The Forfeiture Machine Turns Cops into Robbers

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/Y6MT_YLO5yg

Philly DA sued over $5.8 million civil forfeiture “machine.”

The named plaintiffs are three Philadelphia residents who stand to lose their houses as a result of civil forfeiture actions by D.A., even though none of them has been charged with any crime. The District Attorney’s office regularly engages in the practice on the premise that the houses have been used as “instruments” of a crime (usually drug-dealing, usually by a relative).

The complaint does not go into specifics about what criminal activity the D.A. alleges took place in the houses involved, but emphasizes the impact of losing the houses would have on their owners. (One Plaintiff, Doila Welch, for example, shares her house with her siblings, including a cognitively disabled sibling, and their children. Welch, herself, suffers from mobility problems.)


http://citypaper.net/article.php?Philly-DA-sued-over-5.8-million-civil-forfeiture-machine.-20953

[Ron~Popeil]

Property seizure even when a crime is committed is a sham. Losing your property because someone else committed a crime is an absolute abuse of power under an all ready bad law.

[Chef Ramsay]

Another consequence to the war on drugs. Forfeitures have been going on for as long as I can remember and there's always the heart breaking stories of the wrong people being screwed by these situations. The  law itself is bad and even worse when the DA can't be trusted to use it as the spirit of the law was written.

[RodeoX]

Any seizure system that allows the police or government to keep what they seize is unethical. How could it not be? It goes back to the days of private police who worked not for the public good, but for money.  And what do you think is going to happen when that department does not make it's budget? Will they take a pay cut or will they just go looking for people to steal from? What crimes do think they will leave unsolved because they are not profitable enough?
They would likely say that profit has nothing to do with it, but they would also likely fight tooth and nail against a rule that requires them to give the forfeited money to anyone else. 

[counter]

The Article doesn't even say what the crime was in any significant detail which is pretty disturbing.  There should be a mountain of evidence and way more transparency and I still would think taking the home would be next to impossible to seize unless the defendant was facing a mountain of devastating evidence.