A NY Times article based on information and interviews leaked out from various police departments, highlighting increasing abuses of Civil Forfeiture laws.
"Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize"
Excerpt:
I can recall the huge blow up in the early '90s about the abuse of civil forfeiture. Supposedly legislative safeguards were put in place to curb abuses; but they obviously haven't been as successful as intended. One of the biggest problem with forfeiture currently is that the property no longer has to be considered as proceeds of a crime. In the past, the main justification used was that the property was purchased with the proceeds of a crime, or used to commit a crime, and therefore seizing it was a way to create a disincentive for the criminal, even when no criminal charges could be filed.
But now, anything that is owned or possessed by a suspect is fair game. Even if it didn't belong to the criminal. A teen driving his parents or grandparents car under the influence, or caught with even a token amount of an illicit substance, will get the car seized. The fact that he is not the owner of the vehicle, and may not even have permission to use it, doesn't matter. And there are still no requirements to file any criminal charges to enable the seizure. Also from the article, "In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple’s home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch."
"Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize"
Excerpt:
Quote:
In the sessions, officials share tips on maximizing profits, defeating the objections of so-called “innocent owners” who were not present when the suspected offense occurred, and keeping the proceeds in the hands of law enforcement and out of general fund budgets. The Times reviewed three sessions, one in Santa Fe, N.M., that took place in September, one in New Jersey that was undated, and one in Georgia in September that was not videotaped. Officials offered advice on dealing with skeptical judges, mocked Hispanics whose cars were seized, and made comments that, the Institute for Justice said, gave weight to the argument that civil forfeiture encourages decisions based on the value of the assets to be seized rather than public safety. In the Georgia session, the prosecutor leading the talk boasted that he had helped roll back a Republican-led effort to reform civil forfeiture in Georgia, where seized money has been used by the authorities, according to news reports, to pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car. |
I can recall the huge blow up in the early '90s about the abuse of civil forfeiture. Supposedly legislative safeguards were put in place to curb abuses; but they obviously haven't been as successful as intended. One of the biggest problem with forfeiture currently is that the property no longer has to be considered as proceeds of a crime. In the past, the main justification used was that the property was purchased with the proceeds of a crime, or used to commit a crime, and therefore seizing it was a way to create a disincentive for the criminal, even when no criminal charges could be filed.
But now, anything that is owned or possessed by a suspect is fair game. Even if it didn't belong to the criminal. A teen driving his parents or grandparents car under the influence, or caught with even a token amount of an illicit substance, will get the car seized. The fact that he is not the owner of the vehicle, and may not even have permission to use it, doesn't matter. And there are still no requirements to file any criminal charges to enable the seizure. Also from the article, "In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple’s home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch."
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire