Asset Forfeiture. No conviction necessary. Rules relaxed.

[PleasantValley]

Deputy AG Rosenstein on civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums | On Air Videos | Fox News

This is my very first thread, other than my introduction, so I hope I have it in the proper place. I did not include it in Breaking news because this has been discussed and in the works for a bit.

On this subject, and a couple more I have to break ranks completely with my respected Conservative brethren.
I feel Asset Forfeiture has become a national disgrace with all the abuse being done in its name.
It is a matter of record 100% of the cocaine seized by the NYPD in the French Connection case has completely vanished for their evidence room. (look it up)
Some tin foil hatters said it was distributed to PDs all over the country to plant on people they want to nail, but have not been able to otherwise.
If you look at the implications of these laws as they stand the fly in the face of our protected freedoms.

Don't tell me cops don't plant "stuff" on people. They have been caught doing so, but most of the time they get away with it.
I am Pro-Police, Pro-Law Enforcement, but very much against every little burg having a SWAT Team, and being militarized.
With new relaxed rules on this already bad law, I can see the floodgates being opened for its abuse.
A drug kingpin or a mob boss can always buy another yacht. However, I see this law extending to people like you and I.
Remember you only have to be suspected of a crime to loose everything you have worked so hard to obtain. No convictions necessary.

WORST CASE SCENARIO & HYPERBOLED EXAMPLE:
Officer Bubba is at the range and notices Mr. A shooting a very nice classic rifle or three that he can not afford on his merger salary.
he knows in a dark hidden area of the evidence room is 2oz of that French coke.
officer Bubba notes the tag number on Mr. A's truck as he leaves. Nice truck too.
Officer Bubba has a friend call into the station saying they believe Mr. A is dealing drugs.
At zero dark thirty, officer Bubba along with a few dozen more, + the local Bugtussel town SWAT team bust into Mr. A's home.
During the search that 2ozs finds its way into Mr. A's kitchen drawer.
Under these new relaxed rules, Officer bubba may not even need that 2oz. He is a suspect, after all, and that is all that is needed.
Now Mr. A's beautiful rifles are gingerly loaded into a van along with a few hundred rounds of ammo and any other guns he might have.
"By the way, Officer George, here are the keys to his truck. Bring that along too".

NEWS REPORT THAT NEXT DAY:
A late night raid on a suspected drug dealer in the area was conducted last night and an "arsenal" of weapons were found, in addition to a "specialized long range sniper weapon" (his M14 with a scope). Some drugs were seized on his property, and evidence of drug distribution was also found (ziplock bags he had under the sink for food storage). Officer Bubba was praised for his diligence and quick response in acting on an anonymous tip.

RESULTS: Officer Bubba is given Mr. A's rifle as a gesture of his fine police work. Mr A's life is ruined, and he dies getting shanked in prison while his case was under review. His other assets are given out or sold off to other cops or agencies.

Tell me this can't happen, and never has.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have some mixed feelings on this subject. I oppose the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is one of the main tools that is used on the war on drugs and it is subject to abuse because of the money local LE agencies can derive from forfeiture. On the other hand, I suspect I am one of the few people on this board, its 13 or so history, who has ever prosecuted a forfeiture case. In fact I tried over a dozen such cases for the government, winning every one I tried no matter what the burden of proof was and in the cases I saw, from the federal perspective, they were proper applications of the law

many people complain that assets can be forfeited even when the "owner" is not criminally convicted. That is true. and it is true because most of the time the real owner won't admit the property is his and will place the property in the hands of a nominee owner who doesn't have a record or isn't involved in the drug trade. So in many cases, property is forfeited from a claimant who has a clean record but, and I repeat BUT, that person never owned the forfeited assets in the first place.

The last case I tried involved a known drug dealer who put a safe in his parents' house. He had the combination to the safe. raids were conducted on his home and his parents. large quantities of dope were found in his home. When his parents' home was raided, his mother called him to get the combination (there was a court ordered wiretap on his phone) she opened the safe and there was thousands upon thousands of dollars-packaged EXACTLY the same way as the dope money found at the dealer's home. His father claimed he had NO IDEA what was in the safe and that He had NO IDEA that there was more money in that safe than the house was worth. A forensic accountant examined the income of the mother and while she made about 85 K a year, her spending habits were such that she could not have accumulated anywhere near that cash in the amount of time she claimed she did. she claimed the money had been there for 5 years but a dope dog gave 5 positive indications (in other words, the money was hidden in five different locations in a sterile environment and the dog hit on it every time) and another expert testified that money sitting for five years would not have such a strong scent.

