Some time ago, I wrote about the process known as ‘civil asset forfeiture’ where the authorities can pre-emptively seize someone’s assets and force them to incur the trouble and expense of going to court to get it back. This practice nets the government about $5 billion in revenue annually and many local jurisdictions abuse this power and use such tactics to pay for their police and justice systems.
The Daily Show had a segment on this, highlighting the town of Linden as one perpetrator. I had written before about that town’s abuse of this power.
(This clip aired on July 22, 2014. To get suggestions on how to view clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report outside the US, please see this earlier post. If the videos autoplay, please see here for a diagnosis and possible solutions.)
OK, yes, this may be a terrible abuse of police power and driving with a lot of cash (however you want to define that) is not illegal, but what I still want to know is:
What reason was given for the initial stop?
How much cash was found and taken (are we talking less than $100? More than $500? More than $1,000?)?
How much cash taken this way is recovered working through official channels by the innocents targeted?
Do all you can to make today a good day,
Jeff
Have Coffee Will Write
Answers:
-- Reason for initial stop. Anything or, if necessary, nothing. They can easily make stuff up. If you doubt that define with exactitude, ‘erratic driving’, ‘excessive lane changes’, ‘suspicious behavior’. If they want to they might just follow you very closely for twenty miles to see if they can rattle you into erratic behavior. And, if all else fails, they can just make stuff up because it is your word against theirs. Remember that courts routinely deffer to the judgment of law enforcement officers when they are dealing with traffic laws.
Once stopped the game is one.
-- How much cash are we talking about?
Generally, all of it. Several hundred to thousands. The greater the amount, the greater the chances they will seize it. They can also seize the vehicle and/or any of its contents.
-- How much is recovered?
A small percentage. Remember that the seizure is not between you and the law. It is between the property, which has no presumption of innocence, and the law. Many cases have titles like ‘$20,000 versus the state of Texas’. Yes, there is a procedure for getting it back but the state has no reason to make it easy. There may be some numbers of delays and initial appearances before they get down to trial.
Savvy police tend to target vehicles with out-of-state license plates. The further away the better. This makes appearing before the court more logistically complicated and missing a hearing can throw the case their way. Remember that as far as the courts are concerned you have no standing and the seized property is assumed to be the results of illegal activity until proven otherwise.
Mother Jones, a publication worthy of financial support, did a nice piece on the subject:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/04/civil-asset-forfeiture
It’s nothing more than legalized theft. It shifts the burden of proof from the accuser onto the accused, guilty until they prove themselves innocent. And with no financial assets to fight the accusation and the presumption of guilt, it’s doubly difficult. There are cases where “seizure” thefts included the killing of homeowners and no charges for those who murder them (e.g. Donald Scott, Salvatore Culosi). When no one is alive to contest a seizure raid, the deceased will be presumed guilty and no investigation done.
It’s also worth noting that asset seizures are highest when police departments are allowed to keep the money directly. When seized assets to into general city or state funding, seizures are lower.
Too bad the following doesn’t happen everywhere such laws are in place. It makes me glad Canada doesn’t have such stupid laws (yet):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
@lorn,
Thank you for the response, but I understand the deplorable practice in general, but I wanted to know the specifics in the two cases touted in the video.
I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the way Jon Stewart’s show--which is, of course, a comedy, and not a news, program--blurs the line between comedy and journalism to the detriment of both.
The ACLU, of which I am a member, gotten taken and used in this skit. We’re not likely to discover what ended up on the cutting room floor, but these laws are serious violations of the 4th amendment and I think that would be the case made by the ACLU lawyer. (I remember the 2010 Drum piece and wondered why it took a commenter to ask the obvious question: How in the world does this constitute “due process of law”?
@left0ver1under
Missouri is on a better track, but seizure of livelihood before conviction is still horribly problematic.
Jeff