Change in Asset Seized Sharing Process

[Darwin333]

who are they securing the nation from?

Us.

 

[drebo]

Selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous precedent to set.

While I don't agree with the DEA as a whole, if there are legitimately passed laws on the books for them to enforce, they should be enforced.

If you want the laws gone, get them gone the legal way. Oh, and abolish the DEA while you're at it.

 

[Darwin333]

Selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous precedent to set.

While I don't agree with the DEA as a whole, if there are legitimately passed laws on the books for them to enforce, they should be enforced.

If you want the laws gone, get them gone the legal way. Oh, and abolish the DEA while you're at it.

Armed robbery, highway robbery and extortion have been illegal for a long time. Why should we have to "change the law" to make it illegal again?

 

[nickqt]

Selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous precedent to set.

While I don't agree with the DEA as a whole, if there are legitimately passed laws on the books for them to enforce, they should be enforced.

If you want the laws gone, get them gone the legal way. Oh, and abolish the DEA while you're at it.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

-Anatole France

 

[Jhhnn]

Selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous precedent to set.

While I don't agree with the DEA as a whole, if there are legitimately passed laws on the books for them to enforce, they should be enforced.

If you want the laws gone, get them gone the legal way. Oh, and abolish the DEA while you're at it.

And a pony! Everybody gets a pony!

You invoke the classic conservative stall, making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Obviously, three successive Admins have failed to enforce federal cannabis law since 1996 when CA voters passed prop 215 to create legal MMJ. Only when pretense is dropped & that's extended to protect recreational users who do no harm have we heard that particular line of snivelling from right wing culture warriors.

Hell, we now have Congress demanding that the DEA not enforce the law wrt MMJ even as they have the power to change the law. Go figure.

 

[werepossum]

This might have been a relevant section to include in the above quotes:

Looks very much like Holder is responding to bi-partisan pressure/encouragement.

Unfortunately Holder's action won't affect seizures done in accordance with state law. However, it appears Congress may be doing something about that. Maybe.

Fern

Even better news, although I don't see how Holder could be pressured. Obama maybe, wanting to be the one who delivers if this actually happens as with Johnson and equal rights. Regardless, I'm much more concerned with what people do than with why they might have done them.

Personally, IDGAF. I'm nowhere remotely close to a fan of Holder but credit where credit is due. He made a great first step here, I just wish Congress had the balls to follow up. Of course they won't because then they will be called "on the bad guys side" or some other political bullshit.

Regardless, for the first time in a very long time I congratulate Holder on doing something that should have been done very long ago.

Exactly. Better those in power do the right thing for the wrong reasons than vice versa, so either way this is a good thing. Personally if a politician does the right thing I'm going to assume he did it for the rights reasons unless he just blatantly rubs my nose in it.

Definately something else we need to work on. Did you know that under the mandatory minimum sentencing that getting caught selling a certain amount/kind of drugs 3 times the judge must give you life per the minimum but if you get caught trying to set off a fucking nuclear bomb (or actually setting one off without causing any deaths!!!) the minimum is only 30 years?!?

Can we at least agree that an asshole who has a nuke in the US and tries to set off a fucking nuke is worse than an asshole slanging crack?

+1 We need a top-down review of ALL our laws and sentencing requirements/guidelines.

 

[schmuckley]

Hey! This is a good thing!
Can they still take your Hummer if someone left a roach in the ashtray?
..cuz that's....not right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perspective-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._forfeiture_announcement_change_anything.html

Cue States' Rights ravers.

 

[werepossum]

Perspective-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._forfeiture_announcement_change_anything.html

Cue States' Rights ravers.

Why are you of all people linking an article about the non-effect of this? They did what they could do and deserve credit; the rest is up to the states and/or Congress.

 

[Knowing]

conservatives

Is it their fault that Obama executed more raids on dispensaries in 4 years than Bush did in 8 after he said that he wouldn't?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

He refused to enforce DOMA (also shit) so we know he claims the power to make those decisions.

