|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Des Moines, Iowa (CNN)On a bright, clear morning in April 2013, two professional poker players from California were heading west on Interstate 80 in rural Iowa when they were stopped by two Iowa State Troopers. Before that stop was over, the officers had seized $100,000, which the men said was money to play poker. The troopers also called ahead to California authorities, who raided the men's homes and ultimately indicted one of them, John Newmerzhycky, on a charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. If this sounds unusual and way out of the ordinary, it isn't. The seizure is just one of thousands of highway stops that state and local authorities call "interdictions:" Roadside stops aimed at catching drug dealers or even terrorists, but which can also result in cash seizures alone with no criminal charges attached. It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture, and it was started in the early 1980s by the Justice Department. It has since migrated to thousands of state and local jurisdictions nationwide. The program, when it originated, was meant to target and take money authorities believed was connected to crimes. A legal advocacy group based in Washington called the Institute for Justice has been battling Civil Asset Forfeiture for years. "It violates due process for Americans," said Larry Salzman, an attorney for the group. "It's wrong. It's a simple premise that the government should not be taking money from people who have done nothing wrong. It shouldn't be taking money from people who have not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime." In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down. |
They turned the place into a. . . state-owned parking lot.
Can't help but feeling a little "Don't tread on me" sometimes.
The rules have basically been an invitation for police departments to steal. They could seize property and use the proceeds, with no due process. What could possibly go wrong?
They turned the place into a. . . state-owned parking lot.
Can't help but feeling a little "Don't tread on me" sometimes.
Yeah...I understand the whole "eminent domain" argument with regards to seizure of property (with compensation) if there is a public need for it (removing a home to build a highway through the lot). However, your example sort of turned that on its head, huh?...haha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks - ( New Window )
The rules have basically been an invitation for police departments to steal. They could seize property and use the proceeds, with no due process. What could possibly go wrong?
This
Police departments with interstates running through them have turned it into a funding mechanism. Lots of horror stories out there.
But then you may actually end up getting arrested...
Until we stop doing the same dumb shit, we deserve whatever we get.
I do pay attention to your threads...but this one just popped up on CNN. And I was actually waiting for you to provide your take on this.
I can definitely stand behind CAF if it's post-investigation/conviction. But to be able to seize and keep the asset with no charges, that's the issue.
Quote:
but it is easily open to abuse, and we should all be uncomfortable with what can be a very severe punishment on a very low threshold, mere preponderance.
I can definitely stand behind CAF if it's post-investigation/conviction. But to be able to seize and keep the asset with no charges, that's the issue.
But even when it is ancillary to an investigation and charges, it makes it difficult to defend oneself because you might disadvantage yourself for your criminal charges. If your defense is "I didn't deal out of that car you seized, which happens to be my mom's, I dealt out my back door" that's a valid defense, but it might not want to be one you assert for obvious reasons if your charges have not been adjudicated.
Iowa, Indiana and Ohio are on the lookout for out-of-state plates driving just below the speed limit, and giving special attention to hipster-types. Once the suspect's house turned up with drug paraphernalia (rolling papers ? Bic lighter ) the cops cried "Jackpot".
"Poker Tournament ?? That's a good alibi -- but you lose."
Every officer decides what charges to bring in a criminal case, that's the nature of the beast. The issue isn't so much the point of seizure, though that matters, but the absence of meaningful checks later in the process (as there are, generally speaking, in a criminal case). If you prevent them from keeping the fruits of their seizure in borderline or egregious instances they'll stop doing it because the incentives are gone.
Cash is not contraband, and cannot be determined to be a part of a criminal enterprise until the presence of a crimnal enterprise is established. In the situatins when guilt is established after due process, fines can be levied. No big deal.
police stop rights - ( New Window )
I'm very impressed with a lot of his administration decisions; he's been an excellent Attorney General.
Regardless of Politics, this is a great example as to why giving the government broad powers has unintended consequences.
Be it the death penalty, warrant less searches, phone evans dropping, or drug trafficking they've proven that a good intended measure they just handle like a mature responsible entity.
A shame.
I'm very impressed with a lot of his administration decisions; he's been an excellent Attorney General.
Regardless of Politics, this is a great example as to why giving the government broad powers has unintended consequences.
Be it the death penalty, warrant less searches, phone evans dropping, or drug trafficking they've proven that a good intended measure they just handle like a mature responsible entity.
A shame.
There have been a couple of decisions I agreed with, but he's a far cry from "an excellent Attorney General".
Even on a theoretical level, siezure of property without due process doesn't mesh with the bill of rights and in a broader sense, human rights.
Adding incentive via "profit sharing" to an already unconstitutional practice (IMO) is dumbfounding.
This thing is being wayyyyy oversold - ( New Window )
Quote:
but it is easily open to abuse, and we should all be uncomfortable with what can be a very severe punishment on a very low threshold, mere preponderance.
Even on a theoretical level, siezure of property without due process doesn't mesh with the bill of rights and in a broader sense, human rights.
Adding incentive via "profit sharing" to an already unconstitutional practice (IMO) is dumbfounding.
Well there is "process", I'm just not sure it is that which is "due". It's not that there are no hearings and no rights of appeal, it's just that they're insufficiently protective.
Sacrificing that sort of right is nothing other than, no matter how well intended, a way to circumvent the judicial system and strip people of their rights.
It's rather clear in the constitution. (Unless you're a wimmin or a darkie- but really, who cares about that part?)
Sacrificing that sort of right is nothing other than, no matter how well intended, a way to circumvent the judicial system and strip people of their rights.
It's rather clear in the constitution. (Unless you're a wimmin or a darkie- but really, who cares about that part?)
As I said I see the wisdom of it in theory and even in practice, but up the standard, compel jurisdictions to proceed criminally or not at all, and allow defendants the opportunity to defer these proceedings until after criminal charges have been finalized.