Faces of the Drug War: Woman Carrying $47K in Bra at Airport Sues
- Thread starter Vernal45
- Start date
- Status
Brett Bellmore
Member
The reason charges aren't filed in most cases, is that you can lose trials. And they've already successfully "fined" you, why take the chance that a jury will find you innocent, and they'll have to give the money back?
Besides, it was the money they really wanted, not justice.
The reason people don't contest, of course, is that most of the victims of these seizures are rendered too poor to put up the bond, which is necessary to challenge the seizure even if you found a lawyer who'd represent you for free.
Yeah, claiming that they're only preying on the guilty is a crock. But I think it's mostly a lie they tell themselves, to salve their own consciences.
Besides, it was the money they really wanted, not justice.
The reason people don't contest, of course, is that most of the victims of these seizures are rendered too poor to put up the bond, which is necessary to challenge the seizure even if you found a lawyer who'd represent you for free.
Yeah, claiming that they're only preying on the guilty is a crock. But I think it's mostly a lie they tell themselves, to salve their own consciences.
Vernal45
member
Police Profit From Confiscation
As you can see, the biggest crime organization in America is run by your government.
Jim Hardin
The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws
Subject: Fw: Courts / Police Profit From Confiscatio From: "John Simmons"
[email protected]
J.A.I.L. News Journal, October 20, 2000
From Confiscations The Looting of America How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate your home, bank accounts & business without trial. by Jarret Wollstein Revised May 1997
A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we’re confiscating your life savings and you’ll never get it back.’ Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston’s Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage.
Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway.
Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back. Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans – now numbering in the hundreds of thousands – who have been victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime. Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.
Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back. Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group.
Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples: In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments.
"Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counseling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counseling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totaling over $60,000.
The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs. Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation.
The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son. The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize property and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime.
Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest. How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management.
Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today. Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it.
You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property. To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply.
Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account. In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible. Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property. Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest: Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer.
He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping. Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette. Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property. Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun.
He did, and they shot him dead. Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . .[The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant." ....
Mr. Tom Gordon (Interim Director) Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
P.O. Box 15421, Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 1-888-FEAR-001
e-mail: [email protected]
website: http://www.fear.org
International Society for Individual Liberty
836-B Southampton Rd, #299, Benicia, CA 94510-1907
Tel: (707) 746-8796 Fax: (707) 746-8797
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.isil.org FreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. "It is exclusively the judicial branch of government in any country that throws its nation into internal upheaval and ultimate revolution."-
Ron BransonJ.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
JAIL's very informative website is found at
http://www.jail4judges.org/
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
- Samuel Adams-
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/awaken/seizurelaws.htm
As you can see, the biggest crime organization in America is run by your government.
Jim Hardin
The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws
Subject: Fw: Courts / Police Profit From Confiscatio From: "John Simmons"
[email protected]
J.A.I.L. News Journal, October 20, 2000
From Confiscations The Looting of America How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate your home, bank accounts & business without trial. by Jarret Wollstein Revised May 1997
A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we’re confiscating your life savings and you’ll never get it back.’ Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston’s Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage.
Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway.
Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back. Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans – now numbering in the hundreds of thousands – who have been victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime. Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.
Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back. Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group.
Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples: In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments.
"Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counseling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counseling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totaling over $60,000.
The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs. Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation.
The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son. The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize property and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime.
Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest. How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management.
Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today. Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it.
You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property. To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply.
Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account. In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible. Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property. Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest: Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer.
He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping. Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette. Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property. Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun.
He did, and they shot him dead. Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . .[The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant." ....
Mr. Tom Gordon (Interim Director) Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
P.O. Box 15421, Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 1-888-FEAR-001
e-mail: [email protected]
website: http://www.fear.org
International Society for Individual Liberty
836-B Southampton Rd, #299, Benicia, CA 94510-1907
Tel: (707) 746-8796 Fax: (707) 746-8797
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.isil.org FreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. "It is exclusively the judicial branch of government in any country that throws its nation into internal upheaval and ultimate revolution."-
Ron BransonJ.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
JAIL's very informative website is found at
http://www.jail4judges.org/
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
- Samuel Adams-
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/awaken/seizurelaws.htm
Vernal45
member
Highway Robbery
Bruce Benson
In 1863, Henry Plummer was sheriff of the gold camp at Bannock, Montana. He also organized a gang of about 100 "road agents" who stole from miners and travelers; his deputies were horse thieves, stagecoach robbers, and murderers. Citizens could do something about highway robbery by their sheriff in 1863, however. Since Plummer was breaking the law, a vigilante committee arrested, tried, and hanged him in short order, along with 21 members of his gang, banished several others from the area, and frightened off most of the rest.
Today, the sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, also leads an organized band of "road agents" who confiscate cash from travelers on Interstate 95. His road agents are called the "drug squad" and they have seized an average of $5,000 per day from motorists during the 41 months preceding June 1992: over $8 million dollars since 1989. But Floridians cannot do anything about this highway robbery, because it is perfectly legal under the state's asset seizure law.
Such highway robbery is being "justified " as part of a "war on drugs." Actually, however, most Volusia County seizures involve southbound rather than northbound travelers, suggesting that the drug squad is more interested in seizing money than in stopping the flow of drugs. In fact, no criminal charges were filed in over 75 percent of the County's seizure cases. But more significantly, a substantial amount of money has been stolen from innocent victims. In order to get their money back, these people must undertake an expensive civil trial to prove their innocence, something most decide they cannot afford to do.
Our criminal justice system presumably is based on the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty, because it is better to err on the side of letting a guilty person go free than to err by punishing someone who is innocent. Florida's asset seizure law has turned this presumption on its head. The sheriff argues that it is better to hurt a few innocent victims than to take a chance on letting a guilty drug trafficker's money through (although the trafficker is usually free to go).
In fact, the sheriff apparently feels that fining innocent victims a few thousand dollars for carrying cash is okay, since money is not returned even when the seizure is challenged, no proof of wrongdoing or criminal record can be found, and the victim presents proof that the money was legitimately earned. Three-fourths of Volusia County's 199 seizures that did not include an arrest were contested. The sheriff employed a forfeiture attorney at $44,000 a year (he moved to private practice in mid-1990, but now is paid $48,000 to consult with the sheriff's department regarding how much to give back) to handle settlement negotiations. Only four people ultimately got their money back, one went to trial but lost and has appealed, and the rest settled for 50 to 90 percent of their money after promising not to sue the department. How many were drug traffickers? No one knows, since no charges were filed and no trials occurred, but it is clear that several were innocent victims.
A 21-year-old naval reservist had $3,989 seized in 1990, for instance, and even though he produced Navy pay stubs to show the source of the money, he ultimately settled for the return of $2,989, with 25 percent of that going to his lawyer. In other similar cases the sheriff's department kept $4,750 out of $19,000 (the lawyer got another $1,000), $3,750 out of $31,000 (the attorney got about 25 percent of the $27,250 returned), $4,000 of $19,000 ($1,000 to the attorney), $6,000 out of $36,990 (the attorney's fee was 25 percent of the rest), and $10,000 out of $38,923 (the attorney got one third of the recovery).
Federal Forfeitures
The Volusia County sheriffs department is not the only law enforcement agency that has turned to highway robbery in response to asset seizure laws. Federal forfeitures have taken in $2.4 billion since 1985. The Drug Enforcement Administration seizes millions of dollars at ports, airports, and bus stations; Congress began investigating alleged abuses by the DEA in May of 1992. Whether large portions of the seizures come from criminals or not cannot be determined since many do not involve arrests, and the costs associated with recovering wrongfully seized assets from the federal authorities can run into thousands of dollars. Many other states have laws similar to Florida's, and for those that do not, the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 established a system whereby any local police department which cooperated with federal drug enforcement authorities in an investigation would share in the assets confiscated.