 

[nickqt]

Is it their fault that Obama executed more raids on dispensaries in 4 years than Bush did in 8 after he said that he wouldn't?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

He refused to enforce DOMA (also shit) so we know he claims the power to make those decisions.

To me, Obama is not a "liberal". He's a Democrat, which means he is center/center-right.

Stick the average Democratic politician in Canada or Europe, and they'd fit in quite nicely with the conservative party there.

That said, I too despise Obama's stance on cannabis. That said, he seems to be relatively decent on Washington and Colorado legalizing it. And while not always, most of the time it is the right that is dragging their feet with regards to legalization. For example here in GA, even legalizing cannabis oil that won't get you "high" is taking way too long given the benefits it can provide.

 

[Darwin333]

Perspective-

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._forfeiture_announcement_change_anything.html

Cue States' Rights ravers.

Isn't armed robbery, highway robbery and extortion against federal law already? The fact that you are wearing a badge when you commit the above crimes doesn't make them any more or less of a crime.

Not to mention the blatant violation of the 4th amendment, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can cite hundreds of cases in which peoples money or property was taken without anything remotely close to reasonably believing it was associated with criminal activity. The fact of the matter is, having even a modest amount of legal United States tender on you is all the reason they need these days.

That is called armed robbery or highway robbery, throw in them threatening to trump up charges on you if you don't sign your rights to said property away right there on the side of the road and we civilized people call that extortion. Seeing how a lot of departments do this on a large scale, in collaboration with each other and use the proceeds to continue doing the above crimes I think a good case could be made for Federal racketeering charges.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are you of all people linking an article about the non-effect of this? They did what they could do and deserve credit; the rest is up to the states and/or Congress.

Simply to point out that we're just beginning to recognize the scope of the problem. It'll be interesting to see which state legislatures pull into Holder's wake.

 

[Darwin333]

Simply to point out that we're just beginning to recognize the scope of the problem. It'll be interesting to see which state legislatures pull into Holder's wake.

Doesn't Holder have the ability to enforce Federal law and bring charges against people found to be in violation of it?

 

[werepossum]

Simply to point out that we're just beginning to recognize the scope of the problem. It'll be interesting to see which state legislatures pull into Holder's wake.

Agreed. It will also be interesting to see how many (and which) Democrats and Republicans openly oppose it.

 

[Darwin333]

Agreed. It will also be interesting to see how many (and which) Democrats and Republicans openly oppose it.

This is where I get confused....

Does Congress need to pass a new law that says armed robbery is still illegal if you are LEO? Is that what has to happen to stop this? If so, what sort of precedent does that set? Will we then have to pass another federal law that says rape is illegal even if you are LEO? Will those Congresscritters be seen as being "soft on crime" because if you weren't doing anything wrong or didn't have anything to hide then obviously the nice LEO wouldn't have raped you? Do we have to pass federal laws that say LEO can't pull you over and say "if you don't suck my dick I am going to charge you with at least a dozen crimes, despite not having any proof or even reasonable suspicion that you have committed any, and even if you do get off it's going to cost you more than you have"?


The really scary part is that those analogies are not trumped up and in fact are very very similar to what is going on right now in certain parts of the country. I am just waiting to read something like this:

"Since you have a mouth and $20 the only conclusion I can come to is that you engaged in illegal prostitution to make this $20, you can either go to jail and we keep your money or you can use your mouth to make your money back on me.... and we still keep it your money. You better fucking thank me for not taking you to jail though, here's a wet wipe"

 

[Jhhnn]

Is it their fault that Obama executed more raids on dispensaries in 4 years than Bush did in 8 after he said that he wouldn't?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

He refused to enforce DOMA (also shit) so we know he claims the power to make those decisions.

Much the same was done wrt immigration.

First, there's the "Is this ball breaking really what you want? It's the law, isn't it?" answered with a resounding "NO!" followed by a reversal in action. Public outcry is what it takes to justify a new direction, quell agency dissension, steer them away from their authoritarian zeal. Obviously, it works.

Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, now does it? Well, other than the need for public outcry.

DOMA? Really? You defend a federal law that would have denied gays equal rights as part of a red herring argument?

