SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 11 2015, @01:06AM
This would not be a problem if Whites were not allowed to be police officers or work for police departments. You tell a White to do something, he or she does the exact opposite. Whites have done nothing but turn police departments into protection rackets and hit squads. It should be mentioned here that Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were both Whites.
Around Whites, you have no rights.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @01:15AM
Mexicans, Central/South Americans, Arabs, and africans, and see which of them won't sieze your assets, legally or otherwise on a daily basis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @01:48AM
So was Robin Hood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @02:37AM
Robin Hood was checking his privilege by giving away stolen riches to uglier people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:58AM
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 11 2015, @08:37PM
Good analogy to reasoning too often heard. It seems to have gone over the head of a few people, though.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday December 11 2015, @01:50AM
The state comes in with some bogus charges, confiscates stuff from the mayor, councilmembers, chief of police, etc. They then drop all charges and keep the stuff they confiscated. Bonus points if they get a value of 6 figures from each.
Then at least the bullies in charge will understand the issue.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:52AM
I prefer the state coming in and charging the mayor, police chief, and every cop and prosecutor involved with grand theft. Send each and every one of them to prison, for no less than five years each. As the level of responsibility increases, so does the length of the sentence. RICO laws apply here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @12:54PM
Don't forget "Under color of law". Up those penalties by a decade for those in law enforcement.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @03:00PM
That's cool, but probably not necessary. Put cops, prosecutors, and judges into prison with the people they've busted for five years. Some of them will be dead very soon. Others will become someone's bitch. Few will leave prison unchanged. And, zero will ever again exercise any authority over their fellow citizens.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:51AM
Specifically, U.S. Code Title 18, Sections 241-242.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 [cornell.edu]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 [cornell.edu]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @02:53AM
That made me smile for a moment.
After I thought about it for another moment, I realized that all the bigwigs probably drive gov't-provided cars.
(Ever see Sheriff Joe Arpaio's tricked-out patrol car?)
To raid their homes, you'd need a judge to sign off on that.
It might take a while to find a judge with a grudge--or a great deal of courage.
There was a prosecutor there who filed murder charges against 2 cops and the whole cop squad went after her hammer and tongs, trying to get trumped-up stuff to stick.
They harassed her and her kin with bogus arrests. [google.com]
Albuquerque is not a place for the weak of spirit.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Friday December 11 2015, @03:40AM
I always thought that Civil forfeiture was bad, for the exact same reason other people have mentioned, people in mid management positions who want to keep the stuff they seize without having to prove that a criminal act, took or was taking place.
I don't remember where I read it, but investigating the topic a few months back I found an opinion that expressed that more countries should pass civil forfeiture laws similar to the US to combat organized crime and corruption which struck me as funny because corrupt politicians in countries with less than able judicial oversight might use this laws to prejudice people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @06:48AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @02:37PM