from the legalized-theft-is-illegal-again dept.
TechDirt reports
After years of civil asset forfeiture abuse, legislators are finally fighting back. Reform bills have been offered up all over the country. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it to state governors' desks intact.
The Free Thought Project continues
California Governor Jerry Brown recently [September 29] signed into law a piece of legislation requiring police to secure an actual conviction before stealing people's stuff in drug-related offenses.
Civil asset forfeiture has been rightly likened to state-sanctioned armed robbery as it allows police to commandeer cash, vehicles, homes, or any property of value--even if the person is never charged with a crime--and then use or sell the items for profit for their departments.
Police in Oklahoma, for example, recently honed their thievery by rolling out nefarious Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machines, known as ERAD, which can scan your bank account and prepaid cards, and--if an officer believes any balances are tied to a crime--can wipe those accounts dry.
California's new law, formerly Senate Bill 443, quashes this nightmarish policing-for-profit in the exact way advocates of civil asset forfeiture (CAF) reform have been demanding for years.
[Continues...]
TechDirt also notes
Not only does the law contain a conviction requirement--something that should greatly reduce the amount of abuse--but it closes a loophole [that] law enforcement agencies love using to route around state-level restrictions.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, police departments in California will be largely prohibited from transferring seized property to federal agencies in order to sidestep state conviction requirements. The legislation forbids the transfer of property, like vehicles and homes, and specifically raises the threshold on cash seizures, requiring the government to obtain a conviction before permanently confiscating any amount under $40,000. (The previous cap was $25,000.) For larger cash seizures, authorities must provide "clear and convincing" evidence of a connection to criminal activity before taking the money for good.
Previous: Civil Asset Forfeiture Goes Digital [ERAD]
Albuquerque Won't Follow NM's New Asset Forfeiture Law; Gets Sued
More
Related Stories
Earlier this year, the state of New Mexico passed one of the most solid pieces of asset forfeiture reform legislation in the country. All it asked for was what most people would consider to be common sense: if the government is going to seize assets, the least it could do in return is tie the seizure to a conviction.
Now, the state is finding out that bad habits are hard to break. CJ Ciaramella reports that the government is going after another part of the government for its refusal to stop taking stuff without securing a conviction.
Two New Mexico state senators are suing Albuquerque after the city has refused to stop seizing residents' cars, despite a law passed earlier this year ending the practice of civil asset forfeiture.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, New Mexico state senators Lisa Torraco and Daniel Ivey-Soto said Albuquerque is defying the new law and "has continued to take property using civil forfeiture without requiring that anyone--much less the property owner--be convicted of a crime."
These would be the two senators who pushed for the much-needed reform. They managed to get the law passed, but Albuquerque (along with other cities in the state) haven't shown much interest in altering their tactics. The only incentive the new law has on its side is the threat of legal action or legislative pressure. The old incentives--hundreds of thousands of dollars--are still motivating local law enforcement.
Previous: Albuquerque Cops "Comply" with Records Request by Encrypting the Videos
You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.
That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.
Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.
Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money.
"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting," Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. "We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's some way that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."
...
News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state.
It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @09:29AM
I think I'd feel safer with the Yakuza than with US cops. They seem more reasonable and less prone to random violence on "normal folk" (especially to those who keep up with their "premiums").
Not saying the Yakuza aren't violent or bad people, they certainly are but the Yakuza don't kill "civilians" for really stupid reasons as often as the US cops.
I've seen plenty of videos of US cops shooting or killing civilians for stupidly bad reasons. Whereas to the Yakuza the civilians are more like cows. It's bad for business to kill your cows- the rest might stop producing milk. Plus the boss might get unhappy with you...
There seems to be even more accountability: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/yakuza-employer-liability-murder-suit-ends-settlement/322910/ [theatlantic.com]
The murder of Nozaki was one of several reasons Tsukasa banished Goto from the Yamaguchi-gumi in October of 2008.
So what do you think? US cops worse than Yakuza? ;)
See also:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mobsters-on-a-mission-how-japans-mafia-launched-an-aid-effort-2264031.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @09:41AM
Yakuza: organized crime
US cops: badly organized crime
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @12:45PM
US cops: unionized crime
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:10AM
I would go with the Yakuza hands down.
They don't shoot people just for being non-white.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:17AM
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday October 07 2016, @03:30PM
Not to mention that they are a fucking mess compared to the old school Cosa Nostra folk who kept a low profile.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 07 2016, @04:54PM
The cops don't need to keep a low profile, because you pay your protection tax over the table.
(Score: -1, Troll) by zugedneb on Friday October 07 2016, @06:03PM
a better question is why the civilian population is so hated by those who serve it.
the thing with a true crime org is that you can not talk back to any degree at all. you need a higher power to set you free eventually.
the thing with the jews is, that when the legitimate - so to speak - power is weakened, they manage to take over everything, because they have not lost money on the crisis. but still, you will never actually meet them, they will just end up owning you.
but the only people you could have on your side, who is more or less one of you, hates you like rats.
so wtf is wrong?
or u, the nice and smelling-good civilians do nothing wrong? as usual?
someone is always after you or trolling you, you just don't get why...?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @06:58PM
Did you see "yakuza" and think "Jewish skullcap"??