The jury gave all the money to the DEA and the county task force. The foreman of the jury as well as the other jurors met with the government's trial team and the judge after the verdict (voluntarily of course) and they explained that they didn't believe a word of the claimant. I should note that the jury did not hear that the mother called her son and asked for the combination-the evidence of the wiretap was not divulged because the investigation into the dope dealing was on going. but we knew that it was his safe and his own brother noted that the dealer had bought the safe and he and the dealer put the safe in the house and he also testified that he never saw his mother go into the safe nor did she know the combination


so asset forfeiture opponents will claim that the "owner" had over 250K taken from her and she was never even charged with a crime. Which is true. But she wasn't the real owner and the real owner was convicted of F2 trafficking, money laundering and federal and state tax evasion

 

[Captain Adverse]

I have always opposed asset forfeiture as a violation of every citizen's Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

I believe this despite the convoluted justifications used historically by the Supreme Court all based on the original decision in "The PALMYRA, ESCURRA, Master, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827)" https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.htm

The case involved a ship that had been stolen and then used by the pirates in acts of piracy. When the ship was recovered the original owner asked for return of his stolen property, but the Court held the property could be seized because "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing."

Courts have used this justification ever since to uphold asset forfeiture laws, and there are only 3 ways to change this: 1. Congress change the law, or 2. via Constitutional Amendment, or finally 3. by a SCOTUS 9 - 0 ruling over-turning all precedents.

Good luck with that. It is just too profitable for government at all levels. :shrug:

 

[TurtleDude]

I have always opposed asset forfeiture as a violation of every citizen's Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

I believe this despite the convoluted justifications used historically by the Supreme Court all based on the original decision in "The PALMYRA, ESCURRA, Master, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827)" https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.htm

The case involved a ship that had been stolen and then used by the pirates in acts of piracy. When the ship was recovered the original owner asked for return of his stolen property, but the Court held the property could be seized because "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing."

Courts have used this justification ever since to uphold asset forfeiture laws, and there are only 3 ways to change this: 1. Congress change the law, or 2. via Constitutional Amendment, or finally 3. by a SCOTUS 9 - 0 ruling over-turning all precedents.

Good luck with that.

that rationale no longer works in federal forfeiture cases. that would have been a successful innocent owner defense. but the fact remains, drug dealers often have friends hold property for them when they are under investigation

 

[PleasantValley]

I have some mixed feelings on this subject. I oppose the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is one of the main tools that is used on the war on drugs and it is subject to abuse because of the money local LE agencies can derive from forfeiture. On the other hand, I suspect I am one of the few people on this board, its 13 or so history, who has ever prosecuted a forfeiture case. In fact I tried over a dozen such cases for the government, winning every one I tried no matter what the burden of proof was and in the cases I saw, from the federal perspective, they were proper applications of the law

many people complain that assets can be forfeited even when the "owner" is not criminally convicted. That is true. and it is true because most of the time the real owner won't admit the property is his and will place the property in the hands of a nominee owner who doesn't have a record or isn't involved in the drug trade. So in many cases, property is forfeited from a claimant who has a clean record but, and I repeat BUT, that person never owned the forfeited assets in the first place.

The last case I tried involved a known drug dealer who put a safe in his parents' house. He had the combination to the safe. raids were conducted on his home and his parents. large quantities of dope were found in his home. When his parents' home was raided, his mother called him to get the combination (there was a court ordered wiretap on his phone) she opened the safe and there was thousands upon thousands of dollars-packaged EXACTLY the same way as the dope money found at the dealer's home. His father claimed he had NO IDEA what was in the safe and that He had NO IDEA that there was more money in that safe than the house was worth. A forensic accountant examined the income of the mother and while she made about 85 K a year, her spending habits were such that she could not have accumulated anywhere near that cash in the amount of time she claimed she did. she claimed the money had been there for 5 years but a dope dog gave 5 positive indications (in other words, the money was hidden in five different locations in a sterile environment and the dog hit on it every time) and another expert testified that money sitting for five years would not have such a strong scent.

