Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-19-15, 11:02 AM   #1
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

These seem to hit the news enough that it might be time for a thread for all the stupid stories. But first a little lesson on what this is, then two recent stories.



http://www.businessinsider.com/the-i...-money-2014-12

Quote:
The IRS Is Returning This Woman's Seized Cash But Reserves The Right To Take It Back At Any Time

A year and a half after seizing $33,000 from a small-business owner who supposedly deposited the cash incorrectly, the Internal Revenue Service has reluctantly agreed to give the Iowa woman her money back.

The IRS seized Carole Hinders' cash through civil forfeiture, which lets the government take money it believes was illicitly obtained even if its owner hasn't been convicted of a crime or even charged with one.

Hinders, owner of an Iowa restaurant called Mrs. Lady's Mexican Food, caught the IRS' attention last year because she made frequent large deposits of less than $10,000 from her cash-only restaurant. Banks that get deposits of more than $10,000 have to report them to the federal government, and anybody who purposely tries to avoid those reporting requirements is guilty of a crime called structuring.

However, Hinders says she'd never heard of structuring before the cash seizure, and that she's just trying to run an honest cash business. With the help of a public-interest law firm called the Institute for Justice, Hinders has been fighting for over a year to get the money back. On Friday lawyers from the Justice Department finally submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that it had filed in order to keep the money. (In civil forfeiture cases, the government must file lawsuits "against" property or cash in order to keep it. This one was called United States of America v. $32,820.56 in United States Currency.)

The government asked the court to dismiss the case "without prejudice" — meaning it can file another action in the future to get Hinders' money if the court grants its motion. The government also reiterated that it was justified in filing the case in the first place.

Hinders had shown a "clear pattern of manipulating bank deposits below $10,000 in order to avoid the reporting requirements," the government said in its motion to dismiss. However, the government added that "allocating its limited resources elsewhere would better serve justice in this case."

The Institute for Justice accused the IRS of making a "mean-spirited move" by leaving the door open for the agency to seize Hinders' cash again.

“I actually wanted a trial, which would have cleared my name and helped to protect others, but it is good to get the money back. My fight is far from over, though," Hinders said in a statement provided by her lawyers. "I am willing to tell my story to Congress to help change forfeiture laws so that no one else has to go through what I suffered."
United States of America v. $32,820.56 WHAT THE FUCK!

But fortunately she wasn't black.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/17/la...-with-a-crime/

Quote:

It was Feb. 17, 2014, and Charles Clarke, 24, just wanted to get home.

After spending several weeks with family in Cincinnati, Ohio, Clarke arrived at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Hebron, Ky., for a flight back to Orlando, Fla., where his mother lived and where he would be taking classes at the University of Central Florida.

With $11,000 in his pocket—the culmination of five years worth of savings from various jobs, financial aid, gifts from family members and benefits from his mother, a disabled veteran—Clarke checked his bag and headed to the gate to await the departure of his flight.

He would eventually return home, but the cash Clarke had in his pocket didn’t make it.

Instead, the weight of the federal government came down on the 24-year-old, and his $11,000 was seized by federal and state law enforcement before he ever boarded the plane.


“I’m not a drug dealer. I’ve never been,” Clarke said. “I didn’t have any plans on doing anything illegal. I was just trying to get home.”

‘Treated Like a Criminal’

Clarke brought the money with him to Cincinnati, Ohio, he said, because his mother was moving apartments, and he didn’t want the moving company to find his money. Additionally, because his bank had few branches, he felt safer knowing his money was near.

After Clarke checked his bag and headed to the gate, a ticketing agent with U.S. Airways—unbeknownst to the young man—placed a call to agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport Police Department. The ticketing agent told the officers that Clarke’s luggage smelled like marijuana, according to an affidavit filed by William Conrad, a Cincinnati-based officer with a DEA task force, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Conrad and Detective Christopher Boyd approached Clarke when he was waiting at the gate and asked if had drugs or money on him. According to Conrad’s affidavit, Clarke was “free to walk away at any time.”

Clarke told the agents he had $11,000 in his pocket and agreed to let the officers search both him and his carry-on bag. The officers didn’t find any drugs. However, Clarke admitted that he had smoked marijuana on his way to the airport.

Then, the officers seized his $11,000, cellphone and iPad.

Clarke received his phone and tablet two months later. But, more than a year later, he’s fighting to have his cash returned.

“I was being treated like a criminal, and I didn’t commit a crime,” he said. “It was very frustrating.”

According to court documents, Conrad said the money was seized “based on probable cause that it was proceeds of drug trafficking or was intended to be used in an illegal transaction.”

“Mitigating factors” included the purchase of a one-way ticket, inability to provide documentation noting where the money came from, a positive hit by a drug dog and the strong smell of marijuana on his checked luggage.

When the officers attempted to take Clarke’s money, Conrad alleged the 24-year-old “became irate” and grabbed Boyd by the wrist.

