A License to Steal by Scott Horton

[Jefferson23]

August 18, 2010


In “The Forfeiture Racket,” an essay in the February issue of Reason, Radley Balko took a close look at the use of civil asset forfeiture cases. He starts with the story of a college student pulled over by traffic cops, searched, and found to have $17,500 in cash. The student was not charged with any offense, but the police thought his possession of the money was suspicious, and they decided to keep it, invoking vague asset forfeiture rights. In fact the money was part of some $50,000 that the young man had received in an automobile accident settlement, but it took him more than a year and several trips to court to get his money back.

The case provides a perfect demonstration of the abusive civil asset forfeiture laws now used aggressively by police around the country. The asset forfeiture rules work hard to reverse presumptions of innocence and burdens of proof—effectively forcing citizens to prove that their money really is their money and establishing what amounts to a presumption in favor of the government’s right to take it. Viewed critically, it furnishes a legal aura to what is really no more than theft, by the government, of private property.

Now Balko looks at how attempts by some states, like Indiana, to impose limitations on these abuses are being effectively short-circuited by law enforcement agencies. Indiana legislators decided that it would disincentivize abuse if the assets forfeited were passed over to the state school system, rather than kept by revenue-strapped law-enforcement agencies. This was sound from a policy perspective, but Balko demonstrates exactly how the law is systematically circumvented by Indiana law enforcement agencies—by passing the baton to the feds, through “settlements,” contracts, and imposition of costs.

Given all of these ways around the law, how much forfeiture money is actually getting back to the school fund in Indiana? Almost none…

Civil asset forfeiture is an unjust, unfair practice under any circumstance. The idea that the government can take someone’s property on the legal fiction that property itself can be guilty of a crime is an invitation to corruption, and provides a way for the government to get its hands on private goods under a lower burden of proof than it needs to actually convict someone (criminal forfeiture, different from civil forfeiture, requires an actual conviction). What’s happening in Indiana, where the entire legal system is essentially ignoring the spirit if not the outright letter of state law, only confirms that once you give government license to steal, it’s very difficult to wrest it back.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007516

[Demeter]

1. Turn these laws on White Collar Criminals--Banksters, Fraudsters, and Mercenary Providers

Do something good for all.

[ThomCat]

2. Rich people have their money in forms other than cash.

This is a way to hit poor people hard whenever poor people manage to somehow get ahead of the curve. And poor people are always fair game. That's why they're willing to target any large accumulation of cash. If you aren't a criminal you're only someone poor, and they don't have any reason to care about your rights.

If there was some way to make people forfeit dividends, that would only target rich people. That would never be allowed to happen. Nothing that only targets rich people could ever be legal. :(

[yurbud]

4. I would put up with a lot of abusive practices if they applied to the rich too.

[Raster]

3. Asset forfeiture laws are being used by police forces in the ever increasing militarization schemes.

Police departments have to figure out some way to pay for their armored personnel carriers and state-of-the-art electronic toys. Since police departments are only quasi-military, they can't utilize no-bid contracts or uber-secret black budgets. Police departments have to exist on the monies provided by municipal taxes and federal hand-outs, or at least used to have to until personal asset seizure.

[Blue_Tires]

5. kick

[Dr.Phool]

6. I remember 20 years ago, or so.

You had a suburban Cleveland police department that hated motorcyclists. Back then, you had a few bikes, choppers mainly, that were put together with parts purchased here and there.

Any time this police department came across a bike with a "Homemade" title, they would confiscate it, claiming that it could possibly be stolen. Without one scintilla of evidence.

One guy who had his bike snatched, produced receipts for every damned part on the bike. They still refused to return it. He wound up taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court, where he finally got his bike back. He spent more money than the bike was worth, but he made the point. Or so he thought. The cops just kept up their illegal activity.

[Jefferson23]

7. That is fantastic. Pathetic that anyone should have to take it

that far though, good for him!