The jury gave all the money to the DEA and the county task force. The foreman of the jury as well as the other jurors met with the government's trial team and the judge after the verdict (voluntarily of course) and they explained that they didn't believe a word of the claimant. I should note that the jury did not hear that the mother called her son and asked for the combination-the evidence of the wiretap was not divulged because the investigation into the dope dealing was on going. but we knew that it was his safe and his own brother noted that the dealer had bought the safe and he and the dealer put the safe in the house and he also testified that he never saw his mother go into the safe nor did she know the combination


so asset forfeiture opponents will claim that the "owner" had over 250K taken from her and she was never even charged with a crime. Which is true. But she wasn't the real owner and the real owner was convicted of F2 trafficking, money laundering and federal and state tax evasion

Well, thank you very much. In these cases, I will have to say, it was proper application of the law.
Joe Lunchpail certainly would look very suspicions if he had several thousands tightly wrapped and tucked away in different parts of his property.
Glad you "got em".
My fear is with local Officer Bubba types using it to steal.
There was a recent case in OK where they took a guy's travelling money merely on a traffic stop.
It would make for a very uncomfortable trip if I had to carry my travelling cash up my butt in a plastic cigar tube.
Maybe I might like it if I hit a bumpy road

 

[Captain Adverse]

that rationale no longer works in federal forfeiture cases. that would have been a successful innocent owner defense. but the fact remains, drug dealers often have friends hold property for them when they are under investigation

I am somewhat familiar with the innocent owner defense. However the problems lie with the burden of proof being on the owner to show they had no knowledge or consent of the use. Even though the standard is preponderance of the evidence, it is often affected by inconsistent judicial interpretation...i.e. there is no hard and fast rule and the presumption is "guilt" (illegal assets) until proven otherwise.

So how do parents prove they had no knowledge of sons and daughters smoking, possessing, and selling in the family basement? Or that amounts of cash over $10,000 are found in an individuals possession were not ill gotten gains? Or that drugs or large amounts of cash found in your car were there without your knowledge or consent?

I used to hate banks, after Bank of America lied to me about charges for use of ATM's overseas while I was on a European trip. They ended up charging me over $1000 for allegedly free ATM conversion services.

For about 10 years after that I kept all my savings in cash, 100's and 20's in envelopes. $65,000.00 worth which I used to start Law School. I never used credit cards and paid for everything in cash. I only stopped when I discovered that not having a savings or checking account, and no credit rating, seriously affected renting an apartment when the owner's wouldn't accept large amounts of cash, suspecting me of being a drug dealer.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, thank you very much. In these cases, I will have to say, it was proper application of the law.
Joe Lunchpail certainly would look very suspicions if he had several thousands tightly wrapped and tucked away in different parts of his property.
Glad you "got em".

other cases

1) a guy who later got a life sentence for cocaine (third strike-Obama commuted his sentence-properly IMHO to 21 years) had his home searched. In a closet was a sable fur coat with 20,000 in cash in a pocket. The government seized it-NO ONE CLAIMED IT

2) a guy who won the lottery was reputed to be growing weed in his home. Search warrant found over 100 plants in the basement. Home seized. In a deposition the guy was asked why he had the dope after winning the lottery. He said he liked to "party" and he had great weed and that got him laid a lot and he didn't have to deal with "scum bag dealers who might cut his throat since he was now worth 10 Million)

3) woman gets stopped driving erratically. In the front seat, a bag with 22K in cash. after it was seized-four different people call the police and give FOUR different stories for the cash including

a) money to buy a car by the rightful owner of the car

b) proceeds from a concert that a (at the time un arrested but well known) drug dealer claimed he promoted

c) lottery winnings from the owner of the car

in reality (based on wire taps that could not be known to the jury nor the court) the woman, on behalf of her drug dealer boyfriend, had bought 22K in dope from an underling. after the deal, she went back with a cleaner, and they killed the buyer and took the dope and the money. she had dropped off the dope to another underling but still had the money

at trial, a friend of the dealer (who did NOT make a claim) said it was his lottery winnings and he let a coworker's son (the dealer) borrow his car and he forgot he had left 22K in it. He claimed that the money was there because he planned on buying a 15K car but the deal fell through

one of the reasons why the jury found for the DEA was that-as the foreman noted-you don't take 22K to buy a 15K car-and the claimant (the lottery winner) claimed the money came from a bank account that subpoenaed records indicated hadn't had any money in it four 3 years prior to the bust. Like many forfeiture cases,the government's trial team could not tell the judge or the jury all it knew because a major investigation of the dealer was underway. He, his family and associates were busted a year later and all received 120-200 months in federal prison. The old man who claimed it was his money-well his friend ratted him out and told the DEA and the trial team that the old man lied on his behalf. The DOJ decided not to prosecute the man for perjury since he had a prior clear record and was in his late 70s