 

[Jhhnn]

Doesn't Holder have the ability to enforce Federal law and bring charges against people found to be in violation of it?

Of course. I don't understand the relevance of the question.

 

[werepossum]

This is where I get confused....

Does Congress need to pass a new law that says armed robbery is still illegal if you are LEO? Is that what has to happen to stop this? If so, what sort of precedent does that set? Will we then have to pass another federal law that says rape is illegal even if you are LEO? Will those Congresscritters be seen as being "soft on crime" because if you weren't doing anything wrong or didn't have anything to hide then obviously the nice LEO wouldn't have raped you? Do we have to pass federal laws that say LEO can't pull you over and say "if you don't suck my dick I am going to charge you with at least a dozen crimes, despite not having any proof or even reasonable suspicion that you have committed any, and even if you do get off it's going to cost you more than you have"?


The really scary part is that those analogies are not trumped up and in fact are very very similar to what is going on right now in certain parts of the country. I am just waiting to read something like this:

"Since you have a mouth and $20 the only conclusion I can come to is that you engaged in illegal prostitution to make this $20, you can either go to jail and we keep your money or you can use your mouth to make your money back on me.... and we still keep it your money. You better fucking thank me for not taking you to jail though, here's a wet wipe"

I think it will take a new law. Obama COULD have been going after LEOs who use federal laws as asset seizure justification when there are no charges filed or even investigations pending, but when something has become this commonplace, it's best to establish a law rather than have federal and local LEOs at war over a new interpretation. Right now most states also have their own asset forfeiture laws, so we'll need law that overrides those. As this is a civil rights issue, that should not be a problem doing it at the federal level.

Much the same was done wrt immigration.

First, there's the "Is this ball breaking really what you want? It's the law, isn't it?" answered with a resounding "NO!" followed by a reversal in action. Public outcry is what it takes to justify a new direction, quell agency dissension, steer them away from their authoritarian zeal. Obviously, it works.

Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, now does it? Well, other than the need for public outcry.

DOMA? Really? You defend a federal law that would have denied gays equal rights as part of a red herring argument?

His point was that if Obama can refuse to defend or enforce DOMA, then obviously he could refuse to allow federal asset seizure laws to be enforced except as originally intended (which should be AFTER conviction.) Right now many LEOs take the position that simply alleging a crime (or even absence of a satisfactory explanation for a large sum of cash) triggers asset seizure without charges being necessary, and the victim has to hire lawyers to try to get the property back. Eight states were even using federal laws for which they are not even capable of indicting. This should at least stop that.

I won't take a position either way as I have no idea at this time which DEA raids and indictments are legitimate, so I have no idea if any of the increased raids under Obama were illegitimate. But I can see his point.

Since by far most of the abuse is by state and local LEOs, personally I'm satisfied that Holder's move is the better one, although definitive action by Congress or SCOTUS would be best.

 

[Darwin333]

I think it will take a new law. Obama COULD have been going after LEOs who use federal laws as asset seizure justification when there are no charges filed or even investigations pending, but when something has become this commonplace, it's best to establish a law rather than have federal and local LEOs at war over a new interpretation. Right now most states also have their own asset forfeiture laws, so we'll need law that overrides those. As this is a civil rights issue, that should not be a problem doing it at the federal level.

I definitely see your point and I'm not trying to disagree with you, I am just trying to get you to see mine.

If I were to stop you on the road, pull a gun on you, ask you if you have any money and if so demand you give said money to me and in return I will allow you to continue on unharmed..... What is that called?

Given the very specific circumstances I described above, when LEO does it why in the world should it be called something else per federal law?

I'm just trying to get at the fact that we already have laws on the books for this sort of stuff. It is already illegal to rob people at gunpoint, it is already illegal to extort people and it is already illegal to deprive people of their property without due cause per the (so called) supreme law of the land. They are quite literally using "you have legal United States tender in your possession" as due cause and we need laws to stop that instead of law enforcers to stop them?? Fuck me running we are really screwed...

 

[Darwin333]

Of course. I don't understand the relevance of the question.

