asset forfeiture

[Paingod]

When you hear stories about some people giving themselves $3.2M in "bonuses" derived from forfeiture, it seems like it's a lot of money.

Some of the biggest police complaints about losing the ability to steal from people is that they won't be able to afford everything they need; it seems like a substantial portion of their income.

In 2015, police seized in excess of $5B. By comparison, people lost less than $4B to buglary. The cops are stealing more than the thieves! I'm sure a lot of that was in bulk drug busts and legitimate criminal enterprise, but I'm willing to bet there was a lot that wasn't and they just kept stuff they stole from innocent people.

[Punisher]

Well, I think the laws do need to change. If that means that people with lesser crimes will need to be prosecuted if the police want assets forfeited (and I do think that the idea of this is good), then so be it. Or law enforcement can just back off the little guys and let them keep their stuff.

[Freyland]

But think of all the cool shit we'll get off Trump is indicted!

[Punisher]

But think of all the cool shit we'll get off Trump is indicted!

Well.... I HAVE always wanted to try a gold toilet...

[Remus West]

But think of all the cool shit we'll get off Trump is indicted!

You have no idea of how joyous I would be if the government proved him guilty of collusion and money laundering through his businesses and took everything.

[Isgrimnur]

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, signed into law a forfeiture reform bill last week that will require law enforcement officials to obtain a criminal conviction before permanently taking a person's cash or property, making Wisconsin the 15th state to do so.
...
A Washington Post investigation revealed that police officers routinely seize small amounts of cash during traffic stops under flimsy pretenses. Civil liberties groups have found that forfeiture actions tend to target minority neighborhoods and involve amounts of cash that are "pocket change."
...
At the federal level alone, asset seizures topped $5 billion in 2014, greater than the amount of property lost to burglary. The inspector general of the Justice Department last year found that since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone took more than $3 billion in cash from people who were never charged.
...
But the Institute for Justice notes that several significant loopholes remain in the new legislation. If the property owner doesn't challenge the forfeiture in court, for instance, after a waiting period of nine months, law enforcement officials can permanently seize it regardless of whether a conviction is obtained.
...
According to Lee McGrath, the institute's senior legislative counsel, Minnesota enacted a similar law in 2014. "But even after reform [in Minnesota], over 95 percent of civil forfeitures do not involve a criminal conviction, precisely because the owner either could not or did not challenge the forfeiture case in civil court," McGrath wrote.

The bill also lets law enforcement officials keep property taken from people who "fled the jurisdiction," which could create difficulties for out-of-state motorists traveling the state's highways.
...
But one steadfast supporter of the practice remains Sessions, who last year took steps to expand the practice at the federal level. An effort to undo that expansion recently fizzled out in Congress.

[em2nought]

Hell, now they're seizing websites. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1HD2QP

[Skinypupy]

Hell, now they're seizing websites. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1HD2QP

Websites which had been used significantly for child sex trafficking. You’ll forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears over that.

[Fitzy]

Websites which had been used significantly for child sex trafficking. You’ll forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears over that.

What is "used significantly"?

What percentage of a website should be devoted to sex trafficking in order to get it shutdown?

If it were found that someone on OO was using the forum to traffic children, would you be ok with shutting down the whole forum?

[Max Peck]

Websites which had been used significantly for child sex trafficking. You’ll forgive me if I don’t shed too many tears over that.

What is "used significantly"?

What percentage of a website should be devoted to sex trafficking in order to get it shutdown?

If it were found that someone on OO was using the forum to traffic children, would you be ok with shutting down the whole forum?

If the site itself was alleged to be complicit in the illicit activity (as appears to the case with backpage), sure, why not?

A Senate investigations subcommittee published a report early last year that said Backpage had "knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systemically editing its adult ads" for as many as 10 years.

According to the report, executives told the site’s moderators to edit ads "to conceal the true nature of the underlying transaction" by filtering out words such as "lolita," "teenage," "rape," "young," "amber alert," "little girl," "teen," "fresh," "innocent," and "school girl." The report also said that the company coached "its customers on how to post 'clean ads' for illegal transactions."