4) a guy who worked as a janitor at a local mall and who had been busted (when a DEA agent's father-a HAM radio operator heard the guy set up a drug deal across the street from him) for major dope sales, was busted when a DEA agent pretending to be a mule (that had been busted by the Feds and flipped) delivered 90 pounds of top grade weed to him. investigation indicated that the guy had paid off, in two years, a 200,000 dollar home, bought, with cash payments, a 40K truck and had set up 60K in college funds for his two kids. His wife didn't work. The government was issued a seizure warrant by the magistrate for the home, the truck but the DOJ decided not to go after the college fund since it was in trust. the tax returns of the claimant indicated an annual income of less than 35K. the wife asserted an "innocent ownership" in the home-that sort of died when the prosecutor played a tape for the jury where she said

1) we have 90 pounds of prime product coming tomorrow

2) its 900 and pound

3) Its better than the stuff you bought a month ago

so those are some cases I know about

 

[TurtleDude]

I am somewhat familiar with the innocent owner defense. However the problems lie with the burden of proof being on the owner to show they had no knowledge or consent of the use. Even though the standard is preponderance of the evidence, it is often affected by inconsistent judicial interpretation...i.e. there is no hard and fast rule and the presumption is "guilt" (illegal assets) until proven otherwise.

So how do parents prove they had no knowledge of sons and daughters smoking, possessing, and selling in the family basement? Or that amounts of cash over $10,000 are found in an individuals possession were not ill gotten gains? Or that drugs or large amounts of cash found in your car were there without your knowledge or consent?

I used to hate banks, after Bank of America lied to me about charges for use of ATM's overseas while I was on a European trip. They ended up charging me over $1000 for allegedly free ATM conversion services.

For about 10 years after that I kept all my savings in cash, 100's and 20's in envelopes. $65,000.00 worth which I used to start Law School. I never used credit cards and paid for everything in cash. I only stopped when I discovered that not having a savings or checking account, and no credit rating, seriously affected renting an apartment when the owner's wouldn't accept large amounts of cash, suspecting me of being a drug dealer.

of course there are abuses. we arm our police and there are cases where say ladies in pajamas get blown away by poorly trained cops. and you are probably aware of "Structuring" crimes which are akin to tax evasion as taking masking agents are to performance doping in sport. I know at least from my experience, when state agencies brought cases for civil forfeiture (criminal forfeiture is an entire different issue since the forfeiture is often included in the indictment-like the GJ charges that Joe Schmo is a convicted felon and was found in possession of a machine gun and since the machine gun was illegally made and not registered and since JS cannot own such a weapon the weapon is subject to forfeiture etc), there was an intensive review of the facts before the DOJ would accept the case

 

[PleasantValley]

other cases

1) a guy who later got a life sentence for cocaine (third strike-Obama commuted his sentence-properly IMHO to 21 years) had his home searched. In a closet was a sable fur coat with 20,000 in cash in a pocket. The government seized it-NO ONE CLAIMED IT

2) a guy who won the lottery was reputed to be growing weed in his home. Search warrant found over 100 plants in the basement. Home seized. In a deposition the guy was asked why he had the dope after winning the lottery. He said he liked to "party" and he had great weed and that got him laid a lot and he didn't have to deal with "scum bag dealers who might cut his throat since he was now worth 10 Million)

3) woman gets stopped driving erratically. In the front seat, a bag with 22K in cash. after it was seized-four different people call the police and give FOUR different stories for the cash including

a) money to buy a car by the rightful owner of the car

b) proceeds from a concert that a (at the time un arrested but well known) drug dealer claimed he promoted

c) lottery winnings from the owner of the car

in reality (based on wire taps that could not be known to the jury nor the court) the woman, on behalf of her drug dealer boyfriend, had bought 22K in dope from an underling. after the deal, she went back with a cleaner, and they killed the buyer and took the dope and the money. she had dropped off the dope to another underling but still had the money

at trial, a friend of the dealer (who did NOT make a claim) said it was his lottery winnings and he let a coworker's son (the dealer) borrow his car and he forgot he had left 22K in it. He claimed that the money was there because he planned on buying a 15K car but the deal fell through

