SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f*** it's gonna take you.”
This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO series The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.
Asset forfeiture has long been a topic of controversy in law enforcement. Cops and prosecutors have had the power to seize property and cash from suspects before anyone has actually been convicted of a crime (usually narcotics-related). Then these law enforcement agencies have plugged a portion of that money (and money derived from auctioning of property) into their own budgets, allowing them to spend in ways that possibly would not have passed scrutiny during the formal appropriations process.Critics note that asset forfeiture creates a perverse incentive for policing priorities: the more assets cops seize, the more money they get to spend. Satirist John Oliver characterized the practice as akin to “legalized robbery by law enforcement” in a must-watch segment on his show Last Week Tonight. News organizations, including New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Free Beacon have recently outlined abuses of the system.
[...]
The Washington Post has released its giant cache of Equitable Sharing Agreements from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country. We urge you to dig in, find your local cops, identify out how they’ve spend this money, and let the world know what you find.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday January 23 2015, @01:18AM
What would have been the reason for the liberal media to keep the lid on?
As opposed to what type of media that would not have had this interest and why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @01:33AM
Thou shalt not tarnish the name of thy god Obama.
Keep your peace until the opposition is in control, then unleash your rage.
And before you all rush out and burn your karma modding me to hell, the same thing happens when the situation is reversed.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 23 2015, @02:02AM
Weird... what the hell does govt have to do with local police asset seizure?
Isn't the "separation of power" actual/active/expected anymore in US? Does the populace always expect that it is only the president that can (or is to be made responsible to) put all the things in order? (is it that bad already?)
Because, if not, I don't see how "police abuses seizing power" can be interpreted as "Obama - or the-other-guy - sucks" (as a proof, it was the AG the one who put the things on a better track. What Obama had to do with it?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @05:05AM
Go back and read the story, and the one I posted earlier (second link in TFS).
It goes something like this:
Tin-horn sheriffs stop some unsuspecting guy going to pay off his Truck with cash money, and on a pretense, the have a drug dog sniff the car and ask to search. In the search, they find an envelope containing 8 grand. They seize the money, and the truck, and log it in with the FBI or DEA or some other agency, which makes it legal EVEN when the state has no forfeiture statute.
The feds take a skim, hand the bulk of it back to the Sheriff, to buy just about what ever they want, off budget, off books.
The poor stiff now has to PROVE that all that money was obtained legally. PROVE his innocence. If He can, maybe in a year or two he will get part of his money back just in time to pay his lawyer. The truck was probably sold off, so good luck getting any of that back.
Now if the guy was dealing dope, he just walks away. But too many innocent people were getting their shit ripped off. Get Lucky in Vegas, don't you DARE drive home with cash money.
All AG Holder did was tell local/county/state LE that the feds won't be signing on to that scam any more.
Holder didn't outlaw the practice when the Feds themselves pull the same stunt.
Holder didn't outlaw the practice when States have Seizure Statutes. (Not many do, it was an unpopular scam).
So it had everything to do with the Federal Government, because they were giving cover to these thieving local LE.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday January 23 2015, @07:08AM
Lesson? Start a drug business so you can afford seizures from time to time and still make a big profit? :D
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @07:47AM
Carry your cash on your person.
Get multiple wallets if necessary.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 23 2015, @04:17PM
In many areas, if you're stopped for even a simple traffic violation you get a pat-down automatically. I've been given pat-downs for 5MPH over the speed limit -- and they never even issued a citation. Searched me, asked if I had any drugs or guns in the car (but didn't search it) and sent me on my way. Keep it on your person, they'll DEFINITELY find it. Keep it in your car, they MIGHT find it.
If you must carry it, just keep it well hidden. If it's on your person, you might need to make use of some...cavities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @02:30AM
So Obama is the one that wrote the laws allowing legalized theft, or didn't veto them when Congress wrote them during his term, and that's why the "liberal press" didn't run with the stories? Or is this more bullshit smearing of Obama for things with which he had nothing to do?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday January 23 2015, @01:25PM
Come on now, he's the President. He has been for six years, and he appointed Holder who recently made a statement about this practice. It's not like they just found out that their jackboots were are stealing shit from normal citizens. They've known the whole time, they just don't care. Bush didn't care either, but that doesn't make it okay for Obama to not care. People need to stop acting like Presidents aren't responsible for the actions of the federal government.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 23 2015, @07:39PM
They've known the whole time, they just don't care.
The fact that they are banning/limiting the practice should indicate to a rational person that they do in fact care.
If they don't care why are they changing anything?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday January 26 2015, @02:16PM
They're politicians, my Dear; they poll.