The 1984 federal confiscations legislation followed a period of active advocacy by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who suggested that it would foster cooperation between their agencies and increase the overall effort devoted to drug control and its effectiveness; that is, law enforcement bureaus maintained that they needed to be paid to cooperate, whether the cooperation was in the public interest or not.
It was not until a few years after the effects of the legislation could be seen that strong opposition arose. It became clear that the federal legislation was being used to circumvent state laws and constitutions that prohibited certain forfeitures or limited law enforcement use of seizures. For example, North Carolina's Constitution requires that all proceeds from confiscated assets go to the County School Fund. Law enforcement agencies in those states where state law limited their ability to benefit from confiscations began using the 1984 legislation to circumvent their laws by "routinely" arranging for federal "adoption" of forfeitures, whereupon 80 percent is passed back to the state and local law enforcement agencies, since the federal law mandated that shared forfeitures go exclusively to law enforcement.
Section 6077
As education groups and others affected by this diversion of benefits recognized what was going on, they began to advocate a change in the federal law. They were successful, as the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (passed on November 18, 1988) changed the asset forfeitures provision. Section 6077 of the 1988 statute stated that the attorney general must assure that any forfeitures transferred to a state or local law enforcement agency "is not so transferred to circumvent any requirement of State Law that prohibits forfeiture or limits use or disposition of property forfeited to state or local agencies." This provision was designated to go into effect on October 1, 1989, and the Department of Justice interpreted it to mandate an end to all adoptive forfeitures.
State and local law enforcement officials immediately began advocating repeal of Section 6077, of course. Thus, the Subcommittee on Crime heard testimony on April 24, 1989, advocating repeal of Section 6077 from such groups as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, and the U.S. Attorney General's Office. Perhaps the most impassioned plea for repeal was made by Joseph W. Dean of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, who both admitted that law enforcement bureaucracies were using the federal law to circumvent the state's constitution and that without the benefits of confiscations going to those bureaus, substantially less effort would be made to control drugs:
Currently the United States Attorney General, by policy, requires that all shared property be used by the transferee for law enforcement purposes. The conflict between state and federal law [given Section 6077 of the 1988 Act] would prevent the federal government from adopting seizures by state and local agencies.
... This provision would have a devastating impact on joint efforts by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies not only in North Carolina but also in other affected states....
Education is any state's biggest business. The education lobby is the most powerful in the state and has taken a position against law enforcement being able to share in seized assets. The irony is that if local and state law enforcement agencies cannot share, the assets will in all likelihood not be seized and forfeited. Thus no one wins but the drug trafficker . . . .
. . . If this financial sharing stops, we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
This statement clearly suggests that law enforcement agencies focus resources on enforcement of drug laws because of the financial gains for the agencies arising from forfeitures. Apparently it is not the fact that drugs are illegal which induced the massive post-1984 War on Drugs, but the fact that forfeitures generate benefits for police.
The implication that law enforcement agencies benefit from the discretion arising through forfeitures was also corroborated by other testimony. In fact, a statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in support of repealing Section 6077, actually implied that law enforcement agencies were focusing on confiscations as opposed to criminal convictions: "Drug agents would have much less incentive to follow through on the assets potentially held by drug traffickers, since there would be no reward for such efforts and would concentrate their time and resources on the criminal prosecution." But isn't that what they are supposed to do? Nonetheless, the police lobbies were successful. A repeal of Section 6077, retroactive to October 1, 1991, was hidden in the 1992 Defense Appropriations Bill.
It is time to rethink asset seizure laws. By making victims prove their innocence before their assets are returned, long-standing constitutional protections of due process are being overturned. Assets should not be seized unless an arrest is made and they should not be kept unless a conviction follows. Furthermore, by giving the seizures to the police department that makes them, we are creating incentives for legalized highway robbery. Seizures of assets used in the process of committing a crime or assets purchased with ill-gotten gains may be a good idea. However, if this is the case, then police should willingly make seizures no matter who gets the seized assets, and they should be eager to ensure that innocent victims get their assets back. If seizures are warranted, they should go into the general fund or into a restitution program for crime victims. Then maybe the incentives for police to commit legalized highway robbery would come to an end.