one of the reasons why the jury found for the DEA was that-as the foreman noted-you don't take 22K to buy a 15K car-and the claimant (the lottery winner) claimed the money came from a bank account that subpoenaed records indicated hadn't had any money in it four 3 years prior to the bust. Like many forfeiture cases,the government's trial team could not tell the judge or the jury all it knew because a major investigation of the dealer was underway. He, his family and associates were busted a year later and all received 120-200 months in federal prison. The old man who claimed it was his money-well his friend ratted him out and told the DEA and the trial team that the old man lied on his behalf. The DOJ decided not to prosecute the man for perjury since he had a prior clear record and was in his late 70s


4) a guy who worked as a janitor at a local mall and who had been busted (when a DEA agent's father-a HAM radio operator heard the guy set up a drug deal across the street from him) for major dope sales, was busted when a DEA agent pretending to be a mule (that had been busted by the Feds and flipped) delivered 90 pounds of top grade weed to him. investigation indicated that the guy had paid off, in two years, a 200,000 dollar home, bought, with cash payments, a 40K truck and had set up 60K in college funds for his two kids. His wife didn't work. The government was issued a seizure warrant by the magistrate for the home, the truck but the DOJ decided not to go after the college fund since it was in trust. the tax returns of the claimant indicated an annual income of less than 35K. the wife asserted an "innocent ownership" in the home-that sort of died when the prosecutor played a tape for the jury where she said

1) we have 90 pounds of prime product coming tomorrow

2) its 900 and pound

3) Its better than the stuff you bought a month ago

so those are some cases I know about

Do these people think anyone is going to actually believe any of these silly lies?
I think number 2 was the dumbest. After winning 10 million, he thought he needed weed to get laid?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do these people think anyone is going to actually believe any of these silly lies?
I think number 2 was the dumbest. After winning 10 million, he thought he needed weed to get laid?

believe it or not-he was entirely honest. no one could find any evidence he was SELLING dope but under the state law (he was convicted of trafficking) if you have X amount of plants you are growing that alone is sufficient to support a trafficking charge. He only did a short time in state prison and he noted, that losing a 95K home wasn't a big deal and he was moving to Hawaii IIRC and he still had plenty. actually he wasn't that bad a guy and all his answers made sense. the government won the case on summary judgment since the conviction proved, and he could not deny the facts, that he was using the home to cultivate dope and store it (which is one of the two major ways property can be forfeited -A) as the proceeds of illegal activity (cash from selling drugs or prostitution etc) or B) Property used to conceal, convey or further illegal activity)

when the judgement was issued by the trial court (there was an unsuccessful appeal based on a technical attack on the search warrant that lead to the discovery of the dope) he noted that he knew that what he was doing was illegal and he knew he might lose his house for all "that weed" but he figured it was worth the risk since he threw some damn "good parties"

he was about the only guy who actually convinced me that having that much weed was really personal use quantities, rather than intended for trafficking

 

[Utility Man]

Anyone surprised that running a country like a business would be all about profits.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Anyone surprised that running a country like a business would be all about profits.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP and this thread.

Geez... :doh

 

[chuckiechan]

If we must have asset confiscation, we should require the authorities to win their case. If they lose, the jury should require the authorities to pay the defendant back up to double the amount of money improperly seized.

Confiscation of property is being used to pad police budgets, and should never go to the agency as an incentive to seize property like it is today.

 

[Thoreau72]

I oppose the AF practice. Yes of course cases can be cited, as Turtle Dude did, in which it is appropriate and perhaps just, but unfortunately the number of cases in which the practice is abused, and in which it brings enormous injustice, far outnumber the other.

The Institute For Justice has been instrumental in winning some major cases, bringing justice, and effectively changing laws and procedures, and I support them.

Maybe 20 years ago or more, as I recall it was USA Today that used to publish a weekly or daily list of asset forfeiture cases. It was very enlightening, and exposed the number of very small seizures against very small people that were for them hugely unjust.

 

[radcen]

On this subject, and a couple more I have to break ranks completely with my respected Conservative brethren.

<Remainder before and after snipped for brevity.>

It is my opinion that Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) is in no way shape or form a conservative value. True conservatives are law & order, and that means getting the right person for the right reasons for real crimes, and that means following the established intent of the Constitution regarding search and seizure and conviction.

