![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Law enforcement’s aggressive use of civil forfeiture laws to seize cash and property from innocent citizens.
2014 Policing for Profit
NewsChannel 5 Investigates looks back at its four-year “Policing for Profit” investigation in a one-hour, prime-time special.
Who can help. Well, maybe...
More information and a booklet
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
Usually there is no need to keep a lot of cash on you.
But if you have to:
Do not keep large amounts of cash with you when you travel by public transportation - air, train, bus.
Do not keep large amounts of cash visible (at least) when you travel by car.
P.S. Interesting enough it was Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the Department of Justice, who announced that state and local police departments could no longer take advantage of federal civil forfeiture statutes. (Previously, under an “Equitable Sharing” law, states had been permitted to involve federal agents in order to take advantage of federal law and seize property; then, profits would be split between the U.S. government and the state/seizing municipalities.)
Not that it changed a lot, but nevertheless.
И ещё:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/23/appeals-court-rejects-cops-hunch-based-t
http://ij.org/case/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture/
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states-map
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/20/seized-asset-forum/
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/11/arkansas-trooper-steals-20000-because-no
Illinois - 72 millions in 2 years.
Illinois - Supreme Court Rules: Prosecutor Can't Create Drug Squad To Seize Cash From Innocent Drivers
Police Union недоумеваэ
July 19, 2017
Trump reinstates Civil Forfeiture for No Reason
Sessions reinstates asset forfeiture policy at Justice Department
Sessions greenlights police to seize cash, property from people suspected of crimes but not charged
Trump Just Resurrected the Ugly Practice Known as Civil Forfeiture for No Reason
Civil asset forfeiture is the latest dangerous from the Trump administration. The new rule announced by the Justice Department won't just expand the practice. It's designed specifically to defeat protections passed at the state level.
It will almost certainly lead to abuse.
December 02, 2018
Finally it goes to the SCOTUS
Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit
Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit
SCOTUS transcript from November 28, 2018
Decision
The Supreme Court Just Struck a Huge, Unanimous Blow Against Policing for Profit
The Eighth Amendment guarantees that no “excessive fines” may be “imposed,” an ancient right enshrined in the Magna Carta and enthusiastically adopted by the Framers. But the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, not the states. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified to apply these rights to the states, which had engaged in grotesque civil rights violations to perpetuate slavery. The Supreme Court, however, slowly applied (or “incorporated”) these rights against the states one by one, not all at once. And before Timbs, it had never incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause—allowing states to exploit their residents for huge sums of cash and property.
Not constitutional.
“In short,” Ginsburg wrote, surveying this evidence, “the historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.” She also swatted down Indiana’s fallback argument that the clause does not apply to proceedings over an individual’s property, holding that these forfeitures still qualify as “fines” that trigger constitutional scrutiny. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to quibble with a doctrinal matter: They argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause is the proper vehicle through which to incorporate the Bill of Rights—not the Due Process Clause, as is generally accepted. This cavil has no bearing on the outcome of the case.
How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government's Asset Forfeiture Program
2014 Policing for Profit
NewsChannel 5 Investigates looks back at its four-year “Policing for Profit” investigation in a one-hour, prime-time special.
Who can help. Well, maybe...
More information and a booklet
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
Usually there is no need to keep a lot of cash on you.
But if you have to:
Do not keep large amounts of cash with you when you travel by public transportation - air, train, bus.
Do not keep large amounts of cash visible (at least) when you travel by car.
P.S. Interesting enough it was Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the Department of Justice, who announced that state and local police departments could no longer take advantage of federal civil forfeiture statutes. (Previously, under an “Equitable Sharing” law, states had been permitted to involve federal agents in order to take advantage of federal law and seize property; then, profits would be split between the U.S. government and the state/seizing municipalities.)
Not that it changed a lot, but nevertheless.
И ещё:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/23/appeals-court-rejects-cops-hunch-based-t
http://ij.org/case/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture/
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states-map
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/20/seized-asset-forum/
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/11/arkansas-trooper-steals-20000-because-no
Illinois - 72 millions in 2 years.
Illinois - Supreme Court Rules: Prosecutor Can't Create Drug Squad To Seize Cash From Innocent Drivers
Police Union недоумеваэ
July 19, 2017
Trump reinstates Civil Forfeiture for No Reason
Sessions reinstates asset forfeiture policy at Justice Department
Sessions greenlights police to seize cash, property from people suspected of crimes but not charged
Trump Just Resurrected the Ugly Practice Known as Civil Forfeiture for No Reason
Civil asset forfeiture is the latest dangerous from the Trump administration. The new rule announced by the Justice Department won't just expand the practice. It's designed specifically to defeat protections passed at the state level.
It will almost certainly lead to abuse.
December 02, 2018
Finally it goes to the SCOTUS
Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed any interest in allowing civil asset forfeiture to continue unabated. A majority of the court seems poised to rule that all 50 states must stop seizing property in a way that’s grossly disproportionate to the crime committed—a holy grail of criminal justice reformers. In one fell swoop, defendants will receive new protections against the legalized theft of their stuff. And Tyson Timbs, who attended Wednesday’s argument, can demand that Indiana return the Land Rover that it never had a right to seize in the first place.
Indiana Solicitor General: It's Constitutional to Seize a Car for Driving 5 MPH Over the Speed Limit
Civil asset forfeiture is such a farce that it took Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer only about 100 words to twist Indiana's solicitor general into admitting that his state could have the power to seize cars over something as insubstantial as driving 5 miles-per-hour over the speed limit.
SCOTUS transcript from November 28, 2018
Decision
The Supreme Court Just Struck a Huge, Unanimous Blow Against Policing for Profit
The Eighth Amendment guarantees that no “excessive fines” may be “imposed,” an ancient right enshrined in the Magna Carta and enthusiastically adopted by the Framers. But the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, not the states. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified to apply these rights to the states, which had engaged in grotesque civil rights violations to perpetuate slavery. The Supreme Court, however, slowly applied (or “incorporated”) these rights against the states one by one, not all at once. And before Timbs, it had never incorporated the Excessive Fines Clause—allowing states to exploit their residents for huge sums of cash and property.
“In short,” Ginsburg wrote, surveying this evidence, “the historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming.” She also swatted down Indiana’s fallback argument that the clause does not apply to proceedings over an individual’s property, holding that these forfeitures still qualify as “fines” that trigger constitutional scrutiny. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to quibble with a doctrinal matter: They argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause is the proper vehicle through which to incorporate the Bill of Rights—not the Due Process Clause, as is generally accepted. This cavil has no bearing on the outcome of the case.
How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government's Asset Forfeiture Program
