Liberty Sanders On Asset Forfeiture

[mrjarrell]

I did, it is in reference to drugs. I'm debating the legality of the practice regardless of the motive. If you agree that asset forfeiture/freezing of assets violates a persons rights because of "innocent until proven guilty," then you have to extend it across the board. You can't pick and choose which instances are ok and which are not.

Here's an example:
Big Game Asset Hunters - BusinessWeek

You seem to be making the false assumption that all monies seized are drug monies. That's not the case. Many times the money is just money and there is no crime attached to it. It is seized ONLY because it is there. Happened right here in Indiana recently and the poor guy had to spend loads of money to get his stolen money back from the cops and prosecutors. He was charged with no crime, whatsoever. He just had the audacity to possess a wad of cash and the cops decided they wanted it. You seem to think that there is always a crime associated with the seizures and that's not the case.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../104903-the_governments_license_to_steal.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tors_wont_give_up_their_license_to_steal.html

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, I'm suspected of a financial crime and before I'm arrested my assets are frozen. You equate that with cops pulling me over, seeing I have a large amount of cash, then taking that cash with no other reason to believe I'm involved with drugs than the fact I have that cash.

Then I have to sue to get the cash back, taking me years and substantial money, all because my cash was taken from me for the "crime" of carrying cash.

You really want to defend this position?

That's not the position I'm defending, that is certainly wrong. I'm speaking of instances where once has RS/PC for ill gotten gains. Should their assets be frozen?

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

Excellent article! Hard to believe anybody will still publish such an honset and 1st hand commentary of police/government misconduct.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to be making the false assumption that all monies seized are drug monies. That's not the case. Many times the money is just money and there is no crime attached to it. It is seized ONLY because it is there. Happened right here in Indiana recently and the poor guy had to spend loads of money to get his stolen money back from the cops and prosecutors. He was charged with no crime, whatsoever. He just had the audacity to possess a wad of cash and the cops decided they wanted it. You seem to think that there is always a crime associated with the seizures and that's not the case.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../104903-the_governments_license_to_steal.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tors_wont_give_up_their_license_to_steal.html

And that again, is wrong. I don't agree with seizing money from individuals just because it is a large amount. I do, however, agree with seizing property if said property was purchased will ill gotten gains. If the victim can be found, they should receive compensation plus interest. If not, the govt should free the funds for a period, and if still not found, those items/monies should become property of the state.

Fyi, this practice is uncommon. forfeitures account for less than $5 billion a year... compared to $500 billion lost. And this is across the board, not simply drug related.

 

[dross]

That's not the position I'm defending, that is certainly wrong. I'm speaking of instances where once has RS/PC for ill gotten gains. Should their assets be frozen?

Fair enough. I still think there is room for abuse. I'd like there to be NO financial incentive for a police department to seize assets. In that case, I'd be for it with very limited powers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fair enough. I still think there is room for abuse. I'd like there to be NO financial incentive for a police department to seize assets. In that case, I'd be for it with very limited powers.

I agree, there shouldn't be a financial incentive; abuse will certainly occur. Imagine if officers got a kickback from every ticket they wrote? I'm be going to work in a Bentley.

Before 88GT shows up and uses that last line to get me, that was joke.

 

[gunowner930]

Liberty Sanders is owed a rep if I can find one of his posts

 

[Liberty Sanders]

And that again, is wrong. I don't agree with seizing money from individuals just because it is a large amount. I do, however, agree with seizing property if said property was purchased will ill gotten gains. If the victim can be found, they should receive compensation plus interest. If not, the govt should free the funds for a period, and if still not found, those items/monies should become property of the state.

Fyi, this practice is uncommon. forfeitures account for less than $5 billion a year... compared to $500 billion lost. And this is across the board, not simply drug related.

Agreed...as I stated originally, back in ancient times when I was running a beat and this first started, it had to be PROVEN that the property was obtained using drug proceeds. There would be a court hearing and evidence of the paper trail presented. A judge would rule on the evidence, and only then could the property be taken, NOT before.

All necessary legal safeguards were in place and if there was abuse of the process in those days I never ran across it.

It was only after law enforcement administrators and other government entities who stood to benefit from the seizures got greedy that the rules were changed and what USED to be an efficient tool turned into the form of abuse that it is now.

 

[gunowner930]

A lot of positive comments posted on Indystar

 

[NYFelon]

Individuals suspected of such financial crimes have their assets immediately frozen. If they are innocent until proven guilty, then that should run afoul of the logic given here, right?

Not sure if you are serious here or not, but that's my opinion. There can be no siezure of private property without due process, which in the case of a criminal charge would be conviction.

While clearly that is the premise, we see property siezures without due process all the time.

 

[Bond 281]

I did, it is in reference to drugs. I'm debating the legality of the practice regardless of the motive. If you agree that asset forfeiture/freezing of assets violates a persons rights because of "innocent until proven guilty," then you have to extend it across the board. You can't pick and choose which instances are ok and which are not.

Here's an example:
Big Game Asset Hunters - BusinessWeek

I see where you're going with this, but I think the two scenarios are different enough that they shouldn't be in the same boat. Freezing assets is different from flat out taking them. Given the potential for abuse of even that, I would hope that they at the least need very probably cause and a warrant to freeze assets. And even then, only for a limited time.

 

[rambone]

Once again Liberty Sanders demonstrates himself to be a true Peace Officer and a good advocate of freedom. I regret that I have but one rep to give.