 

[radcen]

If we must have asset confiscation, we should require the authorities to win their case. If they lose, the jury should require the authorities to pay the defendant back up to double the amount of money improperly seized.

Confiscation of property is being used to pad police budgets, and should never go to the agency as an incentive to seize property like it is today.

If we absolutely must have civil forfeiture, then ALL money seized should go into a general fund, NOT directly to any individual police agency. There should never, ever, be a profit motive in law enforcement.

 

[radcen]

other cases

1) a guy who later got a life sentence for cocaine (third strike-Obama commuted his sentence-properly IMHO to 21 years) had his home searched. In a closet was a sable fur coat with 20,000 in cash in a pocket. The government seized it-NO ONE CLAIMED IT

2) a guy who won the lottery was reputed to be growing weed in his home. Search warrant found over 100 plants in the basement. Home seized. In a deposition the guy was asked why he had the dope after winning the lottery. He said he liked to "party" and he had great weed and that got him laid a lot and he didn't have to deal with "scum bag dealers who might cut his throat since he was now worth 10 Million)

3) woman gets stopped driving erratically. In the front seat, a bag with 22K in cash. after it was seized-four different people call the police and give FOUR different stories for the cash including

a) money to buy a car by the rightful owner of the car

b) proceeds from a concert that a (at the time un arrested but well known) drug dealer claimed he promoted

c) lottery winnings from the owner of the car

in reality (based on wire taps that could not be known to the jury nor the court) the woman, on behalf of her drug dealer boyfriend, had bought 22K in dope from an underling. after the deal, she went back with a cleaner, and they killed the buyer and took the dope and the money. she had dropped off the dope to another underling but still had the money

at trial, a friend of the dealer (who did NOT make a claim) said it was his lottery winnings and he let a coworker's son (the dealer) borrow his car and he forgot he had left 22K in it. He claimed that the money was there because he planned on buying a 15K car but the deal fell through

one of the reasons why the jury found for the DEA was that-as the foreman noted-you don't take 22K to buy a 15K car-and the claimant (the lottery winner) claimed the money came from a bank account that subpoenaed records indicated hadn't had any money in it four 3 years prior to the bust. Like many forfeiture cases,the government's trial team could not tell the judge or the jury all it knew because a major investigation of the dealer was underway. He, his family and associates were busted a year later and all received 120-200 months in federal prison. The old man who claimed it was his money-well his friend ratted him out and told the DEA and the trial team that the old man lied on his behalf. The DOJ decided not to prosecute the man for perjury since he had a prior clear record and was in his late 70s


4) a guy who worked as a janitor at a local mall and who had been busted (when a DEA agent's father-a HAM radio operator heard the guy set up a drug deal across the street from him) for major dope sales, was busted when a DEA agent pretending to be a mule (that had been busted by the Feds and flipped) delivered 90 pounds of top grade weed to him. investigation indicated that the guy had paid off, in two years, a 200,000 dollar home, bought, with cash payments, a 40K truck and had set up 60K in college funds for his two kids. His wife didn't work. The government was issued a seizure warrant by the magistrate for the home, the truck but the DOJ decided not to go after the college fund since it was in trust. the tax returns of the claimant indicated an annual income of less than 35K. the wife asserted an "innocent ownership" in the home-that sort of died when the prosecutor played a tape for the jury where she said

1) we have 90 pounds of prime product coming tomorrow

2) its 900 and pound

3) Its better than the stuff you bought a month ago

so those are some cases I know about

I totally believe you regarding these examples (and your other previous post, which made my post too long so I had to omit). But here's the thing... these all have actual real evidence and were prosecuted as such. That's fine. It's the taking of assets without even charging for a crime that should be done away with.

I sympathize with the lottery winner. I disagree with the law regarding intent to distribute. There seems to be no evidence of that. Then again, I've never been a fan of laws that "presume" guilt. To me that very premise is contradictory to 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[TurtleDude]

I totally believe you regarding these examples (and your other previous post, which made my post too long so I had to omit). But here's the thing... these all have actual real evidence and were prosecuted as such. That's fine. It's the taking of assets without even charging for a crime that should be done away with.

