• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Forfeiture: border adventure

Mr Person

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
64,267
Reaction score
62,674
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
After two years of stonewalling about its theft of Gerardo Serrano’s 2014 Ford F-250 pickup truck, the government suddenly returned it. It sparkled from having been washed and detailed, bumper to bumper, and it had four new tires and a new battery. The government probably hoped that, mollified by the truck’s sprucing-up, Serrano would let bygones be bygones and go back to Kentucky. This was another mistake by our mistake-prone government.Assisted by litigators from the Institute for Justice (IJ), whose appearance on the West Texas horizon probably panicked the government into pretending to be law-abiding, Serrano wants to make the government less larcenous and more constitutional when it is enriching itself through civil forfeiture.


On Sept. 21, 2015, Serrano drove to the Eagle Pass, Tex., border crossing, intending to try to interest a Mexican cousin in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States. To have mementos of his trip, he took some pictures of the border with his cellphone camera, which annoyed two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, who demanded the password to his phone. Serrano, who is what an American ought to be regarding his rights, prickly, refused to submit to such an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. One agent said he was “sick of hearing about your rights” and “you have no rights here.” So, they searched his truck — this was unusual for a vehicle leaving the country — and one agent said, “We got him!”

Having found five .380-caliber bullets in the truck’s center console — he has a concealed-carry permit but had no weapon with him — they handcuffed him and seized his truck under civil forfeiture, saying it had been used to transport “munitions of war.” The next time someone warns about the potential for domestic abuse of supposed national security measures, do not dismiss him or her as a neurotic libertarian.

[continues]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.c1cbabf8be50



Yet more fallout from the War on Drugs. We set lax controls for civil forfeiture because drugs are bad mmkay. Predictably, law enforcement of all variety - from local PDs on up - abuse the tool they were given. It is mainly used as a scummy way to increase a station's funding.

Apparently, the guards working this crossing seize about 100 cars a year.
 
Fortunately, congress is blocking Sessions' attempts to revive and expand the program:



It was a brief moment of bipartisan unity. Last September, the U.S. House of Representatives approved several amendments to block an infamous civil forfeiture program that had been revived by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Under civil forfeiture, the government can permanently confiscate property even if the owner is never criminally charged. Tellingly, not a single representative voted against the amendments or voiced support for Sessions’ new forfeiture policy. Sessions’ forfeiture announcement was deeply unpopular. A survey taken by Morning Consult/Politico shortly after his decision found that Americans opposed the new Justice Department policy by a margin of almost 3:1. Only 19 percent of Americans thought expanding civil forfeiture would do “more good than harm.” Even many on the right blasted the decision, including Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as the editorial board for National Review.Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, none of the anti-forfeiture amendments made its way into the final version of the omnibus spending bill President Donald Trump signed last month. (The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment for this story.)

[continues]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instit...n-despite-unanimous-house-votes/#5d2078da4549
 
The government should never be able to seize property using civil forfeiture program without a court ruling that it is proper.

When law enforcement receives a benefit for the seizure there will be abuses that damage innocent citizens.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The government should never be able to seize property using civil forfeiture program without a court ruling that it is proper.

When law enforcement receives a benefit for the seizure there will be abuses that damage innocent citizens.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately "should" and "can" are two different things.
 
"Munitions of war" for some rounds of a .380? GTFoutta here, that's the kind of firearm assessment a leftist would make.
 
Civil asset forfeiture prior to actually establishing guilt and tying those assets to the actual crime is so far afield from what our justice system is supposed to be about that I really can't find the words to describe the level of disgust I have with the concept, and with my countrymen for allowing this atrocity to even exist.

Oh and while we're at it let's set it up so that the police can actually keep some of the proceeds. Can't think of a better way to turn the police into criminals themselves. The morons who dreamed this scheme up have a special circle in hell waiting for them.
 
Gaius46 said:
Civil asset forfeiture prior to actually establishing guilt and tying those assets to the actual crime is so far afield from what our justice system is supposed to be about that I really can't find the words to describe the level of disgust I have with the concept, and with my countrymen for allowing this atrocity to even exist.

