Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:10 AM Jun 2014

Police Can Just Take Your Money, Car and Other Property — and Good Luck Getting It Back

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/police-can-just-take-your-money-car-and-other-property-and-good-luck-getting-it-back




Alda Gentile was driving back home to New York from Florida, after having viewed condos with her son and grandson ahead of a potential move. She had $11,000 in cash with her, which she brought in order to make a deposit on her new place. As she drove through Georgia, she was stopped for speeding, and upon hearing that she was carrying such a large sum of cash (which is legal, by the way), state troopers questioned her on the side of the road for a total of six hours. In the end she was sent on her way—without the cash, which the officers kept.

Gentile’s case is an extreme example, but such occurrences happen on a smaller, broader scale across the country every year. Civil asset forfeiture is one of those arcane statutes you never hear about until it screws you. It’s a legal fiction spun up hundreds of years ago to give the state the power to convict a person’s property of a crime, or at least, implicate its involvement in the committing of a crime. When that happened, the property was to be legally seized by the state.

That made sense in the 18th century, when the government invoked the law to legally claim loot left behind by pirates who escaped into the blue horizon of the Atlantic. Today, however, the police are the ones who confiscate property, and they’re usually the ones who end up keeping it. The most ridiculous thing about civil asset forfeiture’s modern form is that police use it to confiscate a person’s things even if that person is never convicted of, or even charged with, a crime.

The statute is portrayed by law enforcement as a way of crippling the narcotics trade by letting agencies keep pieces of the infrastructure of large-scale drug operations — and sometimes, civil asset forfeiture does that. But more often than not, it’s used by law enforcement to take from ordinary people who’ve committed no crime. The results are precincts made richer by hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, and insidious incentives for police to apprehend people not in the interest of public welfare but out of something like the profit motive.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Police Can Just Take Your Money, Car and Other Property — and Good Luck Getting It Back (Original Post) xchrom Jun 2014 OP
My understanding is that TexasProgresive Jun 2014 #1
"Civil forfeiture" is an abomination which needs to be abolished. Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #2
I still don't understand how this is not a violation of rights. hootinholler Jun 2014 #3
Who watches the Watchmen? Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #4
I don't get it either. surrealAmerican Jun 2014 #5

TexasProgresive

(12,157 posts)
1. My understanding is that
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 06:21 AM
Jun 2014

property is "guilty until proven innocent." It is next to impossible to regain property confiscated by police. It seems to me that there ought to be something more than a weak probable cause like having more than $9,999.99 in cash or driving a Ferrari while black. The last happened to a bank vice president who drove through a central Texas town.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
2. "Civil forfeiture" is an abomination which needs to be abolished.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:57 AM
Jun 2014

It should only be possible to confiscate someone's car or money as part of a criminal penalty if the person is convicted of a crime.

hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
3. I still don't understand how this is not a violation of rights.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:31 AM
Jun 2014

There has to be case law on this, but I don't have time to research it.

surrealAmerican

(11,360 posts)
5. I don't get it either.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:53 AM
Jun 2014

I thought the fourth amendment was pretty clear on this:


"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."


This must have come before the courts by now.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Police Can Just Take Your...