At the time of the original publication, Bruce Benson was Distinguished Professor of Economics at Florida State University.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/crimeandterrorism/highwayrobbery.shtml
Bruce Benson
In 1863, Henry Plummer was sheriff of the gold camp at Bannock, Montana. He also organized a gang of about 100 "road agents" who stole from miners and travelers; his deputies were horse thieves, stagecoach robbers, and murderers. Citizens could do something about highway robbery by their sheriff in 1863, however. Since Plummer was breaking the law, a vigilante committee arrested, tried, and hanged him in short order, along with 21 members of his gang, banished several others from the area, and frightened off most of the rest.
Today, the sheriff of Volusia County, Florida, also leads an organized band of "road agents" who confiscate cash from travelers on Interstate 95. His road agents are called the "drug squad" and they have seized an average of $5,000 per day from motorists during the 41 months preceding June 1992: over $8 million dollars since 1989. But Floridians cannot do anything about this highway robbery, because it is perfectly legal under the state's asset seizure law.
Such highway robbery is being "justified " as part of a "war on drugs." Actually, however, most Volusia County seizures involve southbound rather than northbound travelers, suggesting that the drug squad is more interested in seizing money than in stopping the flow of drugs. In fact, no criminal charges were filed in over 75 percent of the County's seizure cases. But more significantly, a substantial amount of money has been stolen from innocent victims. In order to get their money back, these people must undertake an expensive civil trial to prove their innocence, something most decide they cannot afford to do.
Our criminal justice system presumably is based on the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty, because it is better to err on the side of letting a guilty person go free than to err by punishing someone who is innocent. Florida's asset seizure law has turned this presumption on its head. The sheriff argues that it is better to hurt a few innocent victims than to take a chance on letting a guilty drug trafficker's money through (although the trafficker is usually free to go).
In fact, the sheriff apparently feels that fining innocent victims a few thousand dollars for carrying cash is okay, since money is not returned even when the seizure is challenged, no proof of wrongdoing or criminal record can be found, and the victim presents proof that the money was legitimately earned. Three-fourths of Volusia County's 199 seizures that did not include an arrest were contested. The sheriff employed a forfeiture attorney at $44,000 a year (he moved to private practice in mid-1990, but now is paid $48,000 to consult with the sheriff's department regarding how much to give back) to handle settlement negotiations. Only four people ultimately got their money back, one went to trial but lost and has appealed, and the rest settled for 50 to 90 percent of their money after promising not to sue the department. How many were drug traffickers? No one knows, since no charges were filed and no trials occurred, but it is clear that several were innocent victims.
A 21-year-old naval reservist had $3,989 seized in 1990, for instance, and even though he produced Navy pay stubs to show the source of the money, he ultimately settled for the return of $2,989, with 25 percent of that going to his lawyer. In other similar cases the sheriff's department kept $4,750 out of $19,000 (the lawyer got another $1,000), $3,750 out of $31,000 (the attorney got about 25 percent of the $27,250 returned), $4,000 of $19,000 ($1,000 to the attorney), $6,000 out of $36,990 (the attorney's fee was 25 percent of the rest), and $10,000 out of $38,923 (the attorney got one third of the recovery).
Federal Forfeitures
The Volusia County sheriffs department is not the only law enforcement agency that has turned to highway robbery in response to asset seizure laws. Federal forfeitures have taken in $2.4 billion since 1985. The Drug Enforcement Administration seizes millions of dollars at ports, airports, and bus stations; Congress began investigating alleged abuses by the DEA in May of 1992. Whether large portions of the seizures come from criminals or not cannot be determined since many do not involve arrests, and the costs associated with recovering wrongfully seized assets from the federal authorities can run into thousands of dollars. Many other states have laws similar to Florida's, and for those that do not, the Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 established a system whereby any local police department which cooperated with federal drug enforcement authorities in an investigation would share in the assets confiscated.