Oh and while we're at it let's set it up so that the police can actually keep some of the proceeds. Can't think of a better way to turn the police into criminals themselves. The morons who dreamed this scheme up have a special circle in hell waiting for them.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

It's also often used as a weapon to shunt the defendant onto the public defense system. In a state that does a half-decent job of funding public defense (ie, MA), it's not a huge issue. But a lot of states have abominable public defender systems. The attorneys in them are only there because they care deeply, but caring doesn't do all that much when you have only the tiniest fraction of the time necessary to handle a given case well.

Our criminal court system is no where near as fair as many like to tell themselves.
 
Mr Person said:
Indeed.

It's also often used as a weapon to shunt the defendant onto the public defense system. In a state that does a half-decent job of funding public defense (ie, MA), it's not a huge issue. But a lot of states have abominable public defender systems. The attorneys in them are only there because they care deeply, but caring doesn't do all that much when you have only the tiniest fraction of the time necessary to handle a given case well.

Our criminal court system is no where near as fair as many like to tell themselves.
Click to expand...

I’ve an acquaintance who was a PD in Nassau County, NY. He basically said his job, as subtly and not-so-subtly given to him by his superiors, was to convince his clients to take plea deals. Innocence or guilt didn’t even factor into the equation.
 
Gaius46 said:
I’ve an acquaintance who was a PD in Nassau County, NY. He basically said his job, as subtly and not-so-subtly given to him by his superiors, was to convince his clients to take plea deals. Innocence or guilt didn’t even factor into the equation.
Click to expand...

...I'd have to hear his exact words. I'm not saying you're making it up, but that's worrysome.




I mean, I do this work. At no point have I heard anything remotely close to that as some kind of general mandate. Fortunately, MA has a split system of public defenders and court-appointed private attorneys who accept crap rates to do the same cases.

Then again, there are people who should plead guilty and take a deal, because they are stupid criminals who basically convicted themselves by doing something like leaving their ID at the scene or posting on Facebook about what they did.
 
Mr Person said:
After two years of stonewalling about its theft of Gerardo Serrano’s 2014 Ford F-250 pickup truck, the government suddenly returned it. It sparkled from having been washed and detailed, bumper to bumper, and it had four new tires and a new battery. The government probably hoped that, mollified by the truck’s sprucing-up, Serrano would let bygones be bygones and go back to Kentucky. This was another mistake by our mistake-prone government.Assisted by litigators from the Institute for Justice (IJ), whose appearance on the West Texas horizon probably panicked the government into pretending to be law-abiding, Serrano wants to make the government less larcenous and more constitutional when it is enriching itself through civil forfeiture.


On Sept. 21, 2015, Serrano drove to the Eagle Pass, Tex., border crossing, intending to try to interest a Mexican cousin in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States. To have mementos of his trip, he took some pictures of the border with his cellphone camera, which annoyed two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, who demanded the password to his phone. Serrano, who is what an American ought to be regarding his rights, prickly, refused to submit to such an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. One agent said he was “sick of hearing about your rights” and “you have no rights here.” So, they searched his truck — this was unusual for a vehicle leaving the country — and one agent said, “We got him!”

Having found five .380-caliber bullets in the truck’s center console — he has a concealed-carry permit but had no weapon with him — they handcuffed him and seized his truck under civil forfeiture, saying it had been used to transport “munitions of war.” The next time someone warns about the potential for domestic abuse of supposed national security measures, do not dismiss him or her as a neurotic libertarian.

[continues]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.c1cbabf8be50



Yet more fallout from the War on Drugs. We set lax controls for civil forfeiture because drugs are bad mmkay. Predictably, law enforcement of all variety - from local PDs on up - abuse the tool they were given. It is mainly used as a scummy way to increase a station's funding.

Apparently, the guards working this crossing seize about 100 cars a year.
Click to expand...

civil forfeiture always seemed shaky to me.
 
Civil forfeiture to the government should NEVER be allowed because it creates an incentive for the government to FIND someone guilty.

there are so many shenanigans and abuse.. that I have seen over my life.

An employee of mine was driving a boyfriend who was a lawyer.. and he asked to stop off to meet with a client. She dropped him off and went on her way. The boyfriend met with an undercover officer to discuss a drug deal.

She lost her BMW because "it was used in a drug deal".

I have a patient that was sentenced to "anger management".. at a facility that the local judges OWN.. interestingly.. if you have the money to pay for anger management.. you keep having to go to anger management. Poor people that only have the means for one or two visits are cured in those one or two visits.
 
Mr Person said:
...I'd have to hear his exact words. I'm not saying you're making it up, but that's worrysome.




I mean, I do this work. At no point have I heard anything remotely close to that as some kind of general mandate. Fortunately, MA has a split system of public defenders and court-appointed private attorneys who accept crap rates to do the same cases.

Then again, there are people who should plead guilty and take a deal, because they are stupid criminals who basically convicted themselves by doing something like leaving their ID at the scene or posting on Facebook about what they did.
Click to expand...

The issues in that office have been made public by at least one former PD there. Here's his take: Failure At The Nassau County Legal Aid Society, Part 1
 
Gaius46 said:
Civil asset forfeiture prior to actually establishing guilt and tying those assets to the actual crime is so far afield from what our justice system is supposed to be about that I really can't find the words to describe the level of disgust I have with the concept, and with my countrymen for allowing this atrocity to even exist.

Oh and while we're at it let's set it up so that the police can actually keep some of the proceeds. Can't think of a better way to turn the police into criminals themselves. The morons who dreamed this scheme up have a special circle in hell waiting for them.
Click to expand...


:yt


My sentiments, exactly...


The fact our Keebler elf of an AG supports this is repulsive.


Whatever happened to the **presumption** of innocence? Seems it's turned into **presumption** of a big payday!
 
Mr Person said:
Indeed.

It's also often used as a weapon to shunt the defendant onto the public defense system. In a state that does a half-decent job of funding public defense (ie, MA), it's not a huge issue. But a lot of states have abominable public defender systems. The attorneys in them are only there because they care deeply, but caring doesn't do all that much when you have only the tiniest fraction of the time necessary to handle a given case well.

Our criminal court system is no where near as fair as many like to tell themselves.
Click to expand...



The PD attorneys aren't in it for the money, for sure!

In some areas, I've read that the asset forfeitures are directly funding police departments and county/city services of all kinds. It's utterly opposite of everything I've ever considered "lawful." It's the antithesis of the word.

At least in criminal court the defendant has certain rights... With civil asset forfeiture they don't even have to charge the 'suspect' with anything. I doubt in many cases the suspicion level would even reach the point that a judge would issue a search warrant.
 
Who needs that silly old 'Due process" thing anyway.....:roll:

I don't think this can even be described as government over reach.....this was a blatant violation of civil rights, and the people responsible should be held personally accountable.
 
Mr Person said:
After two years of stonewalling about its theft of Gerardo Serrano’s 2014 Ford F-250 pickup truck, the government suddenly returned it. It sparkled from having been washed and detailed, bumper to bumper, and it had four new tires and a new battery. The government probably hoped that, mollified by the truck’s sprucing-up, Serrano would let bygones be bygones and go back to Kentucky. This was another mistake by our mistake-prone government.Assisted by litigators from the Institute for Justice (IJ), whose appearance on the West Texas horizon probably panicked the government into pretending to be law-abiding, Serrano wants to make the government less larcenous and more constitutional when it is enriching itself through civil forfeiture.


On Sept. 21, 2015, Serrano drove to the Eagle Pass, Tex., border crossing, intending to try to interest a Mexican cousin in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States. To have mementos of his trip, he took some pictures of the border with his cellphone camera, which annoyed two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, who demanded the password to his phone. Serrano, who is what an American ought to be regarding his rights, prickly, refused to submit to such an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. One agent said he was “sick of hearing about your rights” and “you have no rights here.” So, they searched his truck — this was unusual for a vehicle leaving the country — and one agent said, “We got him!”

Having found five .380-caliber bullets in the truck’s center console — he has a concealed-carry permit but had no weapon with him — they handcuffed him and seized his truck under civil forfeiture, saying it had been used to transport “munitions of war.” The next time someone warns about the potential for domestic abuse of supposed national security measures, do not dismiss him or her as a neurotic libertarian.

[continues]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.c1cbabf8be50



Yet more fallout from the War on Drugs. We set lax controls for civil forfeiture because drugs are bad mmkay. Predictably, law enforcement of all variety - from local PDs on up - abuse the tool they were given. It is mainly used as a scummy way to increase a station's funding.

Apparently, the guards working this crossing seize about 100 cars a year.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, nothing will happen to the officers who abused their authority and stole property from law-abiding citizens. All those involved should lose their badge and be prosecuted; but government loves to steal and it won't give up that racket anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom