
Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law - dpieri
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law
======
roymurdock
Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-
department-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-
wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html)

I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of
defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.

~~~
wfjackson
The practice originally seemed to be in place to give discretion to officer to
deal with druglords and people like that since proving everything is court is
very hard, but since the incentives are all wrong(departments keep the
proceeds), it seems to be quite abused.

A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the
national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.

~~~
yebyen
I read in a comment on a related article yesterday that this was tried in
Utah, in fact here's the link[1], tldr it was not successful at all.

The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to
law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason
required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply
use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?

If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have
to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that
maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone
ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the
voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone
to account when the next election time came around.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582659](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582659)

------
hackuser
The Washington Post provided excellent coverage in September:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-
and-seize/)

IIRC, it was this article that described police being trained on how to obtain
valuable assets, and police collaborating on message boards:

One example was an officer posting on a message board a car's description and
license plate, and telling officers in a neighboring jurisdiction that the car
was coming their way, and that he was unable to justify seizure when he
stopped the driver but that they might have better luck.

EDIT: And here is the ACLU's page on the issue:
[https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-
forfeit...](https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture)

~~~
kderbe
The New Yorker's piece on civil forfeiture published last year, "Taken", is
also excellent and also prompted a lot of comments on Hacker News.

The article:
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken?currentPa...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken?currentPage=all)
Discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161465)

------
panic
The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal
for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with
protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're
doing their actual job.

~~~
daurnimator
> They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their
> actual job

So.... if the police do a bad job; and crime is rife; we get rid of the police
department? Or conversely, if there is no crime, we give more and more money
to the police?

~~~
finkel
Those are both extremely fallacious measures of whether the police are doing a
good job.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Fallacious = based on a mistaken belief.

synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, faulty, flawed,
inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, mistaken, misinformed, misguided, misleading,
deceptive, delusive, delusory, illusory, sophistic, specious, fictitious,
spurious, fabricated, distorted, made up, trumped up

------
DenisM
The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is
interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?

~~~
cpayne
As @roymurdock posted, the NY Times article has a video of the guy being quite
explicit in the "benefits": [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-
department-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-
wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html)

~~~
MichaelGG
He describes how excited the cops were to steal a guy's car. He even says "and
_gulp_ we had to give it back" because they didn't follow procedure. Put aside
the inanity involved in stealing people's property in cases like this, it's a
pure greed motive where cops are looking at the population to go raiding.

They sound little better than privateers.

------
DanBC
[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/](http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association
with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him. ^ Top

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he
has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held
guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one
that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

It would be interesting to see how other countries do asset seizure to compare
how they maintain compliance with the UNHDR.

------
gelatocar
There was also a good bit on last week tonight about this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

------
hackuser
I'm curious why libertarians around here and Tea Party followers elsewhere do
not make more noise over this issue. It's an honest question; my hypothesis:
It's because the intrusion is from the right and not from the left.

~~~
jMyles
Although I don't typically use the word "libertarian" to describe myself, I do
run in libertarian circles and I think this is arguably the single biggest
issue of concern (other candidates include foreign policy and the prison
system).

Go to Liberty Forum or Porcupine Festival and you'll see not just one but
multiple studied experts discussing both the particulars of these policies and
also strategies for achieving change.

Rand Paul (whom isn't nearly radical enough for my palate but carries the "Tea
Party" label arguably more than anyone else) is by far the loudest member of
either house of congress on this issue.

As far as I know, Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and former
New Mexico Governor) was the only viable candidate for President (defined here
as being on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of
victory) who talked about this issue in his stump speech.

I'm not sure what more you want?

As an aside: Gary Johnson is a truly wonderful human being and an incredible
elite athlete. I've been fortunate to get to hang out with him on about half a
dozen occasions and, dare I say, become a personal friend, albeit not a close
one (yet :-)). He's a really warm person who radiates amazingly positive
energy (something you don't necessarily expect from a Libertarian) and is full
of really intense entrepreneurial drive. He's planning a run again for 2016;
be sure to at least give his material a chance.

~~~
hackuser
Interesting. I read a lot of news and I didn't know Rand Paul talked about it.