The 1984 federal confiscations legislation followed a period of active advocacy by federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who suggested that it would foster cooperation between their agencies and increase the overall effort devoted to drug control and its effectiveness; that is, law enforcement bureaus maintained that they needed to be paid to cooperate, whether the cooperation was in the public interest or not.
It was not until a few years after the effects of the legislation could be seen that strong opposition arose. It became clear that the federal legislation was being used to circumvent state laws and constitutions that prohibited certain forfeitures or limited law enforcement use of seizures. For example, North Carolina's Constitution requires that all proceeds from confiscated assets go to the County School Fund. Law enforcement agencies in those states where state law limited their ability to benefit from confiscations began using the 1984 legislation to circumvent their laws by "routinely" arranging for federal "adoption" of forfeitures, whereupon 80 percent is passed back to the state and local law enforcement agencies, since the federal law mandated that shared forfeitures go exclusively to law enforcement.
Section 6077
As education groups and others affected by this diversion of benefits recognized what was going on, they began to advocate a change in the federal law. They were successful, as the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (passed on November 18, 1988) changed the asset forfeitures provision. Section 6077 of the 1988 statute stated that the attorney general must assure that any forfeitures transferred to a state or local law enforcement agency "is not so transferred to circumvent any requirement of State Law that prohibits forfeiture or limits use or disposition of property forfeited to state or local agencies." This provision was designated to go into effect on October 1, 1989, and the Department of Justice interpreted it to mandate an end to all adoptive forfeitures.
State and local law enforcement officials immediately began advocating repeal of Section 6077, of course. Thus, the Subcommittee on Crime heard testimony on April 24, 1989, advocating repeal of Section 6077 from such groups as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, and the U.S. Attorney General's Office. Perhaps the most impassioned plea for repeal was made by Joseph W. Dean of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, who both admitted that law enforcement bureaucracies were using the federal law to circumvent the state's constitution and that without the benefits of confiscations going to those bureaus, substantially less effort would be made to control drugs:
Currently the United States Attorney General, by policy, requires that all shared property be used by the transferee for law enforcement purposes. The conflict between state and federal law [given Section 6077 of the 1988 Act] would prevent the federal government from adopting seizures by state and local agencies.
... This provision would have a devastating impact on joint efforts by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies not only in North Carolina but also in other affected states....
Education is any state's biggest business. The education lobby is the most powerful in the state and has taken a position against law enforcement being able to share in seized assets. The irony is that if local and state law enforcement agencies cannot share, the assets will in all likelihood not be seized and forfeited. Thus no one wins but the drug trafficker . . . .
. . . If this financial sharing stops, we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
This statement clearly suggests that law enforcement agencies focus resources on enforcement of drug laws because of the financial gains for the agencies arising from forfeitures. Apparently it is not the fact that drugs are illegal which induced the massive post-1984 War on Drugs, but the fact that forfeitures generate benefits for police.
The implication that law enforcement agencies benefit from the discretion arising through forfeitures was also corroborated by other testimony. In fact, a statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in support of repealing Section 6077, actually implied that law enforcement agencies were focusing on confiscations as opposed to criminal convictions: "Drug agents would have much less incentive to follow through on the assets potentially held by drug traffickers, since there would be no reward for such efforts and would concentrate their time and resources on the criminal prosecution." But isn't that what they are supposed to do? Nonetheless, the police lobbies were successful. A repeal of Section 6077, retroactive to October 1, 1991, was hidden in the 1992 Defense Appropriations Bill.
It is time to rethink asset seizure laws. By making victims prove their innocence before their assets are returned, long-standing constitutional protections of due process are being overturned. Assets should not be seized unless an arrest is made and they should not be kept unless a conviction follows. Furthermore, by giving the seizures to the police department that makes them, we are creating incentives for legalized highway robbery. Seizures of assets used in the process of committing a crime or assets purchased with ill-gotten gains may be a good idea. However, if this is the case, then police should willingly make seizures no matter who gets the seized assets, and they should be eager to ensure that innocent victims get their assets back. If seizures are warranted, they should go into the general fund or into a restitution program for crime victims. Then maybe the incentives for police to commit legalized highway robbery would come to an end.
