The Beginning of the End of Civil Forfeiture?

[Doc Safari]

https://apnews.com/f60d5690704648edbf7a967cb6d6e8df


The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states...


The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban.


“If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today ... many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.


The case has drawn interest from liberal groups concerned about police abuses and conservative organizations opposed to excessive regulation.

My take: Civil forfeiture laws only encourage some of the worst official corruption imaginable. Law enforcement agencies often use it as a way to generate revenues to buy their fancy equipment and other things. It's high time this legalized thievery is ended once and for all.

[SteyrAUG]

Scary world when I agree with Sotomayor.

What began as a way to take away tools used by crime cartels as a way to corrupt law enforcement simply evolved into a way for law enforcement to corrupt themselves. I was fine when it was used against those who used their vast wealth to "buy justice" to become untouchable no matter how barbaric their crimes were, when it is used against ordinary citizens and they have the burden of proven their seized assets didn't come from crime or more importantly excessive fines turned into property forfeiture then law enforcement and government is engaged in theft.

This is exactly the kind of crap that ends at Ruby Ridge, when ATF agents lied and told Randy Weaver he would lose his home if he refused to become an informant over failure to pay a $200 tax.

[Averageman]

Perhaps the application of civil forfeiture should only be applied in conjunction with a RICO Act violation that can be directly linked as organized crime?

[SteyrAUG]

Perhaps the application of civil forfeiture should only be applied in conjunction with a RICO Act violation that can be directly linked as organized crime?

The problem is independent drug dealers can become wealthy and powerful enough to purchase influence. But as with most things, you solve one problem and you end up with a different problem. Perhaps the solution is asset forfeiture not directly benefiting the agency involved in the seizure. If all "legitimately seized assets" went toward the paying of the national debt there would be no personal profit motivation.

[glocktogo]

Perhaps it should be tied to a criminal conviction in court.

[SteyrAUG]

Perhaps it should be tied to a criminal conviction in court.

With billions at their disposal those drug lords will never get convicted because they own the cops and the courts.

If everything was working, and we controlled our borders and could prevent the flow of drugs into the country and money out of the country...THEN your solution would work as it was intended from the start. And that is why we came up with asset forfeiture in the first place, but the solution became a problem.

[sundance435]

Perhaps it should be tied to a criminal conviction in court.

That was always my problem with the expansion of civil forfeiture. It has existed for a long time, though was little used at the outset, since the burden of proof was stricter. Then courts and legislatures opened the flood gates by basically requiring only preponderance of evidence, which is often little more than probable cause. Civil forfeiture is now used all of the time in cases where a conviction isn't obtained. As a compromise, I could see "clear and convincing" as the burden of proof, but I have a feeling many of the problems would remain. To me, the only real solution is requiring a criminal conviction (including pleas) and THEN a separate hearing on property that was used in the commission of a crime or bought as a result of criminal enrichment, where the burden of proof can be lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I never personally saw any correlation to deterrence, either, by taking away someone's car for a DUI, or any other crime, for that matter.


With billions at their disposal those drug lords will never get convicted because they own the cops and the courts.

That's a stretch. We may not get them right away, because of the very same borders you mention, but we do end up getting a lot of them. It's fairly well documented/known that the biggest fear of many of the major players is coming across the radar of the feds (as one example, the main reason Escobar turned himself into Colombian authorities was to forestall extradition to the U.S.). The complicated nature of criminal networks often means that only the feds have the money, resources, and expertise to get a conviction, but once you have their attention, they have like a 96% conviction rate.

[glocktogo]

That was always my problem with the expansion of civil forfeiture. It has existed for a long time, though was little used at the outset, since the burden of proof was stricter. Then courts and legislatures opened the flood gates by basically requiring only preponderance of evidence, which is often little more than probable cause. Civil forfeiture is now used all of the time in cases where a conviction isn't obtained. As a compromise, I could see "clear and convincing" as the burden of proof, but I have a feeling many of the problems would remain. To me, the only real solution is requiring a criminal conviction (including pleas) and THEN a separate hearing on property that was used in the commission of a crime or bought as a result of criminal enrichment, where the burden of proof can be lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I never personally saw any correlation to deterrence, either, by taking away someone's car for a DUI, or any other crime, for that matter.

That's a stretch. We may not get them right away, because of the very same borders you mention, but we do end up getting a lot of them. It's fairly well documented/known that the biggest fear of many of the major players is coming across the radar of the feds (as one example, the main reason Escobar turned himself into Colombian authorities was to forestall extradition to the U.S.). The complicated nature of criminal networks often means that only the feds have the money, resources, and expertise to get a conviction, but once you have their attention, they have like a 96% conviction rate.

One of the reasons DoJ has such a high conviction rate, is because they routinely seize ALL the assets of their targets, essentially preventing them from an effective defense. It's a legal tactic and a very successful one.

I get that ill gotten gains should be ripe for seizure. The way it should work though, is the assets get seized and put into escrow. Only when a conviction is secured should they be released, and only into the general budget, not that of the seizing agency.

In cases where all or most assets are seized, injunctive relief should be available to the defendant for their defense. If you take everything from me and then spend a million dollars to prosecute me, I should get a million dollars to spend on my defense. JMO, YMMV

[SteyrAUG]

That's a stretch. We may not get them right away, because of the very same borders you mention, but we do end up getting a lot of them. It's fairly well documented/known that the biggest fear of many of the major players is coming across the radar of the feds (as one example, the main reason Escobar turned himself into Colombian authorities was to forestall extradition to the U.S.). The complicated nature of criminal networks often means that only the feds have the money, resources, and expertise to get a conviction, but once you have their attention, they have like a 96% conviction rate.

I was speaking of the ones IN the US, not the ones in Columbia. Maybe it was more prevalent in South Florida.

[sundance435]

I was speaking of the ones IN the US, not the ones in Columbia. Maybe it was more prevalent in South Florida.

I would still disagree. Drug conspiracies in the US typically revolve around street gangs whose level of sophistication varies. Regardless, the feds are using RICO to go after them, too, not just the mafia. RICO has been one of the most important tools in going after drug conspiracies here or abroad. Its more widespread use was directly related to the South Florida "happenings" of the 80's.

[yoni]

I favor asset seizure in major drug cases and also human trafficking and sexual exploration of children.

Grabbing a persons car for a joint, is immoral.

Grabbing a few billion from a Narco or Flesh trafficker, way good.