More civil forfeiture

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Kinda scary in Oklahoma now
Can scan cards?
Especially dislike the 7.7 percent vig
http://5newsonline.com/2016/06/08/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-from-bank-accounts/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[RoadKingLarry]

I've been watching this.
With Oklahoma's serious budget problems I expect to see a big jump in civil forfeitures in the coming year.

Once someone’s money is seized, it is up to them to prove that the money is not connected to the crime.

“If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money, it will be given back to you,” Vincent said.

I just can't imagine something like that being abused.

[T.O.M.]

IMHO, forfeiture as originally used was okay. You bust a dope dealer, an in the home you find 10 kilos of cocaine and next to it you find $150K in cash.  Or  you forfeit the car if you find a smuggler running dope in it.

Problem is that creative lawyers and LEOs have almost turned it into a game, with the grand prize being millions of dollars in cash and property.  Problem became worse when agencies began relying on that forfeiture income as a part of their budget, because that created a need to keep the money coming.  And, where the problem went over the top is when the law was created that put the burden on the accused to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt.  And I know it isn't that difficult to prove that the money was obtained by legal means, but the burden should never be on the accused.

Sounds to me like this is another case of the state relying on the forfeiture to fix budget problems.  Not good...

[brimic]

Problem is that creative lawyers and LEOs have almost turned it into a game legalized armed robbery

fixed that.

[MechAg94]

IMHO, forfeiture as originally used was okay. You bust a dope dealer, an in the home you find 10 kilos of cocaine and next to it you find $150K in cash.  Or  you forfeit the car if you find a smuggler running dope in it.

Problem is that creative lawyers and LEOs have almost turned it into a game, with the grand prize being millions of dollars in cash and property.  Problem became worse when agencies began relying on that forfeiture income as a part of their budget, because that created a need to keep the money coming.  And, where the problem went over the top is when the law was created that put the burden on the accused to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt.  And I know it isn't that difficult to prove that the money was obtained by legal means, but the burden should never be on the accused.

Sounds to me like this is another case of the state relying on the forfeiture to fix budget problems.  Not good...

The problem today is that anything that is left to prove in court is very difficult and expensive for the average citizen.  The local LEO's and courts don't even have to fight you.  They just need to delay things and drag their feet so it becomes very expensive and time consuming to get anything back.  Even if they are required to prove it, it could still be abused. 

I am reminded of the case a few years back where a judge sued a dry cleaner for losing two pairs of pants.  He knew all the dodges and maneuvers to drag the case through the courts for years and put the guy out of business.  There is a point where vigilante justice looks better and better.  I sometimes think the lack of a threat of vigilante justice is part of the problem.

[MechAg94]

Loveless said he will propose legislation that will require a conviction before any assets could be seized.

This was written in the article.  I think that if civil forfeiture is allowed, it should be filtered by requiring that prosecutors prove it is part of the crime during the course of the trial and only seize it after a conviction.

I still don't like this since it would sort of assume the assets could still be seized and held until trial or until they decide if they will press charges.  

[MechAg94]

“We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent told News on 9. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.”

IMO, this is downright scary.  They have no other evidence of a crime, but they don't like the way you are behaving so they are going to seize whatever bank funds they can access.  

In the past, they justified the seizure on the basis that no one but a criminal would carry that much cash.  Now if you have an ATM card or bank card, they are going to seize the money you have in the bank.  IMO, that is going way beyond law enforcement. 

[HeroHog]

Ya know, if some jackass cop ruined my life doing that, I would be sorely tempted to do many destructive and illegal things resulting in SEVERE losses to the police and judicial facilities and departments equipment of those that were involved. Not that I would ever do such a thing...

[Ben]

Very bad.

“We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent told News on 9. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.”

"Suspicion" is very thin ice to stand on IMO.

As pointed out above, re: the "if you can prove your innocence" line, the cop doesn't mention that to prove my innocence, I have to pay my lawyer a lot of money, while at the same time paying the lawyer on the other side his salary, and that lawyer gets to bill me as long as I live via taxes, so no reason not to drag things out until I give up.

[roo_ster]

Kinda scary in Oklahoma now
Can scan cards?
Especially dislike the 7.7 percent vig
http://5newsonline.com/2016/06/08/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-from-bank-accounts/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Is the idea to provoke armed revolt and the killing of gov't employees?  It gets harder and harder to suss out parody and/or creeping tyranny.

[brimic]

Is the idea to provoke armed revolt and the killing of gov't employees?  It gets harder and harder to suss out parody and/or creeping tyranny.

The first one has a very steep price, every one after that is free.

[Balog]

IMHO, forfeiture as originally used was okay. You bust a dope dealer, an in the home you find 10 kilos of cocaine and next to it you find $150K in cash.  Or  you forfeit the car if you find a smuggler running dope in it.

Problem is that creative lawyers and LEOs have almost turned it into a game, with the grand prize being millions of dollars in cash and property.  Problem became worse when agencies began relying on that forfeiture income as a part of their budget, because that created a need to keep the money coming.  And, where the problem went over the top is when the law was created that put the burden on the accused to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt.  And I know it isn't that difficult to prove that the money was obtained by legal means, but the burden should never be on the accused.

Sounds to me like this is another case of the state relying on the forfeiture to fix budget problems.  Not good...

Chris, this sort of thing is why I said in the other thread that cops (as a class) are the enemy. No matter how warm and fuzzy any individual officer friendly is, they're still part of a violent and heavily armed gang of thugs.

