
Nebraska's civil forfeiture reform - mrb
http://journalstar.com/legislature/a-positive-step-forward-both-sides-find-good-in-nebraska/article_0185c306-4211-5b42-b372-98364b98b8ae.html
======
zyxley
> Still, the attorney general's office says the bill "contains more than minor
> errors."

> For example, if a person suspected of drug trafficking is stopped by local
> law enforcement on Interstate 80 en route to another state, it's possible
> Nebraska laws would provide no avenue to prosecute that person and therefore
> no way to permanently seize the cash, Shasserre said.

"You can't take their money if you don't have enough evidence to prosecute" is
a feature, not a bug.

~~~
avs733
depends on your perspective...

At the risk of defending a complete moron (the AG), he is likely an elected
official who the people of the state want to do these things and the law is
preventing him from doing the will of the people.

(analysis of a point of view, not a validation of it)

~~~
mulmen
For yet another perspective, the measure in question was put in place by
lawmakers who are elected to do the will of the people. If this law is being
passed then we can infer that the will of the people is not, in fact, to have
their property stolen by the state without due process.

------
marcus_holmes
hang on, what? So in the USA the police can just take your personal
possessions without providing any cause or reason?

That doesn't sound like Freedom! to me, that sounds like a police state...

~~~
mapt
It is. And it's explicitly forbidden by our Constitution.

Efforts to pretend otherwise, but _only for suspected drug dealers_ , lost
that qualifier a decade or so ago when fiscal conservatives started to doom
state governments to persistent budget shortfalls. Police departments lacking
funding found themselves a status as highwaymen that the federal government
(since Reagan) would tolerate, robbing out-of-state vehicles under cover of
federal law and judicial precedent.

These people swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. There is no wiggle room
on this subject in the Bill of Rights for people to have their possessions
stripped from their person absent a criminal conviction. Practitioners of
'civil asset forfeiture' are traitors to that oath and to their country, in
addition to being guilty of the common crime of armed robbery.

Why hasn't it been changed yet?

* It's rare. This is not an everyday thing.

* It often targets people on long-haul car journeys through what wealthy people (the sort who can afford lawyers) term 'the flyover states'. Most people do not want to battle this in court at least a days' drive from their home, on disadvantaged terms with a lawyer who will cost more than the goods in question.

* Most wealthy people (the sort who can afford lawyers) no longer carry large amounts of cash.

* State & local police departments have become reliant on it. Law enforcement agencies are extremely averse to going up against each other. Politicians with the power to shape law respond to the opinion of the people in the place they live and to local campaign donations by wealthy people, not to out-of-state victims.

~~~
cauterized
Plus the cases in many states are framed in such a way that the cash itself is
the defendant and the person it was taken from has no standing in the case.
They make it essentially procedurally impossible to contest the seizure.

~~~
marcus_holmes
surely this introduces a precedent for defence lawyers too though? "My client
did not buy the drugs. My client's money bought the drugs. If my client has no
standing in civil forfeiture then he also has no case to answer in criminal
proceedings"

~~~
Spoom
The forfeiture is completely separate from any criminal investigation; in
fact, it's possible for a forfeiture to occur in the complete absence of any
criminal charges.

~~~
mcv
And that makes this so criminal. It's not just injustice, it is actual highway
robbery. If states can't fix this, the federal government should. Allowing
state officials to prey on out-of-state travellers sounds like exactly the
kind of thing the federal government should prevent.

------
cm3
This is great to hear. It must spread quickly to correct one of many bugs in
the 2016 version of US laws.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Call you representative. Voice your concern. Spearhead the effort in your
state or find out who is.

~~~
cm3
I'm not a US citizen.

~~~
sandworm101
Email them anyway. Chances are they have an intern counting for/against,
positive/negative, without bothering to notice the author's citizenship. Don't
lie, just say "I'm against X" and leave it to them. If rich people can fund
elections across state lines, across national boundaries, then poor people
should at least be able to register their disapproval.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Its not going to get counted without a zip code to confirm constituency. Also,
emails count the least (point system based on in-person visit, letters, phone
calls, emails, in descending order of value).

~~~
maxxxxx
You forgot "Check with big campaign contribution" :-)

~~~
mikestew
I realize you're just being snarky, but for the benefit of those playing at
home, only U. S. citizens can make campaign contributions.

~~~
cmdrfred
Couldn't he just form a corporation here[0]? I hear delaware makes that easy.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

------
hoodoof
This is good news. The most fundamental corruption in society must be
unscrutinized seizure by government and police.

------
ccvannorman
FYI, in 2013 a reform (Senate Bill 443 [0]) was shot down in California,
because LEO doesn't want their goodies taken away.

If you're a concerned Californian you might want to contact the senator who
introduced it, Holly Mitchell [1]

[0] [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article34818903.html)

[1] [http://sd30.senate.ca.gov/](http://sd30.senate.ca.gov/)

------
danjoc
Forbes requires me to disable malware protection to view their site. I found
an informative link here instead:

[http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/nebraska-abolishes-
civil-f...](http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/nebraska-abolishes-civil-
forfeiture/)

~~~
dang
We've changed the URL from
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/n...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/nebraska-
just-abolished-civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-to-take-
property) to a local newspaper report.

~~~
yongjik
> [http://journalstar.com/legislature/a-positive-step-
> forward-b...](http://journalstar.com/legislature/a-positive-step-forward-
> both-sides-find-good-in-
> nebraska/article_0185c306-4211-5b42-b372-98364b98b8ae.html)

Umm, not sure if it's just me, but this link doesn't even let me read the
article without answering a survey like "Do you currently have auto
insurance?"

~~~
davidw
It used to be we had to go outside, find a newspaper box, and put a quarter in
it to get a paper. And it was probably just the local paper.

~~~
mulmen
Yes but we didn't have to wash their dishes. Ads are one thing, invasive
popover interactive surveys are another.