"Backpage knows that it facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking," the report said.

CoStar, a U.S. company that runs Apartments.com, accidentally uncovered in July of last year that Backpage had used a Philippines-based company named Avion to grow business in overseas sex trade.

Backpage had defended itself by claiming that it is not responsible for ads posted on its pages and said it attempted to abate illegal activity by hiring moderators to flag inappropriate content.

At any rate, this particular case doesn't seem to be a case of "asset forfeiture" per se. The Feds seem to be engaged in shutting down the site, not seizing it for it's monetary value.

[Skinypupy]

Max beat me to it. If OO had that level of active involvement in the process, then yes, I’d have no problem with it being shut down.

Also agree that this has nothing to do wth asset forfeiture.

[Isgrimnur]

Which is why I resurrected the sex trafficking thread.

[Fitzy]

Whoops. I didn’t realize the site was involved. I assumed they were providing a space not actively helping. Sorry.

[Fitzy]

I'd like to resurrect the Backdoorpage discussion.

For reference here is the Washington Post article. However, I suspect most are similar.

Reading the article and earlier in this thread, it becomes apparent the issue is child trafficking and sex trafficking in general. Great. I think anyone with a conscience agrees forced sex is wrong. And child sex is the one area I could support the death penalty on.

That said:

In addition to one conspiracy count, 50 counts of facilitating prostitution cite specific ads published on Backpage between September 2013 and February of this year

The indictment also includes one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 41 counts of alleged instances where sums of money as large as $5 million were shifted between banks to avoid detection.

1 count conspiracy prostitution
50 counts facilitating prostitution
1 count conspiracy to commit money laundering
41 counts of money laundering

If this is about trafficking and specifically child sex, where are the indictments?

[Isgrimnur]

You could resurrect it in the thread we have for it.

And they put Capone in jail for tax evasion. It's about what you can prove.

[Moliere]

Mayor has ended APD's civil asset forfeiture program

A top aide to Mayor Tim Keller said Friday that the mayor has basically ended the police department's civil asset forfeiture program by ordering that police can't seize a DWI suspect's vehicle unless there is a criminal conviction.

Deputy Chief of Staff Justine Tillman made the announcement on Facebook in response to an ABQReport story about how a federal court judge last month ruled that the city's DWI vehicle seizure program violates people's federal due process rights as well as a 2015 state law that ended civil asset forfeiture. (That story is posted below)

Under the city's DWI seizure program, police can take the vehicle of a person arrested for DWI even though that person hasn't been convicted of the crime. The 2015 state law bars government's from seizing private property unless there is a criminal conviction.

It only took 3 years for the city to catch up.

[Moliere]

Philadelphia Will Dismantle Its Asset Forfeiture Program and Pay $3 Million to Victims

Four years after Philadelphia police seized the home of Markela and Chris Sourovelis for a minor drug crime committed by their son, the city has agreed to almost completely dismantle its controversial civil asset forfeiture program and pay $3 million to its victims.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, announced today that the city had agreed to a settlement in a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit challenging its forfeiture program.

"For too long, Philadelphia treated its citizens like ATMs, ensnaring thousands of people in a system designed to strip people of their property and their rights," Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the institute, said in a press release. "No more. Today's groundbreaking agreement will end years of abuse and create a fund to compensate innocent owners."

[Moliere]

The SUV That's About To Change Asset Forfeiture Rules Nationwide

The future of civil asset forfeiture law in the United States now revolves around a single car: Indiana resident Tyson Timbs' $42,000 Land Rover. It's a nice ride. So nice, in fact, that Timbs argues his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated when the state seized it in 2015 after Timbs was arrested for selling heroin to two undercover cops. The SUV, which Timbs did not purchase with drug money, is worth four times the maximum fine for the crime he committed, a "grossly disproportionate" penalty, a lower state court found.