Is extortion a federal crime? Armed robbery? Highway robbery? Does the Federal government have the ability to enforce the 4th amendment criminally in cases of blatant property theft?

I'm not trying to blame Holder for anything, he did way more right by me on this issue than any of his predecessors and I give him a lot of credit for it. The relevance is that a lot of PDs and LEOs are breaking the law in regards to seizures and I was honestly asking if Holder had the ability to indict said officers, their bosses or even departments.

Not playing the political whackamole game bud, honest question.

They might call it "civil forfeiture" but when you put a gun to my head and demand my money, despite zero evidence of any wrong doing on my part, that becomes criminal every single time in my book. Doesn't matter if it is done by some thug wearing a hoodie, an asshole with a swastika tattoo on his neck or an asshole with a badge.

IF he does have that power, perhaps it is an avenue that can be explored in the future since Congress obviously hasn't had time to pass new laws saying that certain people are still bound by old laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it will take a new law. Obama COULD have been going after LEOs who use federal laws as asset seizure justification when there are no charges filed or even investigations pending, but when something has become this commonplace, it's best to establish a law rather than have federal and local LEOs at war over a new interpretation. Right now most states also have their own asset forfeiture laws, so we'll need law that overrides those. As this is a civil rights issue, that should not be a problem doing it at the federal level.


His point was that if Obama can refuse to defend or enforce DOMA, then obviously he could refuse to allow federal asset seizure laws to be enforced except as originally intended (which should be AFTER conviction.) Right now many LEOs take the position that simply alleging a crime (or even absence of a satisfactory explanation for a large sum of cash) triggers asset seizure without charges being necessary, and the victim has to hire lawyers to try to get the property back. Eight states were even using federal laws for which they are not even capable of indicting. This should at least stop that.

I won't take a position either way as I have no idea at this time which DEA raids and indictments are legitimate, so I have no idea if any of the increased raids under Obama were illegitimate. But I can see his point.

Since by far most of the abuse is by state and local LEOs, personally I'm satisfied that Holder's move is the better one, although definitive action by Congress or SCOTUS would be best.

You misrepresent the intent of federal law wrt civil forfeiture. Current statutes were part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, part of the Reaganites' War on Drugs. The intent was to confiscate suspect property independent of any charges at all & to share the spoils with local LEO as an inducement. The locals can't participate w/o corresponding state law, which prompted adoption of such statutes nationwide.

Prior to that, civil forfeiture had been seldom used since the end of prohibition.

LEO in some locales have been extremely abusive of the situation with up to 40% of funding coming from seizures. It helps to keep the anti-tax ravers happy- you know, the people who want law & order but don't want to pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

 

[Darwin333]

You misrepresent the intent of federal law wrt civil forfeiture. Current statutes were part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, part of the Reaganites' War on Drugs. The intent was to confiscate suspect property independent of any charges at all & to share the spoils with local LEO as an inducement. The locals can't participate w/o corresponding state law, which prompted adoption of such statutes nationwide.

Prior to that, civil forfeiture had been seldom used since the end of prohibition.

LEO in some locales have been extremely abusive of the situation with up to 40% of funding coming from seizures. It helps to keep the anti-tax ravers happy- you know, the people who want law & order but don't want to pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

I promise you that I have no intent to intentionally misrepresent anything and I appreciate your explanation, if you would indulge me I would appreciate a bit more clarification.

First the basis of your argument is Federal law but a lot of people in this thread (not sure if you are one of them or not) are saying that state laws need to change, if its based on Federal law shouldn't that law be the only one needing changed? Couldn't Congress pass a one liner that said "you aren't allowed to jack peoples shit unless you charge them with a crime and you are only allowed to keep said shit if they are convicted of the crime you charged them with and the shit you jacked was involved or profit from said crime" and completely nullify the state laws?

Second, how can this, as currently ran, possibly be constitutional? How can one argue that I am indeed "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" if the government can take it from me without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and deprive me of my property until such time that I prove my property to be "innocent"?