Big hint: The Yakuza is Japan's version of the Mafia.
Lately, you have gotten a whole bunch of Disagree, and Troll, and Flamebait mods. [soylentnews.org]
I'm thinking that that is because you are a nitwit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Friday October 07 2016, @09:28PM
wtf, can't u read?
the op said he would trust the yakuza more, tha measn he wants other owners.
the people say the kings and and presidents are shit, they want other owners, and guess who these other owners are...
so wtf would happen if you would answer my question instead of deliberately not understanding what is written?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 1) by nobu_the_bard on Friday October 07 2016, @07:08PM
My understanding is: the Yakuza basically were the police before they had police. The individual groups kept a lot of their code from those days when they were told to disband, and switched to operating illegally. I guess the high value of loyalty and tradition in their culture was probably a factor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:09AM
Not being a constitutional lawyer, or even being an American, I have to wonder why civil asset forfeiture the way it seems to be done in some places in the US can be legal, when the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says in no uncertain terms (emphasis added):
I don't see how any lawyer, no matter how crooked, can argue that civil asset forfeiture the way I hear it's being done these days is not depriving someone of their property without due process of law in direct violation of the Constitution, which is supposed to trump any and all other laws, state or federal. If you have to get a conviction first, the way this new law in California mandates, then arguably it would be Constitutional, since there would then be due process of law, but if the police can take away any of your property without first convicting you of a crime, then how is that not a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment?
(Score: 4, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Friday October 07 2016, @10:34AM
It seems that "civil" and "criminal" forfeiture are two different things - in civil cases, the property, not the person, is considered the "offender", so the 5th amendment arguably doesn't apply. There's more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:58AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Friday October 07 2016, @02:38PM
Well clearly that's bullshit. If that were the intent of the clause the section before it would not be there. That's obvious to anyone who can read. They still make the argument with a straight face, and they still get away with it, because the judges bought into it long ago, so that their careers would lead to judgeships.
Another way they've done this is slighly less obvious, as you need to be sophisticated enough to realize that language changes over time and some of the words used then did not mean the same thing they've come to mean now. So there's a power given to "regulate commerce." After over 200 years that one word, 'regulate' has not just changed meaning a bit naturally, as words do, it's actually a word that's been completely redefined in order to slip those chains further. You see, when the constitution was written, to 'regulate' simply meant to make regular. When your shotgun barrel was old and bumpy and inaccurate and you took it to the gunsmith and had the bore reconditioned so that it was all regular and smooth again, this was called 'regulating the barrel.' Regulating commerce originally just meant that, making it regular. So if south carolina wanted to impose a tariff on imports from say connecticut, this would be where that power was originally intended to apply. The feds have authority to say 'well, no, you can't target another state with a tariff like that, that would make commerce irregular, so we're actually allowed to stop you from doing that. You could place the same tariff on all imports regardless of origin, but you can't play favorites like you're doing, we have to keep it regular."
Well now that's been twisted and stretched to the point where they argue jurisdiction, not just on anyone involved in interstate commerce, but even people NOT involved in interstate commerce at all! They say it's enough to be involved in an activity, where that activity more broadly has some effect on interstate commerce. Again, this is obvious bullshit. If that was what was meant, there would have been no reason at all to write the constitution.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @07:32PM
Until Reactionary judges start dying (by whatever mechanism, natural or otherwise), I don't see things changing for the better.
...and "better" presupposes that it will be non-Reactionary judges who will succeed them.
Now, just imagine what kinds of judges a Trump administration would nominate.
...and, on this topic, I don't see a Clinton45 administration to be significantly different.
Remember that mass incarceration of non-rich people (in particular, people of color) was a Clinton notion--with Bill's Head Cheerleader, Hillary Rodham "Superpredators" Clinton, being in full support.
...and remember that, under Reagan, DoJ put a whole bunch of S&L criminals in jail.
Starting with Clinton42, prosecution of white collar criminals tapered to a trickle.
Remember also that bankruptcy law was changed on the watch of Clinton42 (such that e.g. student loans couldn't be discharged via bankruptcy).
Again, HRC was the Head Cheerleader for Neoliberalism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 07 2016, @08:37PM
So they can stop me in the street and take the $500 in my pocket exactly the way a street mugger would...
Let's be fair, it's not exactly the same. If you resist the street mugger, he will be beaten and jailed. If you resist the street mugger with a badge, YOU will be beaten and jailed (if you live).
