Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: bedlamite on January 19, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-usa-police-holder-idUSKBN0KP29F20150116 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-usa-police-holder-idUSKBN0KP29F20150116)
U.S. attorney general bans asset seizure by local police
Looks like a step in the right direction, but more info is needed as I don't trust Holder. I did notice the last line excluded firearms.
-
Bad headline. Misleads
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
"State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime."
Only applicable to federal law. And I wonder if federal law enforcement will be stopping their warrantless seizures.
-
Will local LE get a cut of seizures if they tip off the feds or gather evidence for them?
-
Possibly a step in the right direction. I read yesterday that a Republican in CO is pushing legislation on the state level, and he specifically mentioned forbidding state and local police to bring in the feds, because it's apparently how they've been getting around current state regs restricting asset seizure. There are apparently cases where it's illegal for them to seize on their own, but if they make it a joint investigation with the feds, it bypasses state level restrictions and they split the take 50/50 with fed LE.
The whole thing is a racket. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If asset forfeiture doesn't go away or get severely restricted, they need to at least prohibit the money from going to LE or the courts. It should be designated for libraries or fixing potholes or similar. That would reduce seizure cases all by itself.
-
Most states have their own assets forfeiture. The Feds just streamlined the paperwork in exchange for a cut
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The whole thing is a racket. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If asset forfeiture doesn't go away or get severely restricted, they need to at least prohibit the money from going to LE or the courts. It should be designated for libraries or fixing potholes or similar. That would reduce seizure cases all by itself.
Use it to finance scholarships at a law school >:D
-
Most states have their own assets forfeiture. The Feds just streamlined the paperwork in exchange for a cut
Perhaps, but several states saw the abuses happen and restricted the process at a state level, only for the police to start making everything 'joint' and doing it anyways. So it has to be fixed at both state and federal level.
I think I'm going to email my state representatives again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/cash-seizures-fuel-police-spending/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks - has a GREAT video of an officer testifying as to how they spent the money they seized.
-
Cheaper to simply take a cut of the action. Every mob operations knows that.
-
Most states have their own assets forfeiture. The Feds just streamlined the paperwork in exchange for a cut
Yeah, but as Ben notes the Feds also help the locals get around other restrictions. Many states do things like force seized assets to go to the school fund or similar. Doesn't exactly fix the problem, but removed some of the worst incentives. However, the Feds would adopt cases and send the money back to the local agency instead of where the state wanted it to go.
Asset forfeiture outside of criminal conviction is one of the most bizarrely corrupt features of US law enforcement.
-
Oh no. I think that honor goes to institutionalized plea bargains
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If there has been no crime committed and the person isn't restricted from owning them firearms aren't dangerous to the public.
The order directs federal agencies who have collected property during such seizures to withdraw their participation, except if the items collected could endanger the public, as in the case of firearms.
-
This article claims the new rules will only affect a small percentage of seizures:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/19/how-the-press-exaggerated-holders-forfei
-
This article claims the new rules will only affect a small percentage of seizures:
Given that it's my understanding that it affects the most problematic types of seizures - cases where those who have lost money (can't call them defendants, they're not charged with any crime, remember) when stopped while shopping for used cars, looking to buy a restaurant, etc....
I also wouldn't be surprised if a study found that they applied it in a racial manner - more likely to seize money, when found, from those of Hispanic and black skin tones. Much more likely to find money with those ethnic groups anyways, more suspicion of banks.
But yeah, the whole 'equitable sharing' program needs to stop.
-
Not much of a source and report is short on background but it's interesting. Can anyone in texas confirm that cops got up to 26 k bonus based on their seizures?
http://mcli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/David_Nelson_ICERD.pdf
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The whole thing is a racket. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If asset forfeiture doesn't go away or get severely restricted, they need to at least prohibit the money from going to LE or the courts. It should be designated for libraries or fixing potholes or similar. That would reduce seizure cases all by itself.
I must live in the wrong part of the world. Our court gets nothing from forfeiture. Hell, even any fines we impose get routed to either the county general fund or the state in some way.
-
I must live in the wrong part of the world. Our court gets nothing from forfeiture. Hell, even any fines we impose get routed to either the county general fund or the state in some way.
Interesting. On the fed side, everything I always saw, either in asset forfeiture or regulatory fines, went straight to the agency, or office of the agency, that was involved in the action. Sometimes it was split with DOJ to pay for their counsels time.
