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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @04:57AM
Seems the party is over, and New Mexico is the first one out the door.
The booze stopped flowing when the US DOJ decided to end this nonsense back in January as reported Here on Soylent.news. [soylentnews.org]
The official DOJ release of this order is here:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-federal-agency-adoptions-assets-seized-state-and-local-law [justice.gov]
The feds closed the end-run of state regulations by "adopting" all this property, then turning it back over to the state agency that seized it. This practice had been going on since the 80s, and many states had no statutory authority to seize assets even when they could prove they were used in a crime. The feds stepped in and offered a one page "adoption" form that took federal possession of the loot, skimmed some, and gave it back to the states.
If New Mexico is willing to repeal their seizure law that's a good thing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @05:02AM
Oh, also this WaPo article [washingtonpost.com] makes it clear that even congress was getting fed up with this program at the federal level.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @05:08AM
Is the congress getting fed up because it is unjust, or is it because they don't get a cut?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 13 2015, @06:35AM
Congress was not involved in this at all. The legislation under discussion is a state law, in New Mexico. One which should serve as a model for 49 other state laws, as well as a federal law.
Due process is due process - and civil forfeiture has never used due process to take people's property. Armed men just take your stuff, and it's gone!
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 13 2015, @06:22PM
It was really a big mistake that the courts decided to allow this kind of behavior in the first place. And the claim they accepted is that since you can actually initiate a lawsuit to reclaim your property, that the "due process" is in place. That's despite the fact that in many places you are required to put up a bond equal to the value of the seized property before you are even allowed to file the suit. Which can often take years.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 13 2015, @06:20PM
The booze stopped flowing when the US DOJ decided to end this nonsense back in January as reported Here on Soylent.news.
Yea, that's nothing but another step toward nationalizing the police. It doesn't stop Federal law enforcement from conducting seizures on their own, they just won't cooperate with state and local seizures.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 13 2015, @06:03AM
deann.vaught@arkansashouse.org
Subj: Grave injustices being addressed in New Mexico
Deann,
Years ago, laws were passed around this nation, in various states and other jurisdictions, permitting law enforcement agencies to seize privately owned assets from citizens, without any due process. "Civil forfeiture" is the name given these laws. And, those laws are all unconstitutional, not to mention unjust.
New Mexico has recently signed into law, a law which reverses those civil forfeiture laws.
Please, click a couple links, and familiarize yourself with the situation in New Mexico. The first link I submit below is the official site of the New Mexico Legislature, the remaining links are just news articles dealing with that legislation.
And, I truly hope that you can author, co-author, or otherwise support such a law for submission to Arkansas' House of Representatives.
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislation.aspx?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=560&year=15#copy [nmlegis.gov]
http://www.alternet.org/print/drugs/new-mexico-ends-policing-profit#node-1034662 [alternet.org]
http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-new-mexico [ij.org]
Some rather informal discussion among geeks and nerds can be found here, on SoylentNews:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/04/12/2128201 [soylentnews.org]
As a member of SN, I would welcome my representative's views in the discussion!
Thank you,
I challenge every SN member to contact their own representatives! I will modify the above as appropriate, and remail it to each of my other representatives, at the state and federal levels.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @11:36AM
Yeah, being a "member of SN" is going to carry a lot of weight. "If I've lost SN, I've lost middle America."
Also, I hope you don't start your letters assuming you're on a first name basis with your representatives. It is ok to do it if you are, of course. You see, when adults write letters to each other, the salutation typically contains their title, or if they don't have a formal title, then the relevant "Mr." or "Mrs." (and others for females; it gets complicated) is used. This demonstrates you're showing a general level of respect to your letter recipient, which I think is something you would want to do if you want them to consider your comments with the same level of respect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @03:52PM
This demonstrates you're showing a general level of respect to your letter recipient
That's completely subjective. Names are merely used to identify others and nothing more. That illogical humans have attached needless fluff to it is irrelevant.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @12:48AM
April 13, 2015
Dear Paul:
Thank you for contacting me about civil forfeiture. It's good to hear from you, as always.
In January, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer allow asset seizures by local police agencies under federal law. As you may know, this practice allowed local law enforcement to take property from individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.
You may be happy to know that earlier this Congress, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act (S. 255). This legislation would increase the federal government's burden of proof in civil forfeiture to clear and convincing evidence. This would require the government to establish evidence that the owner of the seized property intentionally used the valuable in connection with the offense. This bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further consideration.
Please be assured that should this or similar legislation come before the Senate, I will keep your views on this matter in mind. And I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of your opinion. A well-functioning representative democracy relies on active, engaged citizens like you to inform and hold their elected leaders accountable. I always find input from my constituents on matters of public policy to be both insightful and useful as I work to represent your interests.
I am truly honored to serve as your Senator—please know that your interests and affairs have my unceasing attention. Always feel free to call my office at (202) 224-2353 or visit www.cotton.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Tom Cotton
United States Senator
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Monday April 13 2015, @11:00AM
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If granny buys $4 worth of ingredients, bakes a cake, and sells it for $5, she has earned $1 of profit to compensate her for her work and for doing a good thing. In this definition, the profits you reap are a direct measure of the good you have done for the world.
But the article excerpt above uses the word "profit" four times to describe outright theft. In other words, profit = evil. One person can only gain by taking another person down. Hate capitalism much? Enjoy polluting the language to further your anti-property agenda?
(As for the law ending this inexcusable injustice: sudden outbreak of common sense? I'm finding it hard to believe and waiting for the surprise to be revealed.)
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Monday April 13 2015, @12:55PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Monday April 13 2015, @04:07PM
the word "profit" should not exist with respect to government agencies or public employees. "governing/policing/legislating/etc for profit" is the very definition of conflict of interest, and pretty much always a synonym for theft.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday April 13 2015, @07:12PM
the word "profit" should not exist with respect to government agencies or public employees. "governing/policing/legislating/etc for profit" is the very definition of conflict of interest, and pretty much always a synonym for theft.
So. Are you against the ironic use of simile in general, or just in this case?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Monday April 13 2015, @01:32PM
What the hell? Police corruption being scaled back, even nominally? And signed by a GOP governor, no less?
If Leonard Nimoy hadn't recently passed away, I'd be sending someone over to his house to check for a goatee...
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:48PM
If this activity is unconstitutional (and it certainly doesn't pass the smell test) then hasn't it been brought before the supreme court?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:16PM
They basically upheld [slate.com] it. Habeus Corpus and Due Process were suspended way back in 2001 in the US, and unconstitutional, [wikipedia.org] illegal [wikipedia.org] shit that has been going on for decades [gizmodo.com] is only just now being considered a problem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cwix on Monday April 13 2015, @04:25PM
The court system rubber stamps whatever law enforcment/government wants.
Want to steal large sums of money from your population, thats ok!
Want to funnel large amount of money to politicians secretly, thats ok!
Want to kill unarmed people, some of them not even suspected of violence, thats ok!
Want to shoot peoples pets, even though you responded to the wrong house, that's ok!
Want to invade peoples privacy with open ended drag net warrants, thats ok!
Want to gerrymander political districts to ensure you get the best bang for your buck on getting your party to power, thats ok!
Want to ruin peoples lives over minor traffic violations, thats ok!
Checks and balances has failed. The court is no longer a bulwark protecting freedom. The judicial system has been filled with political patsies to ensure nothing interferes with personal profit for the elected representatives. If it can make them money or get them reelected then it will happen. No court will stop it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @04:00AM
Further proof that capitalism is incompatible with democracy.