(Score: 1) by evil_aaronm on Friday October 07 2016, @05:53PM
Which I've always thought ridiculous to the point of being retarded. Analogy: If I shoot someone, can I blame the bullet for their injuries? Of course not. So how can the property be the defendant?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 07 2016, @08:25PM
In other words, the cops want to be crooks so they employ sophistry and make sure the judicial branch gets a big enough cut to not rumble the game.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Friday October 07 2016, @12:35PM
Unfortunately, without LE and similar enforcing the Constitution, its just a piece of paper.
Civil cases essentially run around most of the protections in the constitution because its seen as person-to-person, and not the government vs. a person. Except the government can also be a person and you start seeing this kind of stupidity.
I've felt we've been long overdue for true tort reform in the United States, and bring criminal and civil cases up to the same exact standards; not having this odd run-around we have now.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Friday October 07 2016, @02:43PM
Civil cases have a different treatment for a very good reason, which you stated, they are person to person. And said persons might lack the resources necessary to obtain relief from the courts if the bar is set to high.
Suppose, as an example, that I loan you a thousand bucks and try to recover the money in court. I simply have to show that indeed you owe me the money, which can be done by a simple IOU signed by you or by witnesses to the event.
Under your idea, I would have to show that you actually received, spent the money loaned and you have not paid it back, something that I would find difficult to do. (In a civil case, you have to show that you indeed paid me back but I failed, say, to return the IOU.)
What needs to happen is to make an exception for civil cases when the government acts as a “person” in such cases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @07:45PM
Can you point to a specific case that illustrates the deficiency you claim?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @07:49PM
Nevermind.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @05:57PM
Of course it is comically, blatantly against the 5th Amendment.
The reason it had persisted up until now is the same reason unjust laws always persist: they do until they have screwed over a critical mass of people. It has been so abused now that it is no longer some exceptional law that is being used rarely against some famous druglord. It has degenerated into podunk cops robbing landscapers who are their pickups across a targeted highway. It has become so common and so blatant that Joe Public now has some sympathy for the victims of this theiving practice.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:57PM
While this is an important first step, ending prohibition entirely is necessary to truly eliminate this travesty of justice.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday October 07 2016, @05:49PM
While it's true that the Federal government has a poor track record WRT civil forfeiture, state and local governments are mostly just as bad, and some are worse.
The Institute For Justice's Policing For Profit [ij.org] report details a range of factors for the Federal government and the several states and grades them each on their performance WRT Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF).
You can go ahead and hate on the U.S. Government -- and rightly so -- but many state and local law "enforcement" agencies use CAF as a significant source of budgetary revenue.
CAF has a long and checkered past. Initially implemented as a way to discourage smuggling (based on the British practice of seizing pirate ships [economicsdetective.com]), the more modern usage of CAF was upheld by the US Supreme court in 1996 in Bennis v. Michigan [cornell.edu].
The Federal government generally uses CAF in fraud (cf. Bernie Madoff) and RICO cases. They also assist state and local thugs^W police by allowing them to bypass state law through the Equitable Sharing [wikipedia.org] program.
As such, the most egregious use of CAF is by state and local police groups, who seize cash, cars, houses and all manner of personal property on the flimsiest of excuses.
The California statute is a start, but much more needs to be done to rein in the massive overreach of state and local police agencies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 07 2016, @07:41PM
They also use it to confiscate assets so that somebody can't hire a lawyer to defend himself against frivolous charges.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @08:18PM
But, but, Gideon! [wikipedia.org]
Oh, wait that's just for criminal cases.
Are you trying to say that, as a defendant, you can have all the justice you can afford? You must hate America!
It's your (and people like you) fault that the terrorists are flooding our shores.
We need law and order! We need to close our borders
Because you know, I heard that 75% of the foreigners entering the US are ISIS trained killers.
What's more, I bet you support Hillary Klingon (yeah, she's a piece of shit stuck to the hair on my ass).
We need to take back our country from the career politicians in Washington! They were paid to give your job to guys named Chang and Patel [youtube.com]!
And don't get me started on the fucking wetbacks! Rapists, murderers, drug dealers and skanky hookers, every single one of them.
Those corrupt, incompetent career politicians are screwing this country. That's why we need the good, decent people like county sheriffs, state police and well-armed citizens to make sure that no muslim terrorist, drug dealer, job-stealing wetback or disease ridden mexican whores make it through our country without being stopped and relieved of their ill-gotten money and property!
And you can't always be sure who they are, so if they have darkish skin or an out of state license plate, they're probably up to no good.
Trump/Pence 2016
#MAGA
(Score: 1) by charon on Saturday October 08 2016, @02:03AM
Poe's law strikes again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday October 07 2016, @07:18PM
Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, police departments in California will be largely prohibited from transferring seized property to federal agencies in order to sidestep state conviction requirements.
The Feds stopped participating [washingtonpost.com] in this back door dealing with local law enforcement a couple years ago. So this is more than two years too late, and still allows a seizure free-for-all until the end of the year.
True, Holder didn't shut down all CAF by federal agencies, but he did shut down the revolving door between local police and the feds.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday October 07 2016, @08:41PM
Better late than never, IMHO.
Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr