clause for that. Leases have a term.

------
zby
Hmm - shouldn't the title be like: "Law in the US ..."?

------
RandoHolmes
I often compare law enforcement to the Matrix. The government is the machines,
and the citizens are the humans whose energy is being siphoned off, only in
this case it's money, not energy.

It's unethical and unconscionable, and yet they still do it.

~~~
naringas
money is (in an indicrect and rough sense) a form of energy

energy is all about the capacity to do work.

how do you make humans do work? you give them money

so money is all about the capacity to make humans do work.

~~~
EarthIsHome
> how do you make humans do work? you give them money

I don't know if I buy this argument.

Think pre-Columbus Native Americans in North America. Members of tribes still
did work without money.

What about people with the most money? Do they do the most work? We need to
define what "most work" or "capacity" for work is.

Money is a tool/technology that acts as a bridge between two
quantities/qualities. More simple, money is a common means of exchange.

Money is only an incentive to work for poor people because they will die
without it. But this has to do with the capitalist system we live in, and it
is not inherent to money itself.

~~~
duutfhhh
Money is when I conspire with a few thugs to block access to the only source
of water in town and demand special tokens for access and when people ask
where they can get those tokens, I tell that they can earn some by doing some
work, like building a house for me or cooking some food.

------
holidayacct
The reality is we need fewer, higher paid police with an extremely high
barrier to entry. They should be required to go through the kind of training
the military goes through for months so you see how they react under pressure.
They should have people constantly giving them an opportunity to lie, cheat,
steal and abuse their position of power to test if they are corrupt in any
way. They should be monitored 24/7 and if they do anything that remotely looks
suspicious they should be removed from their position of power. They should be
required to go through intense training annually to see if they are still
psychologically fit to do the job. Finally they should start as peace officers
for several years and be required to communicate with people in difficult
situations until it is possible to determine if they can be trusted. Everyone
else should be put on peace officer duty with no weapons and no authority to
do anything but observe and report information. The police don't need the
amount of authority and power they have.

~~~
opwieurposiu
Or just revoke qualified immunity and force them to pay for their own
malpractice insurance. The most dangerous will be priced out.

~~~
holidayacct
I'm not in favor of removing qualified immunity because I have former
classmates who are police officers and some of them work in places where they
are constantly dealing with violent crime and they occasionally have to things
that appear criminal but aren't. They have to spend weeks justifying why they
made certain decisions and if they have a pattern of behavior they will lose
their jobs. If you speak to really good police officers in an environment
where they don't have to worry about retaliation they will tell you directly
they don't trust most of the police force where they work. Some of them are
more afraid of their co-workers than the people they encounter on the street.

~~~
Falling3
I genuinely do not understand the sentiment behind your first sentence after
reading your last.

------
eric_b
> She was in the passenger seat when a state trooper clocked her car at 118
> miles per hour on I-94 in St. Paul.

So she lets someone else drive her car at felony reckless driving speeds while
she sits in the passenger seat? I mean... this law sounds like it has some
problems but I'm not sure this is the case that proves it.

Surely she bears some responsibility here? Additionally, the car was used in a
crime. Should you get your gun back if you loan it out and it's used to shoot
somebody?

~~~
jedimastert
> Surely she bears some responsibility here?

If you're sitting in the passenger seat of a car driving an insane speed, what
do you do? Hit the e-break? You're almost certainly going to die. Call thew
police? The person is driving that crazy and you're in a locked room. You do
the math.

There is absolutely nothing a passenger can do.

~~~
aardshark
From the details given, it sounds like she should bear some responsibility.
But the story is lacking in details.

Perhaps her coworker claimed to be sober and had not been visibly drinking at
the work party. Perhaps she pleaded with him to slow down.

Regardless, she clearly made an error in judgement when she decided to allow
this person to drive her car. Should she lose her car over it? No, I don't
think so. But if they had been involved in a car accident, should she bear
some portion of blame? Definitely.

------
twic
This particular case is not nearly as bad as it sounds. Someone used a car to
commit a crime, so the state seized the car. The car was owned by another
person, who had lent it to the person who committed the crime. This sounds
like a powerful deterrent to allowing your car to be used to commit crimes.

> "You're asking one drunk person to determine whether another person is fit
> to drive. That's absurd," said attorney Chuck Ramsay.

No, it's not. Just assume they aren't. What's the alternative? Merrily lend
your car to someone who might be drunk, and not bear any consequences?

~~~
vidanay
“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be
punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot
all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die,
then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is
immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as
that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of
security whatsoever.”

\- John Adams

~~~
darksaints
A wonderful quote.

I can't help but see the similarity between this quote and the words of a 90
year old BLM protester that I met in Seattle recently: "No, I don't really
care about the looters. Let them take what they want. Because it doesn't
matter. Nothing matters anymore. Because guilty or innocent, if they're black,
they're gonna end up in prison at some point before they die. Just like I did.
For 24 years."

~~~
rimliu
So he was innocent and spent 24 years in prison? Or was he just trying to
downplay his own responsibility?

~~~
darksaints
He claimed he was innocent, and I think I believe him.

My therapist does some work in the state prison system, and he told me once
that most prisoners go through the full 5 stages of grief usually within a
couple of months. And by the end of those stages of grief, it is no longer
painful for them to accept and openly admit that they committed a crime. He
can only recall two long term prisoners that he worked with that refused to
admit guilt after a year in prison...one of them has already been fully
exonerated (not commuted, but actually cleared of all guilt), and the other
was recently granted a retrial. Anecdotal, sure, but I find it believable.

