RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 03:45 PM)fsquid Wrote: I agree that it should be reformed, not removed. Some states have done that already.
Here is how I would reform it. Let the cops seize the money. However, an independent court needs to be set up in regions where the matters can be worked out. If the owner is found to be innocent, then the gov't agency responsible for seizing the money needs to pay a 2% penalty on the value of the cash and property for every DAY the owner is deprived of his/her property plus court fees. If the owner is guilty, then the agency keeps the proceeds of the seized assets.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 03:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(02-07-2017 03:45 PM)fsquid Wrote: I agree that it should be reformed, not removed. Some states have done that already.
Here is how I would reform it. Let the cops seize the money. However, an independent court needs to be set up in regions where the matters can be worked out. If the owner is found to be innocent, then the gov't agency responsible for seizing the money needs to pay a 2% penalty on the value of the cash and property for every DAY the owner is deprived of his/her property plus court fees. If the owner is guilty, then the agency keeps the proceeds of the seized assets.
That wouldn't work.
First, these laws exist on both a federal and state level so there isn't really a jurisdictional "region." The state and federal courts are hearing these cases.
The penalty would serve to eliminate the law instead of constrict it. Cash strapped agencies are not going to risk it. That just isn't a halfway point.
Most abuses occur on the state level. You need your legislators to clear that up.
The best way is to simply extend the usual protections to property.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset
I don't have a problem with the idea of asset forfeiture. HoD is right, it is an effective crime fighting tool. However, it gets abused. Here are some safeguards I'd like to see put it place. First, you should actually be charged with a crime. Second, the crime charged should track what was seized. For example, you get pulled over and get caught with a dime bag of weed. That should be a no go. However, if you have enough weight for trafficking, a gun and a bunch of cash then, yea, seize the car. Lastly, I would like an understanding from the DA's office to continue the case on the civil docket until the the criminal charges are resolved. That way the property can be returned if there is a not guilty, dismissed or reduced charge. It still leaves the government with the chance to go after the stuff if they get a conviction, though.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 03:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(02-07-2017 03:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(02-07-2017 03:45 PM)fsquid Wrote: I agree that it should be reformed, not removed. Some states have done that already.
Here is how I would reform it. Let the cops seize the money. However, an independent court needs to be set up in regions where the matters can be worked out. If the owner is found to be innocent, then the gov't agency responsible for seizing the money needs to pay a 2% penalty on the value of the cash and property for every DAY the owner is deprived of his/her property plus court fees. If the owner is guilty, then the agency keeps the proceeds of the seized assets.
That wouldn't work.
First, these laws exist on both a federal and state level so there isn't really a jurisdictional "region." The state and federal courts are hearing these cases.
The penalty would serve to eliminate the law instead of constrict it. Cash strapped agencies are not going to risk it. That just isn't a halfway point.
Most abuses occur on the state level. You need your legislators to clear that up.
The best way is to simply extend the usual protections to property.
That's ironic, because when smallish sums of money are seized - like a few grand for example - a lawyer will tell the owner to forget about it because it will cost you more money to prove your case than the value of the stolen property.
Sorry, I see zero reason for this law to remain in any capacity. Let the police do a better job building a case and getting evidence instead of using cheap tricks like civil forfeiture to make dents into criminal empires. The agencies have themselves to blame for being greedy with their fleecing of innocent people instead of working with people in good faith. If the gov't is repeatedly abusing a law that's on the books, then that law needs to be eliminated - period.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
Quote:“On asset forfeiture, we’ve got a state senator in Texas that was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money,” Eavenson said.
“Can you believe that?” Trump interjected.
“And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed,” the Texas sheriff continued.
The problem here is that because law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep some or all of these assets, they are incentivized to be less careful than they should be. Either deny them the ability to keep the assets or subject them to penalties when they are found to have abused the system. How about treble damages?
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2017 04:13 PM by Brookes Owl.)
