Monday, August 15, 2005
Civil Forfeiture
I just finished watching a History Channel program detailing the battles leading to the end of World War II. We should all remember those who have died defending the freedoms that we enjoy. Unfortunately, we are slowly losing some of those treasured feedoms.
I was reminded of an example of this on an episode of "Cops" that I watched prior to the History Channel program. The episode I watched featured a drug sting in Tampa. Undercover officers posed as drug dealers and sold marijuana to unsupecting buyers. The supporting officers then swarmed in and arrested the buyers. In addition to that, the cops told those that were arrested that they were seizing the people's vehicles under civil forfeiture laws. One buyer bought $30 worth of weed and now he was going to lose his car.
Civil forfeiture has been out of control since 1984 when its current usage began. I understand the original idea behind it: seize the assets of drug dealers that were gained by illegal enterprise. In other words, allowing the police to hurt dealers in the pocket book should help turn the tide in the drug war. Application of the law not turned out in the way the was originally envisioned. For example, laws that were enacted have allowed local governments to keep the money and assets that they seize, so an arugment has been made that police have gotten less focused on prosecution in the drug war, but more focused on seizures to fund their departments.
The TV show 20/20 mentioned that Chicago has noise ordinance laws that allow police to seize cars that play stereos too loudly. I don't know if this forfeiture operates in the same way as drug seizures, but the idea again seems silly. A person played his radio too loud, so police should now be able to take your car. I've heard of similar laws either beind considered, or possibly are already in the books for seizures of cars of johns soliciting prostitutes. Another extreme example are houses that have been seized because of one or two marijuana plants found growing in some distant part of a property. More abuses can be read about on the fear.org website.
Civil forfeiture is a concern for poker players that play live poker. Though it's not illegal to carry cash within the United States, the civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize money if they suspect it is drug money, and examples abound of deparments that are quick to suspect any large amount of cash as being drug money. Using a legal argument that treats the seizure as a civil case against the money and not a criminal case against the person carrying the money allows the courts to put the burden on the person carrying the money to prove that the money is not drug money. Examples I've read about illogically make it easier to protect seize assets that are seized as part of a criminal case. Truely innocent people who have their cash seized have a much harder time fighting to get their money back as they don't have the benefit of certain disclosure laws that those charged with crimes do. (See the above website for a better explanation). Innocent people often have found it better to settle for a portion of the seized amount as hiring a lawyer and fighting the seizure might result in getting less money that settle due to lawyer fees.
I just finished watching a History Channel program detailing the battles leading to the end of World War II. We should all remember those who have died defending the freedoms that we enjoy. Unfortunately, we are slowly losing some of those treasured feedoms.
I was reminded of an example of this on an episode of "Cops" that I watched prior to the History Channel program. The episode I watched featured a drug sting in Tampa. Undercover officers posed as drug dealers and sold marijuana to unsupecting buyers. The supporting officers then swarmed in and arrested the buyers. In addition to that, the cops told those that were arrested that they were seizing the people's vehicles under civil forfeiture laws. One buyer bought $30 worth of weed and now he was going to lose his car.
Civil forfeiture has been out of control since 1984 when its current usage began. I understand the original idea behind it: seize the assets of drug dealers that were gained by illegal enterprise. In other words, allowing the police to hurt dealers in the pocket book should help turn the tide in the drug war. Application of the law not turned out in the way the was originally envisioned. For example, laws that were enacted have allowed local governments to keep the money and assets that they seize, so an arugment has been made that police have gotten less focused on prosecution in the drug war, but more focused on seizures to fund their departments.
The TV show 20/20 mentioned that Chicago has noise ordinance laws that allow police to seize cars that play stereos too loudly. I don't know if this forfeiture operates in the same way as drug seizures, but the idea again seems silly. A person played his radio too loud, so police should now be able to take your car. I've heard of similar laws either beind considered, or possibly are already in the books for seizures of cars of johns soliciting prostitutes. Another extreme example are houses that have been seized because of one or two marijuana plants found growing in some distant part of a property. More abuses can be read about on the fear.org website.
Civil forfeiture is a concern for poker players that play live poker. Though it's not illegal to carry cash within the United States, the civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize money if they suspect it is drug money, and examples abound of deparments that are quick to suspect any large amount of cash as being drug money. Using a legal argument that treats the seizure as a civil case against the money and not a criminal case against the person carrying the money allows the courts to put the burden on the person carrying the money to prove that the money is not drug money. Examples I've read about illogically make it easier to protect seize assets that are seized as part of a criminal case. Truely innocent people who have their cash seized have a much harder time fighting to get their money back as they don't have the benefit of certain disclosure laws that those charged with crimes do. (See the above website for a better explanation). Innocent people often have found it better to settle for a portion of the seized amount as hiring a lawyer and fighting the seizure might result in getting less money that settle due to lawyer fees.