 

[Bunnykid68]

But the police can and do seize property without due process. Someone is arrested for allegedly selling drugs and vehicles and homes are seized. I know of two instances where this has happened. One guy was guilty as hell, but all his stuff was seized(maybe just frozen) before his first hearing. The other guy has two federal lawsuits against a county in central Indiana for all of the allegations against him.

 

[E5RANGER375]

A lot of positive comments posted on Indystar

thats because most americans are getting finaly tired of getting it stuck to them by "the man"

the people have the numbers to change anything they want. people need to just start massing together and enacting change.

 

[mrjarrell]

A lot of positive comments posted on Indystar

Which is really surprising given the makeup of most of the usual comment posts there.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Not sure if you are serious here or not, but that's my opinion. There can be no siezure of private property without due process, which in the case of a criminal charge would be conviction.

While clearly that is the premise, we see property siezures without due process all the time.

That's the problem with these laws. Due process is not required.

Forfeiture laws came about because suspect were using their ill-gotten gains to hire great attorneys and investigators and bribe juries and kill witnesses and commit all manner of malfeasance with the money they illegally acquired.

Then the criminal justice system got wind of how much money there was, and how much easier it was to take money from drug dealers in the light of day rather than under the table. Money corrupts everything, and in the process the justice system became criminal.

I know a few people that have had assets frozen. Truth is they deserved it, and they knew they deserved it. Doesn't make it right.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That's the problem with these laws. Due process is not required.

Forfeiture laws came about because suspect were using their ill-gotten gains to hire great attorneys and investigators and bribe juries and kill witnesses and commit all manner of malfeasance with the money they illegally acquired.

Then the criminal justice system got wind of how much money there was, and how much easier it was to take money from drug dealers in the light of day rather than under the table. Money corrupts everything, and in the process the justice system became criminal.

I know a few people that have had assets frozen. Truth is they deserved it, and they knew they deserved it. Doesn't make it right.

Think I tried to rep you in another thread a minute ago. You must be reading my mind this evening.....stop it...4th amendment ya know

 

[NYFelon]

That's the problem with these laws. Due process is not required.

Forfeiture laws came about because suspect were using their ill-gotten gains to hire great attorneys and investigators and bribe juries and kill witnesses and commit all manner of malfeasance with the money they illegally acquired.

Then the criminal justice system got wind of how much money there was, and how much easier it was to take money from drug dealers in the light of day rather than under the table. Money corrupts everything, and in the process the justice system became criminal.

I know a few people that have had assets frozen. Truth is they deserved it, and they knew they deserved it. Doesn't make it right.

A very, very good post. That was my point, by passing these laws, they circumvent the right of due process, and also impose a standard of guilty until being proven innocent. How can you not be guilty, if there's enough evidence to sieze your assets? So you're already going into a system prejudiced against a defendant. Whether or not those people deserved to have their assets frozen, and likely some did, they still have rights under the Constitution.

If I'm not on lockdown, rep incoming.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Great story but that's it...Just a story. In Indiana the prosecutors office handles asset forfeiture. The letter makes it seem like peace officers are picking someones pocket. "rogue law enforcement officers lusting after money" If its drug money by the time the prosecutor/state takes their cut your looking at 35%. Its not not 35% to be spent on whatever it must go toward training. If its property the department can use it or store it for three years. Then its sold. The department gets to keep roughly 40% of those funds to be spent on whatever. Honestly unless its a $30K + car its not worth the hassle.

We use a gun range that used to be one of the biggest meth labs in central Indiana. The range is shared by several departments. LEOS are mandated 24hrs training each year to keep their certificate. Point being the money for such things would have came from tax payers. Trust me....police departments will not just go without. The money will come from somewhere. That somewhere is you.

To my understanding this is a Indiana based forum. Liberty is from Ohio. You guys are right. Even Indiana's system of asset forfeiture does have the potential for abuse. SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE. Do you get rid of something because it can potential be abused?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Great story but that's it...Just a story. In Indiana the prosecutors office handles asset forfeiture. The letter makes it seem like peace officers are picking someones pocket. "rogue law enforcement officers lusting after money" If its drug money by the time the prosecutor/state takes their cut your looking at 35%. Its not not 35% to be spent on whatever it must go toward training. If its property the department can use it or store it for three years. Then its sold. The department gets to keep roughly 40% of those funds to be spent on whatever. Honestly unless its a $30K + car its not worth the hassle.

We use a gun range that used to be one of the biggest meth labs in central Indiana. The range is shared by several departments. LEOS are mandated 24hrs training each year to keep their certificate. Point being the money for such things would have came from tax payers. Trust me....police departments will not just go without. The money will come from somewhere. That somewhere is you.

To my understanding this is a Indiana based forum. Liberty is from Ohio. You guys are right. Even Indiana's system of asset forfeiture does have the potential for abuse. SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE. Do you get rid of something because it can potential be abused?

I didn't say to get rid of it.

What I'm saying is,

1) Restore proper legal safeguards. Get back to the day when the connection between drug proceeds and property had to be proven using the same standards of proof as any other court proceeding.

2) Remove the profit incentive. The government agency that seizes the property should never directly benefit from it. If a police department receives even a percentage of the money or property that they confiscate, it is inevitable that they will make a determined effort to make more seizures so that their percentage is bigger. I saw this happen in my department.

If you want a perfect example of just how bad this is and to what lengths crooked LEO's are willing to go, check out the Donald Scott case in California.

Of course, I say all of the above with the understanding that I think the drug war is idiotic and always has been. If I had my way there would be no drug war and therefore no asset foreiture.

But since there IS a drug war, asset forfeiture should be substantially restricted and controlled.