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 03:58 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote: I don't have a problem with the idea of asset forfeiture. HoD is right, it is an effective crime fighting tool. However, it gets abused. Here are some safeguards I'd like to see put it place. First, you should actually be charged with a crime. Second, the crime charged should track what was seized. For example, you get pulled over and get caught with a dime bag of weed. That should be a no go. However, if you have enough weight for trafficking, a gun and a bunch of cash then, yea, seize the car. Lastly, I would like an understanding from the DA's office to continue the case on the civil docket until the the criminal charges are resolved. That way the property can be returned if there is a not guilty, dismissed or reduced charge. It still leaves the government with the chance to go after the stuff if they get a conviction, though.
Wow. We are almost all in agreement.
It has a valuable purpose but has been abused by the government. There need to be safeguards.
Quote:Law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma have purchased devices that allow police to seize and freeze funds electronically, which may dramatically expand their power to permanently confiscate property using asset forfeiture. Manufactured by the Texas-based ERAD Group, the devices work on “open loop” prepaid debit cards, like those offered by Visa or American Express. However, “debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed” by an ERAD (Electronic Recovery and Access to Data) system. One contract obtained by Oklahoma Watch states that the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety will pay ERAD Group $5,000 for implementation and $1,500 for training on how to use the devices. In addition, ERAD Group will also receive a “processing fee” of 7.7% of all money seized using the readers. That incentive to seize also mimics Oklahoma law, which allows police and prosecutors to keep up to 100% of the proceeds from forfeited property, even if the owner was never convicted or indicted. Records obtained by the Institute for Justice show that in 2012, 70% of all forfeiture expenditures in Oklahoma funded salaries for law enforcement.
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2017 04:33 PM by DexterDevil.)
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional...the courts decided to pretend it is for sake of convenience.
The government seizing your property on suspicion and making you prove it is innocent....is tyranny. Rotten with the potential for abuse of power and looting of citizens.
People who claim to be for limited government often prove their hypocrisy on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2017 04:38 PM by ark30inf.)
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 04:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote: Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional...the courts decided to pretend it is for sake of convenience.
The government seizing your property on suspicion and making you prove it is innocent....is tyranny. Rotten with the potential for abuse of power and looting of citizens.
People who claim to be for limited government often prove their hypocrisy on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Asset forfeiture is perfectly constitutional.
BTW, I've never professed to be a "limited government" type. I'm a populist.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 08:05 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(02-07-2017 04:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote: Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional...the courts decided to pretend it is for sake of convenience.
The government seizing your property on suspicion and making you prove it is innocent....is tyranny. Rotten with the potential for abuse of power and looting of citizens.
People who claim to be for limited government often prove their hypocrisy on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Asset forfeiture is perfectly constitutional.
BTW, I've never professed to be a "limited government" type. I'm a populist.
Taking citizen's property when they have been proven guilty of nothing at all is entirely opposite of the spirit our Constitution was written in.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 08:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(02-07-2017 08:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:
(02-07-2017 08:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(02-07-2017 04:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:
(02-07-2017 03:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Nobody argues that there is abuse but that doesn't undermine the effectiveness of these laws in going after the bad guys.
We need checks on it but we should not eliminate it.
Killing all citizens would be 100% effective in stopping crime. Effectiveness is not a magic wand that makes it ok.
That's nonsensical.
Yes, that's the freaking point.
Bless your heart.
Just because you can't grasp the point doesn't mean it isn't there.
The argument of 'effectiveness' being determinant is fallacious.
RE: Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
(02-07-2017 08:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:
(02-07-2017 08:05 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(02-07-2017 04:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote: Asset forfeiture is unconstitutional...the courts decided to pretend it is for sake of convenience.
The government seizing your property on suspicion and making you prove it is innocent....is tyranny. Rotten with the potential for abuse of power and looting of citizens.
People who claim to be for limited government often prove their hypocrisy on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Asset forfeiture is perfectly constitutional.
BTW, I've never professed to be a "limited government" type. I'm a populist.
Taking citizen's property when they have been proven guilty of nothing at all is entirely opposite of the spirit our Constitution was written in.
The person is not being charged with anything.
I think you should exam closer the "spirit our Constitution was written in." That's a moral argument not a factual one.
/
Trump invites sheriff to 'destroy' Texas state lawmaker who opposes asset forfeiture
