
Police Can Use a Legal Gray Area to Rob Anyone of Their Belongings (2016) - bcaa7f3a8bbc
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/how-police-use-a-legal-gray-area-to-rob-suspects-of-their-belongings/495740/
======
bcaa7f3a8bbc
Note to readers: This is _not_ civil forfeiture.

> There are two avenues available to the government for seizing items that
> were used to commit a crime, or cash that was made unlawfully. If a person
> is convicted of a crime, the government can use a legal tool called criminal
> forfeiture that allows it to confiscate property that was involved. Civil
> forfeiture, on the other hand, does not require a criminal charge—only a
> suspicion that a piece of property was involved in a crime, or that it was
> obtained illegally.

> But neither of those legal processes were used against Clavasquin, his
> coplaintiffs, and the estimated “hundreds if not thousands” of others just
> in New York City that they represent in the lawsuit. Instead, they got
> caught in legal limbo: When their property was classified as evidence after
> their arrest, slow-moving bureaucracy and red tape turned what should be a
> routine transaction—getting back personal property after the state no longer
> has any use for it—into a near-impossibility.

> [...] Even if a person is arrested but isn’t charged with a crime, his or
> her possessions can be seized. (In certain cases, police can even seize
> property without arresting its owner.) But the lack of criminal charges
> don’t make recovery any easier. In fact, in Washington and New York, it
> lands individuals in another gray area that can be even more difficult to
> navigate than the maze of red tape that follows the end of criminal
> proceedings.

Apparently, in addition to the much controversial civil forfeiture (which
largely allows the police to confiscate things arbitrarily in a Stop-and-Seize
scheme without charges or warrants [0]), the police can also keep your things
confiscated without a charge by classifying it as "evidence"...

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8280889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8280889)

~~~
zzo38computer
And they should need to fix that, so that if the police confiscate your thing
without your consent, then the police shall be arrested for theft. (The other
police will need to arrest them. And if they refuse, then you have to take it
back by yourself.)

~~~
mewse
As a practical matter, would the items stolen by the original police then need
to be taken into evidence by the second set of police, to support the charge
of theft against the first set of police?

~~~
zzo38computer
Of course, that is a valid point. But maybe photographs will do in this case?

~~~
beerandt
Then they should do in the first case.

The whole "need to keep the evidence until the case is closed" thing is a
sham.

If a crime scene can be released back to the owner before a case is closed, so
can evidence.

Making it difficult is just another case of the process being part of the
punishment.

------
wsh
The federal lawsuit against the City of New York mentioned in the _Atlantic_
article was settled in 2018, with the City and the Bronx district attorney’s
office agreeing to reforms related to the return of property taken from
arrestees.

Press release: [https://www.bronxdefenders.org/the-bronx-defenders-
secures-s...](https://www.bronxdefenders.org/the-bronx-defenders-secures-
settlement-ending-the-nypds-unconstitutional-practice-of-keeping-money-and-
property-seized-during-arrests/)

Settlement agreement (PDF): [https://www.bronxdefenders.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Co...](https://www.bronxdefenders.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Court-Ordered-Settlement_Encarnacion-v.-City-of-New-
York_2.12.18.pdf)

------
loopz
Being police is not a privilege, but an obligation of responsibility. This
includes reform where such provides better service to the public. Neglecting
this is being of disservice.

------
lonelappde
"Rob" is the wrong word. It's more like vandalism, since items in evidence are
not enjoyed by anyone.