[brimic]

Chris, this sort of thing is why I said in the other thread that cops (as a class) are the enemy. No matter how warm and fuzzy any individual officer friendly is, they're still part of a violent and heavily armed gang of thugs.

Laws like civil asset forfeiture always start out with good intentions and are often wildly accepted at first, but good intentions on the right usually turn  out to be no better than good intentions on the left. I'm slowly learning that.

[Balog]

Laws like civil asset forfeiture always start out with good intentions and are often wildly accepted at first, but good intentions on the right usually turn  out to be no better than good intentions on the left. I'm slowly learning that.

I always laugh at the whole "Republicans like me are all about limited government! Also, I want to give the cops the power to steal from people and have the courts throw everyone I don't like into jail for life!"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I noticed that the company's giving it to the state for 5 k
They must be expecting a killing off the vig  percentage


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RevDisk]

Maybe this can be the catalyst to crank down on civil asset seizure. Government has two modes of regulating government behavior. Too much and too little. At the moment, asset seizure is WAY too little and only differentiated from armed robbery solely by the fact that no one is willing to arrest the persons doing so. No agency should ever be allowed to keep seized funds or fines. It provides too much incentive for bad or illegal behavior.

I am curious if a victim could sue the company providing the equipment and raking in a fee. Companies do not have qualified immunity. Blackwater forgot that and that was the reason they got shut down. Lawyers won't do asset recovery from the government on commission (because the government would just drag out the court battle), but they might be willing to sue a private company. Much easier target.

http://www.amazon.com/Ziszor-232345-Portable-Handheld-Shredder/dp/B00PWVG5TC/

Might be smart to shred your credit cards when stopped by the police.   

[Ben]

Might be smart to shred your credit cards when stopped by the police.   

Or else leave minimum amounts in debit card accounts and make sure you don't link other accounts to it for overdraft coverage, else they can suck your accounts dry with one swipe.

Funny, that's how I keep my accounts to protect myself from run of the mill thieves. Ironic.

[MechAg94]

I was wondering if there would be grounds for a higher court to slap this down as there is little or no way for the LEO to judge whether electronic funds somewhere else are associated with criminal activity.  I know the law requires the citizen to prove this in court, but the LEO still should need some justification for the initial seizure. 

[brimic]

Or else leave minimum amounts in debit card accounts and make sure you don't link other accounts to it for overdraft coverage, else they can suck your accounts dry with one swipe.

Funny, that's how I keep my accounts to protect myself from run of the mill thieves. Ironic.

I wonder how long this will take to evolve to where they are seizing credit card advances up to the credit card's limit?
Wouldn't that be lovely- Out for a Sunday drive when you are pulled over because officer could 'smell marijauna' when you drove by, grabs your debit/ATM cards, hoovers them out then pulls 25-50K out of your platinum/black card.

[Ben]

I wonder how long this will take to evolve to where they are seizing credit card advances up to the credit card's limit?
Wouldn't that be lovely- Out for a Sunday drive when you are pulled over because officer could 'smell marijauna' when you drove by, grabs your debit/ATM cards, hoovers them out then pulls 25-50K out of your platinum/black card.

Doubt they could ever get away with that. The banks and card companies have better lawyers on retainer than the gov does, and that would lose them a lot of money. If the law maxed out my cards, I'd be highly inclined to file for bankruptcy, which would leave the card company holding the bag. They won't go for that. 

I would worry more about seizure expanding to things like 401Ks, IRAs, stocks, etc.

[RevDisk]

Doubt they could ever get away with that. The banks and card companies have better lawyers on retainer than the gov does, and that would lose them a lot of money. If the law maxed out my cards, I'd be highly inclined to file for bankruptcy, which would leave the card company holding the bag. They won't go for that. 

I would worry more about seizure expanding to things like 401Ks, IRAs, stocks, etc.

The politicians would love to seize 401k's. It's been discussed before. Honestly not likely to happen. As you say, banks have lawyers. While they may not give a damn about individual clients, losing huge amounts of money is a very real threat. Financial service companies have a lot of pull, probably the most individually of any special interest groups in the US.

Banks don't and won't care if the cops are robbing people of cash, cars, pre-paid Visas, etc. Even draining their bank accounts. Most people don't keep enough in their bank accounts that robbing their customers by the hundreds or single digit thousands per year will be a big deal. Cops know their limits. Robbing little people is one thing. Robbing politically connected folks is another.

[41magsnub]

As bad as asset forfeiture is, a credit line is not an "asset" to be seized IMHO.  I'd think credit cards are safe.  I'd also think retirement accounts are safe. 

One I would worry about is back when I had a home equity loan they offered me an ATM card linked to it.  It seemed like a bad idea, not how I was going to use the loan, and declined it.  I could see their fancy machine seeing this ATM card linked to that account and interpreting it as a checking account, rather than a line of credit.

All that said, isn't this (right now at least) just for pre-paid and gift cards which are in the grand scheme of things like carrying cash?

[brimic]

As bad as asset forfeiture is, a credit line is not an "asset" to be seized IMHO.  I'd think credit cards are safe.  I'd also think retirement accounts are safe. 

They seize houses, which in most cases, are liabilities.

[brimic]

The politicians would love to seize 401k's. It's been discussed before. Honestly not likely to happen.

 

Not going to happen at this point, but America is fundamentally changing.... when that day comes:

[Ben]

They seize houses, which in most cases, are liabilities.

That's actually an interesting point. How do banks handle that now?