~~~
jMyles
Really? It's one of his trademark issues.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/07/25/r...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/07/25/rand-paul-introduces-bill-to-reform-civil-asset-
forfeiture/)

------
mark-r
What surprises me is that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I
thought you couldn't be deprived of property without due process? I know it
has survived numerous court cases so I'm baffled.

~~~
nyolfen
it's almost as if the original american political ideals are corrupt enough to
afford chattel property rights over human beings and aren't actually built on
ethical grounds

~~~
jMyles
I think "it's almost as if" is an unduly passive-aggressive way to begin a
comment, but I agree that the thought you are expressing warrants discussion
in this thread.

------
bavcyc
Matt Taibbi has an interesting book out "The Divide: American Injustice in the
Age of the Wealth Gap."

There are issues in the US beyond just the seizing of assets, the question is
how do we fix it so that everyone can prosper? The idea of the United States
is still awesome, but have we as a country ever come close to the ideal? Is it
possible to reach the ideal?

~~~
PythonicAlpha
It might not be possible, to reach the ideal. But what I currently see is,
that justice, freedom and democracy are loosing very fast in all the world
around us and fastest in those countries that once where the first democratic
nations.

It is totally frightening and a bad sign for all humanity.

------
furyg3
_The concept is that police are, in theory, bringing charges against the
property. They are saying this property is being used in the furtherance of a
crime._

So where's the crime? Who's been arrested/convicted/sentenced?

------
dba7dba
I heard of an older Asian lady (first generation immigrant) who lost her 3-bed
house somewhat this way.

She divorced from her husband and she ended up with the house. To make extra
income, she rented her room to someone. That person happened to be a drug
dealer or something like it and when that person was convicted, the house was
also dragged into the case and she ended up losing the house to police.

I couldn't believe it and thought she may have been exaggerating but hearing
this news, maybe she was telling the truth...

------
jsaxton86
What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how
much money I have?

~~~
ars
Whatever you want. You don't have to answer him, and he can't search you
unless he arrests you.

If he's going to arrest you it's probably best not to lie though. You can
always say I'm not sure.

If you do have more than $1,000 in cash don't allow him to search your car.

~~~
einrealist
Sorry, but that is bad advice.

Do not talk to the police, ever! If they arrest you, you only ask for the
reason of the arrest and for legal counsil (a lawyer) and nothing more!

If they give you a ticket, keep your mouth shut, receive it and present it to
a lawyer.

Do not consent to a search, ever! Even if you think you have nothing on you!

The police is not your friend!

------
phx602
In Phoenix, Arizona if you are arrested they will automatically impound any
and all $100 bills. You have to go to the police impound station to get them
back. You can have several hundred in $20's though and they will hold it at
the county jail (where Detention Officers have been caught stealing from the
cash safe) and give it back when you're released. I never really understood
why.

------
sytelus
My only question here is that how this does not violate constitutional rights
of citizens for possessing property and having a due process of law? Why
Supreme Court has upheld these laws all these years? Wikipedia has good
article on civil forfeiture[1] but fails to answer this question. All I can
discern from there is that these laws were created 200 years ago to seize
ships of owners who can't be prosecuted easily. Apparently supreme court has
distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. For the former,
due process by a judge is required while for former it's not because a
property gets charged for participating in crime instead of a person. This
sounds more dumber than "corporation is a person" thing that they rules
before. Who is supposed to protect the intent of constitution now?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States)

------
melvinmt
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-
tenths_of_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-
tenths_of_the_law)

------
citruspi
Discussion on the New York Times article yesterday -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8581889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8581889)

------
brianbreslin
Shouldn't the aclu be all over this?

------
jeangenie
In theory we live in a democracy that should make fixing this easy.

~~~
beneater
It makes fixing it _possible_. It's unreasonable to expect that getting
millions of people to agree to take specific actions to effect a very precise
change in laws will be "easy".

~~~
jeangenie
Do you imagine it would be difficult to convince a citizen the government
shouldn't be allowed to steal their property?

------
PythonicAlpha
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.

It worries me, that these things are known now for several years at it seems,
but all attempts of change have been blocked.

To differentiate between right and wrong belongs to the building blocks of
society -- of all societies. But you can also see in history and in other
nations, what the result is, when such building blocks are missing or when
they are repeatedly violated. That is something that makes me fear for the US.
When they train those people, that shall uphold the differentiation between
right and wrong to be wrongdoers, when legislation fails, because there are to
many interest groups, when even judges are judging for money .... the way
downhill will be steep!

Already today, as others also posted, the trust into officials is rapidly
going downhill in society. Broader and broader parts of society disband legal
living, because legality is also often only an excuse for wrong doing. The
officials give the example and the complete nation goes downhill step for
step.

