SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports New Mexico Ends "Policing for Profit"
In a historic move, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) [on April 10] signed into law a bill that will end civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement in the state, a practice widely known as "policing for profit." The measure is House Bill 560
Under civil asset forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize someone's property without ever charging them with a crime, let alone convicting them. Police can then funnel many of those assets, including cash seizures, back to their own departments, creating a vicious cycle of more profit-driven law enforcement providing more resources to law enforcement for more profit-driven law enforcement.
"This is a good day for the Bill of Rights," said [American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico] Executive Director Peter Simonson. "For years, police could seize people's cash, cars, and houses without even accusing anyone of a crime. Today, we have ended this unfair practice in New Mexico and replaced it with a model that is just and constitutional."
The practice of asset forfeiture has been coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism in recent years as cases of abuse become more widely known. The Obama administration Justice Department has in the past few months taken steps to address asset forfeiture abuse at the federal level, and asset forfeiture reform bills have been introduced in a number of states this year. The governor of Wyoming vetoed one last month.
New Mexico is the first state where such a bill has passed, and it now has the strongest asset forfeiture protections in the county. The bill passed the legislature unanimously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:47AM
You will forfeit all property to the United States Department Of Homeland Security. Have a nice poverty.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday April 13 2015, @06:23AM
Hmmm... not being American, can't really tell if this is a joke or not, or even a troll since its an AC. If it is indeed something that can happen, that is a rather grim prospect..
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 13 2015, @06:33AM
I'm afraid that it is NOT a joke. Troll, maybe, but not a joke. As things stand right now, law enforcement can take ANYTHING from ANYONE, and CLAIM that the property was somehow associated with a crime. Common people have been stopped on our streets and highways, and if they have more than one or two hundred dollars in cash, that cash is taken because it is "suspicious" for citizens to have a lot of money on their persons. An ounce of pot subjects you to having your auto taken, as well as any electronics, tools, personal articles - you name it. More than an ounce of pot might mean that your home is taken.
Several years ago, we had someone to plant some pot just out of sight of my mother in law's house. Within 500 feet, but out of sight, where the invalid old woman wouldn't find it.
Our greatest fear, when we found it, was that the county sheriff would discover it, and confiscate the property, the house, and everything, putting an invalid old woman at the mercy of the elements.
It's not a joke. I've just finished sending emails to every representative I have above the county level. See my post below.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Monday April 13 2015, @09:36PM
I've just finished sending emails to every representative I have above the county level.
Old fashioned hand written letters are a lot more effective than email. If you are going to write your representative, that is how I would do it.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @02:33AM
I agree, and I disagree with you.
Yes, a competently written physical paper letter impresses me more than an email does. And, there are still a lot of people in this world who view things the same as I do.
On the other hand, more and more of government business is done electronically. More and more people are accustomed to electronic transactions. Each of my representatives provides a means to contact them electronically, and maintains a staff dedicated to handling electronic letters. Those electronic communications seem to be preferred, because they are so easy to quantify and qualify, and enter into databases.
Electronic communications are also much FASTER! I've already received one reply, from Tom Cotton, which appears to be a well thought out reply. I've also received automatic responses from three other reps, so I KNOW that they've received my emails. The rest of the reps have not responded in any manner yet, but I am certain that my emails have been tabulated, and entered into their databases.
We simply don't live in the same world into which we were born. It's the 21st century now!
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:45AM
They are also easier to respond to in a way that makes it seem as though you are important, but then the original email is deleted.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @01:50PM
Huh, wut? Never deleted, my friend. All those letters are archived in Utah, at the new NSA facility. Archived against the day that some secret agency of the US government (or one of the five eyes) decides that they must make a case against you. THEN all of those archives are gone over with a fine toothed comb, searching for some freudian slip, anything to nail you with. You may be an unimportant nobody today, but someday, you may very well cross someone important, and Uncle will remember EVERYTHING that you've had to say!!
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday April 13 2015, @08:46PM
I don't know how AC intended it, but this is a real thing that will happen. Other places have banned asset forfeiture, and the local cops end up "cooperating" with a federal agency (DHS or DEA) when they think there is valuable property to loot so that the feds can officially be the ones to take the property. Then the feds give the vast majority of the take back to the local cops. It's a clear case of the federal government purposefully giving law enforcement an easy loophole around laws meant to curtail this abuse of power. There's a book called Rise of The Warrior Cop by Radley Balko that covers this (and many other problems with American law enforcement) in depth, but unfortunately it has a lot of fluff in it as well. Still worth reading if you're interested in the topic.
I think laws like this are nice because they make it harder for cops to steal your shit, but they aren't a silver bullet.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @01:01PM
IIRC, this bill does address that issue as much as it can. Not only can local cops not seize the property, they can't receive compensation for seized property from the feds either. Not all states have forfeiture laws, and even where they do it's still common for cops to prefer to go through the feds. Less paperwork apparently. So they refer it to the feds, the feds take a cut, and they turn the rest back over to the local cops, and there's no need to use any local asset forfeiture law. But I believe this bill bans that practice as well. Of course, it can still be seized by federal agents directly, but there's no incentive for the local guys to get them involved in the first place.