The Indiana Supreme Court, however, ruled that the Eighth Amendment had yet to be applied to the states, unlike much of the rest of the Bill of Rights. So Timbs took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he found a more receptive audience.

During oral arguments in November, the justices peppered Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher with pointed questions and openly mocked his argument that there is effectively no seizure under asset forfeiture laws that would qualify as excessive. Justice Stephen Breyer, to the laughter of his colleagues, even goaded Fisher into claiming it would be constitutional to seize any car going five miles over the speed limit.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose fines and seize property.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.
...
The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.
...
The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Two of those commands — regarding bail and cruel and unusual punishments — have been deemed to apply to state and local governments. But until now, the ban on excessive fines had not been.

And the Indiana Supreme Court noted that when overturning a lower court’s ruling that the actions taken against Timbs were excessive.

Ginsburg’s opinion makes clear that the clause applies, and that it is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment’s due process Clause. Justices Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch agreed with the outcome, but said they would have relied on a different part of the 14th Amendment.

[Isgrimnur]

South Carolina

Letting South Carolina police and prosecutors seize and keep cash, cars, and other valuables and use the proceeds to pad their budgets violates the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, a circuit court judge in Horry County, South Carolina ruled. In a 15-page decision, 15th Judicial Circuit Judge Steven H. John declared that South Carolina’s civil forfeiture laws, which let the government “seize unlimited amounts of cash and other property when no crime has been committed,” run afoul of the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions’ guarantees of due process and bans on excessive fines.

The court’s decision comes on the heels of a wide-ranging, multi-part investigation into civil forfeiture by the Greenville News. Across the state, South Carolina agencies seized $17.6 million between 2014 and 2016. More than 1,500 individuals (or roughly 40% of all forfeiture cases in the state) had their property taken, despite never convicted of a crime. Their reporting further found that “65 percent of all money police seize is from black males” (like the defendant in the Horry County decision, Travis Lee Green), even though African American men account for a mere 13% of the state’s population.
...
The Horry County Solicitor’s Office has filed a motion urging Judge John to reconsider his ruling, claiming it “inaccurately described” state law; a hearing is currently slated for early December. Though the decision currently doesn’t extend statewide, if it’s appealed and upheld, or if lawmakers abolish the practice, South Carolina would become the fourth state to end civil forfeiture, joining North Carolina, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

[Moliere]

Kansas

The Kansas House and Senate voted 120-0 and 35-0, respectively, to send S.B. 458 to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's desk earlier this month. Among its provisions, the legislation would make offenses related to possession or personal use of drugs ineligible for civil asset forfeiture, require law enforcement agencies to notify county prosecutors of a request for forfeiture within 14 days, and limit when local police can let federal law enforcement "adopt" their forfeiture cases.

It would also require judges to consider whether a seizure is unconstitutionally excessive, put the burden of proof on prosecutors to show that the seizure was proportional to the offense, and allow some property owners to recoup legal costs when they successfully challenge a seizure.

[em2nought]

This one scared the crap out of me. Took my items out of a private vault and put them back in a bank safety deposit box. Very uncomfortable traveling over the road with anything of value too.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... sh-jewelry

When FBI agents asked for permission to rip hundreds of safe deposit boxes from the walls of a Beverly Hills business and haul them away, U.S. Magistrate Steve Kim set some strict limits on the raid.

The business, U.S. Private Vaults, had been charged in a sealed indictment with conspiring to sell drugs and launder money. Its customers had not.

So the FBI could seize the boxes themselves, Kim decided, but had to return what was inside to the owners.

“This warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes,” Kim’s March 17 seizure warrant declared.

Yet the FBI is now trying to confiscate $86 million in cash and millions of dollars more in jewelry and other valuables that agents found in 369 of the boxes.

Prosecutors claim the forfeiture is justified because the unnamed box holders were engaged in criminal activity. They have disclosed no evidence to support the allegation.

[Blackhawk]

C'mon now. A safe deposit box is clearly 'plain sight'.