Finally, if it is constitutional and we all agree that if these activities were done without a badge they would be armed robbery and extortion, why can't they pass a law making sex a "civil forfeiture" which would essentially legalize rape for LEO? Just like its technically possible that cash they found was used for criminal purposes, a womans vagina, a mans dick, and both other holes are no different. They could be used for criminal activity, namely prostitution. Obviously this example is on the extreme side but I dare say it isn't that far from highway robbery.

 

[werepossum]

I definitely see your point and I'm not trying to disagree with you, I am just trying to get you to see mine.

If I were to stop you on the road, pull a gun on you, ask you if you have any money and if so demand you give said money to me and in return I will allow you to continue on unharmed..... What is that called?

Given the very specific circumstances I described above, when LEO does it why in the world should it be called something else per federal law?

I'm just trying to get at the fact that we already have laws on the books for this sort of stuff. It is already illegal to rob people at gunpoint, it is already illegal to extort people and it is already illegal to deprive people of their property without due cause per the (so called) supreme law of the land. They are quite literally using "you have legal United States tender in your possession" as due cause and we need laws to stop that instead of law enforcers to stop them?? Fuck me running we are really screwed...

Oh, I see your point and I quite agree. I just think it would be difficult for Obama to fight case by case. That's the net effect of Holder's announcement, but on an ongoing basis, not after the fact. But charging these LEOs with such crimes would be very difficult and likely not successful because they are operating under valid state and federal laws. Government gives itself wide powers not available to ordinary citizens - it must, to function - and as such it can do many things that are straight up crimes if you or I do them. When a legitimate government function morphs into the level of theft, it truly isn't easy to dial back or prosecute, because they still have that legitimate government function to claim. Even if THIS case clearly was unjustified, most of us don't want to lose against the mob or drug cartels or terrorists.

In many cases people have perfectly rational reasons to be carrying a lot of cash, such as buying a used car or other high-ticket item. But if you're stopped and you don't have the connections to avoid it, you'll have to hire a lawyer to get your money back. Sometimes they take your money and then use that taking to justify also taking your car. And being the government, they have virtually unlimited resources to delay your case, almost no chance of being ordered to pay your legal fees, and will almost certainly be granted as many continuances as they wish - while you pay your lawyer prep and appearance time, on your dime.

I see it as the frog slowly boiling. Started out legitimately, fighting major organized crime. This was a way to truly hurt them. Then it shifts to child molesters and child pornographers. Everybody hates them, right? Then it moves to drunk drivers (they could kill somebody!) and gun collectors (dangerous nuts!) Pretty soon it's accepted police behavior. After a few years, the whole "after trial" thing just gets waived and LEOs start just confiscating wherever a statue seems vaguely fitting. Of course, the original targets, organized crime, aren't that numerous and they tend to have numerous and excellent lawyers. But there are buttloads of ordinary criminals who don't have high-caliber legal help, and that's where is the big money. Pretty soon even the belief that one might be a criminal falls be the wayside. You have cash? My-have-it. You have a nice car? My-have-it. Then the confiscations have become an inherent method of funding government in nice big chunks and it isn't so much a criminal matter as a government needs matter.

You misrepresent the intent of federal law wrt civil forfeiture. Current statutes were part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, part of the Reaganites' War on Drugs. The intent was to confiscate suspect property independent of any charges at all & to share the spoils with local LEO as an inducement. The locals can't participate w/o corresponding state law, which prompted adoption of such statutes nationwide.

Prior to that, civil forfeiture had been seldom used since the end of prohibition.

LEO in some locales have been extremely abusive of the situation with up to 40% of funding coming from seizures. It helps to keep the anti-tax ravers happy- you know, the people who want law & order but don't want to pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

No, I understand, I'm just pointing out that a lot of times seizures are taken using federal laws as justification by LEOs not able to actually invoke those those laws. As Darwin is pointing out, it's basically legalized robbery by the government that is ostensibly there for your benefit.

 

[Fern]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

-Anatole France

LOL


On a related note I've read that Colorado is taking up legislation to forbid seizure without a conviction. I.e., they're follow up on Holder's move. Congrats to CO.

Fern