Funny story, we were tracking a cartel "Super Panga" a couple of years ago, and the driver ended up beaching the thing on a remote beach and hightailing it away. He'd already either offloaded or dumped the pot. When CBP got to the beached boat, a local commercial fisherman had already spray painted "John Doe salvage rights" on the thing (it was probably worth a few hundred thousand dollars). :laugh:
It sat in the local harbor for a while because apparently that started some kind of maritime legal issue. I never heard what the outcome was. I know the feds took the boat away, but I don't know if the fisherman got a piece of the action. I'm sure CBP wanted the brand new quad 350 outboards on the thing for themselves.
-
Thanks for changing the thread title. It was giving me seisures.
-
Interesting. On the fed side, everything I always saw, either in asset forfeiture or regulatory fines, went straight to the agency, or office of the agency, that was involved in the action. Sometimes it was split with DOJ to pay for their counsels time.
Funny story, we were tracking a cartel "Super Panga" a couple of years ago, and the driver ended up beaching the thing on a remote beach and hightailing it away. He'd already either offloaded or dumped the pot. When CBP got to the beached boat, a local commercial fisherman had already spray painted "John Doe salvage rights" on the thing (it was probably worth a few hundred thousand dollars). :laugh:
It sat in the local harbor for a while because apparently that started some kind of maritime legal issue. I never heard what the outcome was. I know the feds took the boat away, but I don't know if the fisherman got a piece of the action. I'm sure CBP wanted the brand new quad 350 outboards on the thing for themselves.
Ooooohhhh, that would be an interesting case Admiralty court vs criminal court. I do wonder how that worked out, Because if I was John Doe, I would push to get the boat. Depending on the offer made by the Federales would be an indication of how strong they thought their case. I've heard that the Admiralty Courts like their independence and don't like other, lesser courts mucking about on their turf.
-
Ooooohhhh, that would be an interesting case Admiralty court vs criminal court. I do wonder how that worked out, Because if I was John Doe, I would push to get the boat. Depending on the offer made by the Federales would be an indication of how strong they thought their case. I've heard that the Admiralty Courts like their independence and don't like other, lesser courts mucking about on their turf.
But does their flag have gold fringe? :lol:
-
Ooooohhhh, that would be an interesting case Admiralty court vs criminal court. I do wonder how that worked out, Because if I was John Doe, I would push to get the boat. Depending on the offer made by the Federales would be an indication of how strong they thought their case. I've heard that the Admiralty Courts like their independence and don't like other, lesser courts mucking about on their turf.
This was the boat in question (not to veer the thread):
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7535/16329619012_b960100d73_c.jpg)
-
Needs more motor
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Seen a boat like that drive away from our helo dumping bails of pot out, had 4 big motors on it.
-
Seen a boat like that drive away from our helo dumping bails of pot out, had 4 big motors on it.
The cartels actually have at least one shipyard that pumps them out. Regular fishing pangas used to be used to smuggle people, then somebody got the bright idea to throw a little pot in, then the cartels thought, "Hey..." and started building these. Pot and people on the West Coast, mostly cocaine I think on the East Coast. They're considered "disposable assets" to the cartels as long as the loads are delivered. If the boat driver screws up or panics and they lose the load, they're generally running for their life after that.
-
If the boat driver screws up or panics and they lose the load, they're generally running for their life after that.
What if they suffer 'bad luck' and had to dump to avoid the coasties?
IE not especially a screw up or panic decision?
-
What if they suffer 'bad luck' and had to dump to avoid the coasties?
IE not especially a screw up or panic decision?
Then they only kill you and maybe let your family live
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What if they suffer 'bad luck' and had to dump to avoid the coasties?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20090809215002%2Fvillains%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fec%2FBoba_Fett.jpg&hash=43e2b7e4ef7313dc3f6a3fafbc2660d515851823)
-
What if they suffer 'bad luck' and had to dump to avoid the coasties?
IE not especially a screw up or panic decision?
Might go either way I guess. They killed a coastie here a couple of years ago (ran him over as his boarding party attempted to board) and the two that did it are I believe doing time in a US pen and haven't gotten a shiv yet (AFAIK - I'm kinda out of the loop now). Otherwise, the cartels are not known for accepting excuses.
-
What if they suffer 'bad luck' and had to dump to avoid the coasties?
IE not especially a screw up or panic decision?
The boat driver is also disposable. The cartels give no *expletive deleted*s about fairness.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20090809215002%2Fvillains%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fec%2FBoba_Fett.jpg&hash=43e2b7e4ef7313dc3f6a3fafbc2660d515851823)
Damn you for beating me to the punch!