I sympathize with the lottery winner. I disagree with the law regarding intent to distribute. There seems to be no evidence of that. Then again, I've never been a fan of laws that "presume" guilt. To me that very premise is contradictory to 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Ohio law makes it a felony to have above a certain number of plants or amount of dope. the federal forfeiture statutes allow forfeiture of real estate used to knowingly cultivate, store, hide, or conceal narcotics of a certain amount. whether the guy sold the dope or was using it to get some snatch, didn't matter.

but here is the question I used to raise with people who would argue on talk shows about these statutes

what can be done about the myriad number of cases where a dope dealer-who knows the po po are looking for him-gives his mother or girlfriend or brother a ton of cash? if that money is seized, the dope dealer isn't going to file a claim and appear before the court. and the "owner" won't have a record or won't be engaged in the activity that lead to the creation of that sum of money?

 

[radcen]

Ohio law makes it a felony to have above a certain number of plants or amount of dope. the federal forfeiture statutes allow forfeiture of real estate used to knowingly cultivate, store, hide, or conceal narcotics of a certain amount. whether the guy sold the dope or was using it to get some snatch, didn't matter.

I understand that. But I wasn't speaking to what the laws is, I was speaking to what the law should be. I am not a fan of "presumptive guilt". Prove it, or don't push it. Was the guy distributing? Ok, prove it. In most of the cases you cited, it seems that they were proven quite nicely.

I won't hold my breath waiting for change, however.

but here is the question I used to raise with people who would argue on talk shows about these statutes

what can be done about the myriad number of cases where a dope dealer-who knows the po po are looking for him-gives his mother or girlfriend or brother a ton of cash? if that money is seized, the dope dealer isn't going to file a claim and appear before the court. and the "owner" won't have a record or won't be engaged in the activity that lead to the creation of that sum of money?

That is an issue, you bet. I guess a couple thoughts/questions are in order...

1) How is it done in other crimes, like murder, for example, when a murderer hides the weapon at a friend's house? Or, the person buys a secret life insurance policy on their spouse right before they kill them? If you can tie the 'extra' money to an actual crime, then we might be onto something.

2) I'm not sure of the term... "forensic accounting"?

3) Amount means a lot. And culture. For example, some cultures do not trust banks. It is not unusual for them to carry and/or store large sums of cash. Another example... amount. $100K is an issue that might need some explaining. $10K is nothing, and a lot of seizures without charges are for small amounts between $5K and $10K... big enough to be worthwhile to seize, yet small enough to discourage people spending more in legal costs to try and recover.

Just thoughts. An absolute perfect solution is not possible, somebody somewhere will fall through the cracks on either side. I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than the side of collateral damage... especially when said collateral damage can be used by dishonest people as a license to steal.

I won't hold my breath on this, either.

 

[jamesrage]

Deputy AG Rosenstein on civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums | On Air Videos | Fox News

This is my very first thread, other than my introduction, so I hope I have it in the proper place. I did not include it in Breaking news because this has been discussed and in the works for a bit.

On this subject, and a couple more I have to break ranks completely with my respected Conservative brethren.
I feel Asset Forfeiture has become a national disgrace with all the abuse being done in its name.
It is a matter of record 100% of the cocaine seized by the NYPD in the French Connection case has completely vanished for their evidence room. (look it up)
Some tin foil hatters said it was distributed to PDs all over the country to plant on people they want to nail, but have not been able to otherwise.
If you look at the implications of these laws as they stand the fly in the face of our protected freedoms.

Don't tell me cops don't plant "stuff" on people. They have been caught doing so, but most of the time they get away with it.
I am Pro-Police, Pro-Law Enforcement, but very much against every little burg having a SWAT Team, and being militarized.
With new relaxed rules on this already bad law, I can see the floodgates being opened for its abuse.
A drug kingpin or a mob boss can always buy another yacht. However, I see this law extending to people like you and I.
Remember you only have to be suspected of a crime to loose everything you have worked so hard to obtain. No convictions necessary.

WORST CASE SCENARIO & HYPERBOLED EXAMPLE:
Officer Bubba is at the range and notices Mr. A shooting a very nice classic rifle or three that he can not afford on his merger salary.
he knows in a dark hidden area of the evidence room is 2oz of that French coke.
officer Bubba notes the tag number on Mr. A's truck as he leaves. Nice truck too.
Officer Bubba has a friend call into the station saying they believe Mr. A is dealing drugs.
At zero dark thirty, officer Bubba along with a few dozen more, + the local Bugtussel town SWAT team bust into Mr. A's home.
During the search that 2ozs finds its way into Mr. A's kitchen drawer.
Under these new relaxed rules, Officer bubba may not even need that 2oz. He is a suspect, after all, and that is all that is needed.
Now Mr. A's beautiful rifles are gingerly loaded into a van along with a few hundred rounds of ammo and any other guns he might have.
"By the way, Officer George, here are the keys to his truck. Bring that along too".

