In this corner: A guy who has had to hire five different law firms, still has the better ones on retainer -
including a law firm that specializes in and has handled actual civil asset forfeiture cases for many years - and has paid almost $200,000 in legal fees. A guy who is
living this.
And in the other corner: Quickseller, a guy with a humble opinion.
IMO civil forfeiture need to be addressed at a federal level, not a local one.
Let's see where would you start? The executive branch that makes billions of extra dollars from this? The do nothing but what their corporate masters want them to do Congressional branch? Or your best idea yet: the "fox guarding the hen house" Judicial branch who also directly profits from this practice?
It should be at a congressional level. (even though I believe the practice to be unconstitutional, I think a constitutional amendment would be in order prohibiting civil forfeiture except in cases when a person has been convicted of a crime,
and it can be proven that the assets being seized were acquired as a result of the specific crime the person committed - for example if someone robs a bank and steals $20,000 in cash and then goes out and buys a $20,000 car two days later, and is later convicted of robbing the bank then the car can be seized -- this constitutional amendment would prevent any kind of ambiguity).
I do agree that addressing this at a federal/constitutional level would no doubt be a very high bar to reach, however doing so would stop civil forfeiture across the entire country. Addressing it at a local level means having to go through the same process 50 times for each of the 50 states, plus thousands more at the city/local level. Did you get the law changed in the town you work in? If so, then great, but what happens when you work in a neighboring town where the law still allows equitable sharing?
I also saw those cases. I am not sure of the exact details of these cases, however I do not agree with the court's legal conclusion. The court now has different justices then it did on each of those cases. Those cases is also why I think a constitutional amendment is in order to prevent law enforcement from finding loopholes in case law.
however the fact that, in the 81% of cases when no crime is charged, the government will usually return the property when the forfeiture is disputed,
Even if true (where is your source) this would mean that in 20%, oops sorry 19%, of the cases where the seizure is disputed the government keeps the property anyway, right?
- however I was actually incorrect, it is 41%, not 81% - either way your point is still valid - it would be valid even if the percentage is 100% because people still need to bear the expense of disputing the forfeiture and often do not receive everything back from the government (they settle for less then 100%).
But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
I understand that most of the time that the government returns money to it's rightful owner that they only give back some percentage (I think I remember reading this most likely in the WSJ, however I do not currently have a source and may be incorrect on this) of the funds. In the 59% (or 19%, or whatever too high of a percentage) of the other cases, the courts must decide (I do not have stats on how often people win these cases).
The point that I was trying to make is that there are not a lot of opportunities for the court system to hear these kinds of cases.
Another important fact is (
source):
While other metropolitan areas get most of their civil forfeiture assets through a smaller number of big-dollar seizures, Philadelphia hauls in the dough through thousands of small-dollar seizures. In 2010 the city filed some 8,000 forfeiture cases with an average take of $550.
It looks like that some jurisdictions target smallish seizures in order to make it not worthwhile to try to fight in court - $500 may not be very much to a single person, however $500 thousands of times really adds up to a lot of money.
Let me tell you what actual attorneys that deals with this shit all the time actually told me:
If I am totally acquitted of all criminal charges the government will probably drop the civil asset forfeiture suit (which is a totally separate case from the criminal case). However, due to the supreme court you put your trust in rulings, they can pursue the civil asset forfeiture case even in light of a total acquittal of all criminal charges. How can this be? Because in the criminal case I am I trial but in the civil case I am not on trial, the seized property is on trial. Also, while you are getting a source for your 81% figure please also find out how many of those people that "won" got all of their seized property back.
I believe this. There really are no checks and balances to prevent this kind of abuse.
I don't think very many people that "won" got all their money back, I imagine that very few (I guesstimate close to 0) got all their money back, and after accounting for legal costs it is probably even lower. I hope that my previous post does not come across as advocating for civil forfeiture, because that is not my stance.
along with the fact that challenging such laws are very expensive
No shit Sherlock. Now what you might not know, not having this happen to you, is that the prosecutors in these cases will drag them out as long as they possibly can in the hopes of totally bankrupting the victim through their attorney's fees.
There becomes a point where it is no longer economical to continue to pursue a case to get your money back. This is just another reason why the appellate and supreme court does not hear more of these cases.
and suits would need to be brought by people who, by definition have a lot to lose by not settling (the government often makes settlement offers when suits are filed) and do not have a lot left means that few people are going to have standing to petition the supreme court to hear their case.
and who know they will lose anyway, just like all of those before them.
I don't think
everyone who challenges a civil forfeiture suit in court looses. If you can present credible information saying this is true, then I would seriously lose faith in our court system and our country.
The Washington Post published an
in depth article late last year about civil forfeiture (I believe the linked article is the one, but they have written about it several times) which has since caused a lot of public debate about the issue. The Wall Street Journal has also
published a number of articles critical of civil forfeiture. This is interesting because the Post is traditionally a very liberal publication while the WSJ is a very conservative publication.
cool
This shows that the opposition is bipartisan.
I would not be surprised if the issue of civil forfeiture is a major issue in the 2016 (US) election.
That would be nice, not holding my breath.
I had never even heard of civil forfeiture before the Washington Post had published it's story about how much money governments are making from it and how much it is abused. I imaging that the same is true for a lot of people. I think there has been more public debate over the use of civil forfeiture over the last several months, and I really have not heard many people arguing to keep it in place.
