From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?

[forindooruseonly]

So should the druggies get their drugs back? Maybe get their guns back too etc... I really dont consider it a "seizure" but more like a "forfeiture". This subject can teeter either way depending on circumstances. The bottom line is this: Committing drug crimes = possible property forfeiture.

Trust me, I understand the sentiment and I'm not trying to start an argument. However, there is a huge difference between seizing something that is contraband - drugs or guns during the act of a felony, and seizing someones house, car, or wad of cash because the LE thinks it is drug related. For example, there are policies that allow law enforcement to seize cash over a certain amount under the assumption that it is drug related, without proof. Then it is incumbent upon the individual to place a claim, hire a lawyer, and wait to get his/her money back. Having carried large amounts of cash for very legitimate reasons, I find such things very scary.

And that is the problem. Its not that convicted drug dealers are having their drugs and guns seized, its that the process assumes guilt and acts upon that before proving guilt, leaving the person in the position of having to prove themselves innocent. I disagree with that premise.

 

[Dave70968]

forindooruseonly nails it. It's not about the forfeiture per se, it's about the process. I don't have a problem with the concept of criminal forfeiture--that is, the person is accused, tried, convicted, and his stuff taken as part of the punishment. What we're talking about here is called civil forfeiture: the stuff is seized, the property is charged with a crime (or charged with being the product of or involved with a crime), and it is incumbent upon the legitimate owner to prove the his/the property's innocence. That is an outright subversion of the intent of the Constitution, and is morally wrong.

If you want to take a criminal's stuff, fine--just prove that he's a criminal first. If you want to see where civil forfeiture can go wrong, look at Tenaha, TX, currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit over more than $3 million in civil forfeitures.

 

[inactive]

I did see that Pink Charger actually and from quite a ways off! As far as the Busa I didn't know they crashed it but they might have, I just remember someone telling me about one a while back never actually saw it.

Wrecked in May 2010:

http://www.newson6.com/story/125203...njured-after-motorcycle-crash?redirected=true

I am not sure how much I buy the OHP's story. Back when it broke last year, they said the driver fled the scene. I wonder if he knowingly "fled" or if he even knew what had happened (easy to do with a police motorcycle keeping hidden then suddenly seeking ingress on the highway). It all sounded very conspiracy-theory at the time.

 

[inactive]

I always thought police cars had to have government plates?!? Of course I have very limited knowledge and could be way wrong!

Respectfully, you are mistaken. Many agencies have undercover vehicles, for both detectives and patrol, which would be of little value with the special plates. Now how and where these are used I believe depends mainly on the individual department's policy.

 

[bettingpython]

Wrecked in May 2010:

http://www.newson6.com/story/125203...njured-after-motorcycle-crash?redirected=true

I am not sure how much I buy the OHP's story. Back when it broke last year, they said the driver fled the scene. I wonder if he knowingly "fled" or if he even knew what had happened (easy to do with a police motorcycle keeping hidden then suddenly seeking ingress on the highway). It all sounded very conspiracy-theory at the time.

That would be Ward Olyphant who was the trooper assigned to that unit. He took a lot of flak on the sportbike forum for his description of why the wreck happened. He took the time to join and discuss it with the riding community, but his mistake was and always will be that he was depending on lights and sirens to keep him visible, and then his heavy reliance on the rear brake exacerbated the problem.

Now back to forfeitures, any agency that stands to prosper from forfeiture rules should be feared. The process is flawed in that there is no presumption of innocence, if you can't prove that it didn't come from drug money then you will lose. Even if you do get your property or cash returned to you it can be a fiscal hardship and expensive and you have no recourse to recover your legal expenses from a government entity. I always thought the burden of proof was on the state, what happened here?

Those who think it's so great answer this, how would it feel to be 700 miles from home on vacation and have $3k in cash seized?

As recently as 10 to 15 years ago it was still uncommon to have debit cards and atm networks often didn't work flawlessly, if you didn't have a credit card you always carried cash because it was easy to get stuck someplace that wouldn't accept an out of state check.

Guess what will get hit on by a drug dog frequently, a large quantity of well circulated money. It's not fun explaining it either while you're having your clothes and gear pawed through on the side of the road and you have Louisianna state troppers wanting to tear your motorcycle apart.

Fortunately my money didn't get seized, or I would have been in real trouble, working in a bar was pretty much an all cash business, I didn't have a bank account check book or credit card, I would have been screwed.

 

[henschman]

I guess property rights don't mean much anymore.....

True... and neither does self-ownership, the right to the product of one's labor, the right to free association... and generally the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you aren't diminishing the equal liberty of anyone else.

I agree, the civil forfeiture, as well as the civil committment laws do not belong in a country that fancies itself the "land of the free."

 

[Zombie]

ya know if they hadn't knowingly been breaking the law, taking the risk, and not giving a sh*t about laws or regulations they wouldn't be in the situation.

 

[Dave70968]

Zombie: there's nothing illegal about carrying cash. We see cases--lots of cases--in which people are carrying cash and it is seized on the theory that it must've been the product of something illegal, despite a lack of evidence (see also: Tenaha, TX, though it's just the most egregious). By shifting the burden of proof to the legitimate owner to prove his innocence, civil forfeiture subverts the presumption of innocence. Again, I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't lose their stuff, just that the government should have to first prove that they are, in fact, criminals.

And no, having a drug dog alert on your wallet isn't proof of a crime. Upwards of 90% of banknotes currently in circulation have detectable amounts of cocaine on them; if you want to make an alert sufficient, we'll start with your wallet and then move to your wife's. (This ignores the tremendous error rate of dogs, which in some studies has been as high as several hundred hits on known-clean objects; that is, every positive was a false-positive.) Proof is the result of a trial and conviction, not an officer's hunch, belief, or ability to fill out arrest or seizure paperwork.

 

[forindooruseonly]

ya know if they hadn't knowingly been breaking the law, taking the risk, and not giving a sh*t about laws or regulations they wouldn't be in the situation.

Maybe check out posts 13 through 22 and 25. The problem is not with criminals losing their property, but with the LE assuming the right to deprive people of their property without even proof, much less an actual conviction, upon which it is up to the law abiding individual to satisfy the court that no wrong doing took place. And when the system benefits from seizures, that encourages abuse. No one here is crying for the criminals.

 

[Super Dave]

Now I don't agree with them doing anything other than holding an individual's property until he/she is proven guilty. IF, however a drug dealer, for example, was convicted, and had no actual proof of legal income (like a job that involved withheld taxes) for several years, then Hell yes they ought to be able to seize it. When you are convicted of a felony, you lose a lot of individual rights. Personal property rights? You mean the nice things you purchased with money you made by breaking the law? Hang 'em high, I say. You have the right to bbe some big fella's love toy, that's the right you have.

I do not agree with it prior to a conviction, for the record. I do not agree with it if the convicted's dead granny left him a pile of loot, but if he had nice pretty things, and never had a real job? Screw them.

Most of the time, MOST of the time, if you are arrested, there is a pretty good reason for it.