At the time of the original publication, Bruce Benson was Distinguished Professor of Economics at Florida State University.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/crimeandterrorism/highwayrobbery.shtml
Vernal45
member
2nd Amendment
member
Thx, Vernal.
Also use the THR Search function, since it has been cited in excrutiating detail here many times before. ALSO, try Google. It's your friend.
Also use the THR Search function, since it has been cited in excrutiating detail here many times before. ALSO, try Google. It's your friend.
BostonGeorge
Member
Thanks for the articles Vernal.
So let me get this straight Glenn, you're OK with this?
So let me get this straight Glenn, you're OK with this?
So BG, you're just going to assume those editorials are the whole story, with no bias. When you can give us both sides of the story, not just the side whose agenda is to get rid of all asset forfieture, then maybe your question will be worth answering.
Yeah but as I recall it's not as clear cut as you'd want some to believe:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1197107&highlight=series1811#post1197107
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1683786&highlight=series1811#post1683786
The reality of asset forfeiture is much different than the myth being perpetuated by some here.
You do not have a clue as to probable cause.
Nor do you.
Probable cause is not one fact, it is a collection of facts that cause one to reasonably believe that a something probably may have happened. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When you combine all the facts ofwhich the DEA agents were aware, they believed they had probabler cause to seize the money. They had many facts on which to base their belief. if they had enough the seizure was quite legal no matter how much you may want to play Monday Morning Deense Attorney. Of course maybe they did not have enough. You do not hear me say for sure they had enough, I just bet that they did based on my working knowledge of the law.
When I read something like this though, I wonder do you have a better plan for our legal system. The probable cause of which I speak and by which I base any arrests I have ever made is a part of our Bill Of Rights. Are you saying that the 4th amendment is wrong?
Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with the seizure if there was probable cause. Probable cause is not proving a person commiteted a crime, all it is is saying that the police have cause to effect an arrest or seizure. Then the courts figure it out.
Brett Bellmore
Member
The reality of asset forfieture, is that it takes place before you've been convicted by a jury of your peers. And that's ALL we need to know, to understand that it's an abuse which the government should not be committing. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people whose assets are seized happen to be guilty.
You have a right to a jury trial before you're criminally punished, or civilly punished to more than a minor degree. End of story. Civil forfieture prior to conviction is a constitutional obscenity.
You have a right to a jury trial before you're criminally punished, or civilly punished to more than a minor degree. End of story. Civil forfieture prior to conviction is a constitutional obscenity.
Vernal45
member
And you dont have a clue as to what a tongue and cheek remark is.
2nd Amendment
member
No, it's not. You've been buried in links to congressional testimony, congressional statements, actual cases and legal reviews. The 80% statistic is unassailable and your "explanation" is illogical. It isn't about opinions, it's about demonstrated facts and those facts don't support your "side".
Hmm, that would be hard to give exact figures because I cannot remember how many, and for me to check y government data base and then divulge it to you could be a felony. You can file a FOIA claim asking for info on all seizure I was involved with or, you can take my estimate which is in good faith: I have worked hundreds of currency cases both my own and assisting other agents. I have been involved in cases where up to 8.6 million dollars was seized, down to cases where about 12 thousand was seized. Rarely was anyone ever prosecuted if the amount was under 50 grand (that was years ago, I do not know the prosecutorial guidelines now).
I figure that of all the money actually seized by me in investigations I initiated, all of it was forfeit. In each instance where I seized money during an investigation the subject was arrested and went to jail or got a suspended sentence or fled and is now a fugitive. Of all the trials in my own cases, all the subjects were found guilty; all were jury trials. In the other cases they pled guilty.
I had one case where we released the woman who was transporting the money because I decided to believe her story about how she was innocent because someone else had duped her to unknowingly carry the money (which she said did not belong to her) while departing the US. A day or two later her husband called my office demanding their money back. He and his wife came to the airport and were nice enough to let me arrest her again, and also to arrest him. They went on trial and both were found guilty of several charges. Funny case, because if you guys had just read about it in the paper, many of you would have immediately believed her story and said I was a JBT. Once convicted, the judge was so kind as to allow them to serve a year each one after the other so one would always be with their children. They were let out on bond for a few nights so the one could prepare to go into the klink and then they fled. That was about 16-17 years ago. They will get caught one day. A major cartel player from one of my other money seizures also fled, that was 15 years ago. He was arrested this January and his case is pending.
Many others were never facing jail time but instead faced only a fine - most of these types were seizures made by Customs Inspectors and then I got the case. In some of these cases, there was no fine and the money was returned even though there had been ample probable cause to seize it. The Customs Service, without going to court, decided to give it back because of mitigating circumstances (no the G is not always the big bads wolf as some seem to believe); not that there was not enough probable cause to seize it but that once all the info was available it was clear that something mitigated the facts in favor of the suspect and the government said ok here it is back to you. Other cases, as I said, there was a fine, sometime substantial sometimes minimal; many of the cases with mitigating factors had some small fine or part of the money forfeit, yet some did not have any fine. Such cases included every sort of person, all races, creeds, colors, sexes and so forth getting the money back or being fined instead of jailed. Other ones I got from inspectors were also prosecuted. All who were prosecuted were found guilty or pled guilty.
At first, when a seizure is made, many people had claims about it being legitimate money from legitimate business, or of not knowing it was there because uncle Ignatz packed their bags, or of not understand English thereby not understand the currency reporting requirement when it was read to them by Customs inspectors and so on.
My whole point in this discussion has been to point out that probable cause though is only cause for arrest or seizure. It is not saying someone is guilty. It is saying they are suspect and there is enough cause to effect an arrest or seizure.
If that is too coffee can for some of you take it up with the Supreme Court. My cases, and the PC in my cases, have withstood suppression hearings and trials and petitions to return the money (even one we were pretty sure came direct from a cartel bank).
Since this is getting rather nasty (even I have strayed - I guess the rape PC post was a little too much for me, shame it came to that) I will bring my postings on this one to a close. No sense in arguing something that we will never agree upon.
All the best,
Glenn B
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Good Lord, now coffee can is an adjective?
Anyway, we had a good discussion going here for a few pages. It's starting to look like more light than heat, but at the moment I'd like to see the good discussion continue, so let's all take a deep breath and stick to the subject at hand, OK? No personal stuff, please.
Anyway, we had a good discussion going here for a few pages. It's starting to look like more light than heat, but at the moment I'd like to see the good discussion continue, so let's all take a deep breath and stick to the subject at hand, OK? No personal stuff, please.
CentralTexas
Member
Would Someone Please
email me and explain this coffee can remark I see every freakin week with no explenation?????
PUUUUUUHHHHLEEEEEEESE????
CT
email me and explain this coffee can remark I see every freakin week with no explenation?????
PUUUUUUHHHHLEEEEEEESE????
CT
fjolnirsson
Member
Hey, CT. Your email doesn't work through the board, so you have a PM. Hope it helps.
byron
byron
Vernal45
member
The Looting Of America
How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate
your home, bank accounts & business without trial.
by Jarret Wollstein victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime.
Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back.
Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples:
In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs.
Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son.
The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize prop-erty and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest.
How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today.
Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property.
To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply. Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account.
In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible.
Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property.
Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest:
Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer. He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping.
Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette.
Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property.
Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property
In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.
Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant."
http://christianparty.net/assetforfeiture.htm
How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate
your home, bank accounts & business without trial.
by Jarret Wollstein victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime.
Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back.
Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples:
In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs.
Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son.
The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize prop-erty and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest.
How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today.
Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property.
To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply. Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account.
In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible.
Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property.
Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest:
Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer. He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping.
Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette.
Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property.
Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property
In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.
Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant."
http://christianparty.net/assetforfeiture.htm
ksnecktieman
Member
centraltexas, and anyone else that did not hear. The "coffee can" remark is relating to one of our posters that is in law enforcement that tells us.