NEWS REPORT THAT NEXT DAY:
A late night raid on a suspected drug dealer in the area was conducted last night and an "arsenal" of weapons were found, in addition to a "specialized long range sniper weapon" (his M14 with a scope). Some drugs were seized on his property, and evidence of drug distribution was also found (ziplock bags he had under the sink for food storage). Officer Bubba was praised for his diligence and quick response in acting on an anonymous tip.

RESULTS: Officer Bubba is given Mr. A's rifle as a gesture of his fine police work. Mr A's life is ruined, and he dies getting shanked in prison while his case was under review. His other assets are given out or sold off to other cops or agencies.

Tell me this can't happen, and never has.

Asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction should be illegal. Even then it should be proven how those assets were obtained through illegal means or obtained by money made through illegal means. Usually what the main problem is civil asset forfeiture.Meaning there is a lower burden of proof in obtaining a guilty conviction even though there is no guilty conviction of the property's owner. In civil forfeiture the owner of that property is the one required to prove the property is clean ,meaning the state doesn't have to prove its dirty. Civil forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft. .

 

[TurtleDude]

Asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction should be illegal. Even then it should be proven how those assets were obtained through illegal means or obtained by money made through illegal means. Usually what the main problem is civil asset forfeiture.Meaning there is a lower burden of proof in obtaining a guilty conviction even though there is no guilty conviction of the property's owner. In civil forfeiture the owner of that property is the one required to prove the property is clean ,meaning the state doesn't have to prove its dirty. Civil forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft. .

Most of the time the "owner" is not the real owner and thus there cannot be a finding of guilty

drug dealers aren't stupid and if you are a dealer with a 1040 showing 25K in income and you have a suitcase of 40K in hundreds in your home you are either going to be busted for tax evasion or lose the money since its obviously drug proceeds. so you give the money to your girlfriend's parents who have legitimate income and have them scream that "their" property is being taken when they aren't charged with drug trafficking

 

[radcen]

Most of the time the "owner" is not the real owner and thus there cannot be a finding of guilty

drug dealers aren't stupid and if you are a dealer with a 1040 showing 25K in income and you have a suitcase of 40K in hundreds in your home you are either going to be busted for tax evasion or lose the money since its obviously drug proceeds. so you give the money to your girlfriend's parents who have legitimate income and have them scream that "their" property is being taken when they aren't charged with drug trafficking

Al Capone.

 

[Linc]

Most of the time the "owner" is not the real owner and thus there cannot be a finding of guilty

drug dealers aren't stupid and if you are a dealer with a 1040 showing 25K in income and you have a suitcase of 40K in hundreds in your home you are either going to be busted for tax evasion or lose the money since its obviously drug proceeds. so you give the money to your girlfriend's parents who have legitimate income and have them scream that "their" property is being taken when they aren't charged with drug trafficking

Not asset forfeiture, but I'll slip in that broke states like mine should eliminate compound COLA on public pensions for a few years, beginning with 400% of FPL working your way up to me and beyond in a progressive way.

Talk about low-hanging fruit that would save $2 billion a year right off the top. It took 45 years to get into this mess. It will take ordinary and extraordinary means to get back to balance.

I'm now with retired Sen. Coburn's BBA and Constitutional amendment. I've always been with his 2011 back-in-black ten year budget grand bargain that doesn't backload cheat cuts that never happen .

 

[Tettsuo]

Odd. When the government actually steals from the people, many (not all) Conservatives cheer in support. But, when the claim that taxes, funds used to improve our collective society, is levied the Conservatives bitch and moan about the imagined theft.

Get it together Conservatives. Your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[jamesrage]

Most of the time the "owner" is not the real owner and thus there cannot be a finding of guilty

drug dealers aren't stupid and if you are a dealer with a 1040 showing 25K in income and you have a suitcase of 40K in hundreds in your home you are either going to be busted for tax evasion or lose the money since its obviously drug proceeds. so you give the money to your girlfriend's parents who have legitimate income and have them scream that "their" property is being taken when they aren't charged with drug trafficking

They either prove thats what happened in a criminal court of they don't take it.