
D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance - tomohawk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-police-plan-for-future-seizure-proceeds-years-in-advance-in-city-budget-documents/2014/11/15/7025edd2-6b76-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?hpid=z4
======
spiritplumber
To everyone who wants to answer "Fuck the police": No, don't.

If your hometown has a police department that acts like a gang:

Don't fuck the police. Don't date, them, either.

Don't sell to police. If they want groceries or gas, let them have to
explicitly confiscate the stuff.

Don't talk to police officers unless they force you. Don't talk to them at all
when they are off duty.

There are two ways a community can fight against a mafia -- a shooting war, or
comprehensive shunning. Guess which works better in the long term?

~~~
dalke
In some places, not selling to police is illegal discrimination.

For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
See Long v. Valentino (1989).
[http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962](http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962)
. A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers
discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial
established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh.

> And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an
> announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer,
> bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh
> Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful
> discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219
> Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d
> 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].)
> Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a
> proposition we consider in the following section.

...

> At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a
> day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746
> [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d
> 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much
> entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may
> not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from
> a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift
> or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as
> articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses
> decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can
> bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has
> arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long
> Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d
> 137].)

> A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police
> officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a
> public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same
> as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not
> like police. ...

BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the
above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".

~~~
spiritplumber
You can say "I do not feel safe interacting with someone who has a firearm,
please come back without". That means you have to be consistent about it, of
course, and also kick out other members of the public who have a weapon.

That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity,
or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just
have to add "absolutely no exceptions".

It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem
with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I
guess.

If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.

~~~
dalke
While it's true that some police officers do carry a gun, not all do so. Your
original call was "Don't sell to police", not "Don't sell to those carrying a
gun." You are using that as a proxy workaround. However, it likely won't work
as I believe the laws regarding "no firearms allowed" signs exempt law
enforcement from following those signs.

(Consider, for example, the difficulty of entering a business where the
business owner is sniping passer-bys and has also posted "no firearms allowed"
signs on the entrances.)

FWIW, the Unruh Civil Rights Act is broader in scope than Title III of the
Civil Rights Act, which I believe is what you are referring to. For example,
it also includes discrimination against someone "who wore long hair and
dressed in an unconventional manner".

My point remains: it _may_ be illegal for a business to discriminate against
someone based on their occupation. It's best to check with the laws before
carrying out your proposed social rejection scheme, if only to have an idea of
the possible consequences.

------
tmuir
If cities arent allowed to include projected seizure revenue in future
budgets, but D.C. has budgeted for their seizure revenue through 2019, whats
going to give this new reform any teeth? Whats the difference in flouting one
law or two?

------
squozzer
All, or maybe most, well and good. Not sure if re-directing the proceeds from
police to general funds will eliminate conflicts of interest.

Instead, the incentives to seize assets might well expand now that the
legislative power will be tasting the goodies.

I know at least one cop who will vouch that at least one place he worked
enforced a quota system for traffic tickets.

If you believe such pressure would not extend to asset seizure, you might want
to cut back on your drug consumption.

------
justifier
every six months have a citizen ballot voting whether to return funds seized
or allow the department to use the funds for specified purposes

keep - 2 million in cash from a child pornography ring

return - 2500$ taken from an individual pulled over for a traffic violation
without a citation or criminal charge

if the funds are voted to be returned then the department has to pay interest
to the original owner of the seized assets

set the interest's equivalent to something that remains contemporary over
time, alike a 401k investment equivalent, or if the funds were in an IRA, etc.

~~~
dalke
From the article: "Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000
seizures under city and federal laws"

That's 2,000 per year, or 1,000 per six months.

Do you think a citizen ballot with 1,000 items on it will be a meaningful
check on police powers?

Also, "from a child pornography ring" is likely incorrect. It should more
likely be "from what is claimed to be a child pornography ring".

Otherwise the ballot will say "$15,000 from a drug dealer" even if it's better
described as "$15,000 from someone the officer thinks might be a drug dealer
but doesn't have any real evidence other than that drug dealer carry a large
amount of cash."

~~~
justifier
i agree the idea is fleshed superficially, child pornography is pretty easy to
get people to rally against where as drug issues enter grey areas of ethics
and morality..

i am more interested in the idea of punishment for improper use of this and
other vague laws as a method of deincentivising abuse

i also think the logic of 'there are too many instances to be able to
regulate' is flawed and incentivises the offenders to be more aggressive

a possible solution to volume could be only deal in values less than a certain
threshold and raise said threshold with each vote depending on number of
instances until all instances are voted on

you could backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with
lower number of instances

the goal is to reduce the number of instances so this issue will hopefully
solve itself

as for terse yet comprehensive descriptions of the events that led to the
forfeiture there is room for a discussion on how best to handle that

the recent vote in my city carried with it a number of numbered and
alphabetized bills that carried a sentence or two description on the ballot i
figured something similar

imperfect but better than 'well, its out of control so let's hope it just
rights itself'

~~~
dalke
Your proposals are untenable. If my $20,000, which I got from friends and
family to buy a backhoe loader for my contracting work, is confiscated for up
to 6 months, then that's a huge pain in my life and career. If my car is
confiscated then that's a huge impact on my ability to get to work.

If you then "backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months
with lower number of instances" it becomes worse.

Prohibit civil forfeiture. It's much easier.

If you want citizen oversight, get a citizen review board, and require that
the putative owner is allowed to have a public defender. And make sure the
public defender's office is sufficiently funded.

------
jrs235
How about funds raised from the confiscated property go towards paying down
the national debt for federal confiscations, and offset appropriated federal
taxes for state confiscations?

~~~
glneo
How about we just stop letting them steal from us?

------
vaadu
If this isn't stopped soon next they will go after your 401ks like in eastern
Europe and then your bank accounts like Cyprus.

The Constitution means nothing to these thieves.

------
venomsnake
Even in city general fund creates the same conflict of interest. Forfeited
property should be destroyed.

~~~
dalke
Okay, so the forfeited car is smashed into a cube. It's destroyed as a car,
but not destroyed as a collection of potentially useful atoms.

What then? Do they sell the metal? Or does the metal recycling center get to
profit from the free lump of metal on their doorstep?

Individually, the same applies for the parts. The battery is easily recycled
for the lead, and under environmental laws can't simply be tossed into the
trash heap. Who gets the profit from that?

It's a reduction of value, certainly, but I don't see how the value in a
destroyed car goes to 0, so there will still be some conflict of interest.