"Some people with drugs think the smell off coffee will conceal the smell of drugs from dogs, so they get coffee to spread near their drugs to confuse the dogs. He considers it "probable cause to conduct a search if he sees an empty coffee can or a coffee pouch in your vehicle."
"Some people with drugs think the smell off coffee will conceal the smell of drugs from dogs, so they get coffee to spread near their drugs to confuse the dogs. He considers it "probable cause to conduct a search if he sees an empty coffee can or a coffee pouch in your vehicle."
BostonGeorge
Member
Glenn: You are right, I am sure we don't have all the information in any of these cases. I am also quite sure that most, if not all of these seizures were 100% legal. Legal does not equal right, and the current asset forfeiture laws are just plain wrong. Because of their civil nature, the accused in these case do not have the benefit of the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. Nobody should have to prove their innocence, at their own expense, to retain their personal property. I understand it is your job to enforce these misguided laws, but as you seem like quite a level headed individual, I must wonder if you have any moral dilemma in doing so.
DMF: As I stated above, I do not, however, I do believe these laws are oft-abused with no repercussions. I would support serious reform, not complete dissolution.
DMF: As I stated above, I do not, however, I do believe these laws are oft-abused with no repercussions. I would support serious reform, not complete dissolution.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The very idea that an asset can be arrested qualifies the originator of that thought as a prime candidate for a Home For The Bewildered. The idea that an asset can be arrested is unsane. Irrational. The comment, "The Law Is An Ass" is a lot older than I am.
Anybody can suspect anybody of anything. Anybody can investigate anybody for anything. There is no probable cause for arrest for just *being*. The idea that having a large amount of cash is somehow prima facie evidence of involvement in illegal activity is anathema to the fundamentals of this nation. It is merely a way to terrorize innocent people, no matter the rationalization on the part of the lawmakers, "The Powers That Be". (Whence cometh TPTB.)
It is a twisting of word meanings to say that government can sieze property without some form of trial or court order. In no way is the mere act of siezure "due process" in the constitutional and even the dictionary meaning of the term.
I've been paying attention to this whole deal of anti-drug stuff since forty years gone. That's from well before the official naming of the War On Drugs.
I'll repeat from my observations through the decades: You don't have to be FOR drugs to see that the success has only been in the War On The Bill Of Rights.
If in forty years the supply-rate of drugs has not been reduced, isn't it time to ask why we continue to repeat our experiment yet expect different results?
Art
Anybody can suspect anybody of anything. Anybody can investigate anybody for anything. There is no probable cause for arrest for just *being*. The idea that having a large amount of cash is somehow prima facie evidence of involvement in illegal activity is anathema to the fundamentals of this nation. It is merely a way to terrorize innocent people, no matter the rationalization on the part of the lawmakers, "The Powers That Be". (Whence cometh TPTB.)
It is a twisting of word meanings to say that government can sieze property without some form of trial or court order. In no way is the mere act of siezure "due process" in the constitutional and even the dictionary meaning of the term.
I've been paying attention to this whole deal of anti-drug stuff since forty years gone. That's from well before the official naming of the War On Drugs.
I'll repeat from my observations through the decades: You don't have to be FOR drugs to see that the success has only been in the War On The Bill Of Rights.
If in forty years the supply-rate of drugs has not been reduced, isn't it time to ask why we continue to repeat our experiment yet expect different results?
Art
Brett Bellmore
Member
THEY continue the experiement, because THEY like the results. The very things we're complaining about ARE the effects they want.
And, I suspect, because the drug warriors have caused so much suffering, destroyed so many lives, done so much to compromise our liberties, that they can't admit it was all a mistake. Admit that, and the weight of guilt would destroy them.
So they're NEVER going to admit it was a mistake.
And, I suspect, because the drug warriors have caused so much suffering, destroyed so many lives, done so much to compromise our liberties, that they can't admit it was all a mistake. Admit that, and the weight of guilt would destroy them.
So they're NEVER going to admit it was a mistake.
- Status
