THE NATION'S CRIMINALS CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGALIZED THEFT PROGRAMS

The Institute for Justice has released its latest report on asset forfeiture. Despite some recent legislative attempts to add a much-needed conviction requirement to the seizure of property, most of the country still allows law enforcement to proceed under the assumption that money, vehicles and houses are "guilty," even if those they take this property from are, for all intents and purposes, innocent.

The absence of this key factor has resulted in decades of nationwide abuse. The IJ's updated chart ranking states' asset forfeiture policies on an A-F scale shows only one A rating: New Mexico. The state's recent passage of significant asset forfeiture reform is the only highlight in the report. The rest of the nation continues on its path of underachievement, preferring to defer to law enforcement's best judgment on how to fight the Drug War. (While also occasionally used to target fraud and organized crime, forfeiture programs are now mostly deployed to take money from people/vehicles that smell like marijuana.)


The largest amount of resistance to asset forfeiture reform efforts come from the agencies that benefit most from the liquidation of seized property.
The highest grades correspond directly to states where local agencies have the least to gain from seized assets. Unsurprisingly, removing the incentive to simply takemoney/property has resulted in less abuse of forfeiture programs.

But these (few) speed bumps have done next to nothing to slow the asset forfeiture machine. It's been on a downhill roll since the late 80s, resulting in $12.6 seized at the federal level from 1989 to 2010. Since 2010, though, the year-to-year increases have been exponential. In 2014 alone, US Attorneys "forfeited" $4.5 billion. This dollar amount now places federal law enforcement at the top of the list of of "People Who Take Stuff That Belongs To Others."According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.Of course, there are several legitimate (i.e., tied to convictions) forfeitures included in that amount, whereas no burglary can ever be considered "legitimate." And, as the DOJ points out, some recent sizable seizures have produced gaudy forfeiture numbers.A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year.So, there are mitigating factors in this law enforcement-to-criminals comparison, but that doesn't mean asset forfeiture programs are largely "right" or free from abuse. The federal government has argued it has the right to seize even "untainted" funds and a majority of cash seizures -- especially at the local level -- don't rise to "drug kingpin" levels. As was noted, when Washington, DCmoved forwardwith asset forfeiture reform, its local police force more resembled pathetic stickup men than the dismantlers of drug empires.In addition, the bill sets other limits. Vehicles may not be seized unless "clear and convincing evidence" exists that they were used in the commission of a crime. Cash amounts under $1,000 would be presumed "innocent," i.e., not subject to forfeiture. This stipulation cuts to the heart of the DC PD's abuse of asset forfeiture -- more than half of its $5.5 million in cash seizures were for less than $141, with over 1,000 of the 12,000 seizures being for less than $20.Further watering down the comparison is this depressing fact: in asset forfeiture, the government (both local and federal) tends to place the burden of proof on the former owners of seized property. Arrested burglars, however, are given the Constitutional benefit of a doubt (presumed innocent) when theyend up in court.

 

What damn good is drug money if you can't use it for bail because the law already took it. Crime is supposed to pay damn it!

 

This shit has gone way too far. It has been reported that there are cops low down enough that they used the drug war excuse to steal a car that they wanted. It wasn't for sale and worth a lot of cash so the cop just took the car. No charges were ever filed on the owner, of course, and this did not seem to bother the captain and cheif of police.

 

Score one for the good guy who refused to just roll over and let them do it.


After Having His Motel Seized by the Government, Victim of Civil Asset Forfeiture Reflects on His Fight

Melissa Quinn - May 07, 2015

Russ Caswell, owner of Motel Caswell in Tewksbury, Mass., fought the law and won. Now, he’s reflecting on his experiences with a law enforcement tool known as civil asset forfeiture as policymakers in Washington, D.C., and across states from coast to coast, debate the practice.

“The government tried to take [Motel Caswell] based on just a handful of drug activity cases that they had that I didn’t even know had existed,” Caswell told The Daily Signal.
...
The state and federal agencies argued that because there had been drug arrests on 30 different occasions, the property was theirs for the taking. The Caswells had rented rooms in the motel more than 125,000 times over a period of 17 years.

Though the federal government and local police department contended they had seized the property because of the crimes committed there, Caswell believes they wanted to sell Motel Caswell for a profit.

And when Caswell filed a lawsuit challenging the seizure, a DEA agent confirmed his suspicions.

During depositions, Special Agent Vincent Kelly told lawyers that he was tasked with finding properties to be forfeited. Often times, he said, the agency wouldn’t go after a property unless an owner had more than $50,000 worth of equity.
...
With the help of lawyers from the nonprofit Institute for Justice, which represented him pro bono, Caswell was successful in getting his motel back. However, the government did try to convince him into settling, which Caswell called “nothing more than an extortion plot.”

“They had nothing to get us on because we did nothing,” he said of law enforcement.
------
You think that's bad? Check out this from another story on the same case.

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22448634/tewksburys-motel-caswell-wins-forfeiture-case


According to testimony, police did identify the motel as a "high-crime area," along with two more Main Street properties, the Stadium Plaza parking lot and the Motel 6.

A recent Sun review of Tewksbury Police Department arrest logs from 2007 to 2012 showed that during those years, three other Main Street addresses saw more drug arrests than the Motel Caswell.

In her ruling, Dein calls it "rather remarkable" for the government to contend that Caswell should lose his property "for failure to undertake some undefined steps in an effort to prevent crime," if police did not reach out to him about a crime problem.

Testimony in the weeklong November trial showed that motel staff had taken several security measures, including installing security cameras and warning signs, requiring guests to fill out registration cards and manning the front desk 24 hours a day. Caswell also reported suspicious behavior to police, provided officers with room keys when requested and gave police free rooms for stakeouts.
---

The guy was cooperating with and assisting the police in every conceivable way and that was the thanks he got.

 

oklahoma is actively fighting the idea of reforming their forfeiture laws
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/fight-begins-reform-civil-asset-forfeiture-oklahom/nnwFr/
TULSA —

With civil asset forfeiture, a law enforcement agency can confiscate assets without ever obtaining a criminal conviction, or even charges, against the person or people involved.

Police and prosecutors can sell the property and use the proceeds to fund their agency, a practice which some see as a dire conflict of interest.

And, as explained on the Institute for Justice website, "Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property"

And advocates for reforming Oklahoma's civil asset seizure laws argue that it turns the justice system on its head, because the assets are presumed guilty, until proven innocent.

That means those who lose real estate, vehicles, firearms, money or other property have to hire attorneys and go to court to get their property back.

 

Governments are strapped for cash. The federal government is 19 trillion in the red. You ain't seen nothing yet. You got a brief glimpse of what will happen when Greece needed money real bad. Someone has to pay for all these "social" programs.