“A short struggle ensued and Clarke was eventually arrested and charged with assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct,” Conrad said in court documents.

However, the charges against him were dropped, and Clarke was never charged with a crime related to the alleged drug trafficking.

“I was nervous,” Clarke said of his encounter with the officers. “I didn’t want them to take my life savings. I worked hard to save this money.”

The United States attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Equitable ‘Sharing’

The Drug Enforcement Agency and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport Police Department seized Clarke’s cash through civil asset forfeiture, which gives law enforcement the power to take money or property if it’s suspected of being related to a crime.

In many cases, though, the property owner is never charged with a crime, and those who fight to have their cash and property returned are forced to prove that their belongings are innocent. The practice, policy experts argue, flips the presumption of innocence—innocent until proven guilty—on its head.

In Clarke’s case, the money was seized under the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program, which entitles local and state law enforcement agencies to up to 80 percent of the proceeds from seized cash and property.

From 2008 to 2013, according to the Arlington, Va.,-based Institute for Justice, $6.8 billion in cash and property has been seized through the Equitable Sharing Program.

Though just two agencies—the Drug Enforcement Agency and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport Police—were involved in the seizure of Clarke’s $11,000, 11 agencies across Kentucky and Ohio are arguing they’re entitled to a cut of the cash.

That’s according to Renee Flaherty, one of Clarke’s lawyers at the Institute for Justice, who spoke with The Daily Signal.

The airport police department is requesting 40 percent of the money and the Cincinnati Police Department wants just 6 percent, with the remaining 11 agencies requesting 3 percent of Clarke’s $11,000 each.

“Every little bit adds up,” Flaherty said regarding the money the agencies are requesting. “This just goes to show the perverse financial incentive that underlies civil forfeiture. If the law allows agencies to be able to keep the money they seized themselves, it’s going to incentivize law enforcement to seize as much property as possible.”

In recent years, local and state law enforcement agencies have been using civil asset forfeiture to pad their budgets, and the proceeds from money and property seized has been used to purchase things like a Dodge Viper and pay for officers’ overtime. Additionally, seizures at airports, specifically the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, have also skyrocketed.

According to Institute for Justice, the airport conducted just a “couple dozen” seizures per year during the late 1990s. However, by 2013, the airport participated in 100 seizures, with proceeds totaling more than $2 million.

‘Not Right’

After Clarke finally made it back to Florida—without his $11,000—he was forced to move back in with his mother, as he planned to use the money to pay for his living and school expenses. Clarke also took out additional student loans to help get himself settled at the University of Central Florida.

“It was a struggle for me. It was my life savings. I didn’t have anything to my name after they took it. It’s really frustrating and hard, being that I had to rely on my family,” he said. “Other people had priorities. It was almost like a waiting game for me. People helped me out when they could and when they couldn’t, I was pretty much in a bind. It was really hard and frustrating, saddening, and so many emotions running through me.”

Though the Institute for Justice has been successful in fighting forfeitures in court, Flaherty said the government employs a preponderance of evidence as the standard of proof in forfeiture cases—a lower standard than what’s used in criminal cases.

“The deck is really stacked against property owners, and the law is not really in our favor,” she said. “But what we’re trying to do is fight back and say, ‘No, the odor of marijuana is not enough to take someone’s life savings when there’s absolutely no evidence of a crime occurring.’”

Law enforcement argued Clarke failed to provide sufficient documentation for where his $11,000 came from, but Flaherty said she’s confident they have documentation from his three jobs and mother’s benefits to prove exactly where the money came from.

As is the case in many forfeitures, the government offered Clarke a settlement. However, neither he nor Flaherty could discuss the details of the offer. Oftentimes, though, the federal government will return just 50 percent of the money if the victim agrees to the settlement.

Clarke, though, has no plans to accept any deal from the government.

“I want everybody to know that carrying cash is not a crime,” he said. “The law is not right. Innocent people are being treated like criminals without even being convicted of anything.”
I will do my best to never say "police state" in this thread because that is preposterous. This is merely the state being able to take your property without charging you with any crime, while the burden of proof is on you to prove your money/assets have not been used in one, and the state gets to keep the money. And we all know that police states are something you simply wake up to one day. They don't creep up on you.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:09 AM   #2
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 31,632
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

John Oliver did a great segment about this. I don't understand how this is remotely constitutional.

__________________
"...Bando...you are perfect and awesome." - 4KRG
"Bando 4 Prez" - DVD Polizei
"[Bando is] nowhere near as big a weasel as Ted Cruz" - dork
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:21 AM   #3
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

If money is speech (according to SCOTUS) then wouldn't civil seizure be a violation of the 1st amendment?
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:25 AM   #4
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

O
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
I will do my best to never say "police state" in this thread because that is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave later in the same paragraph
And we all know that police states are something you simply wake up to one day.
You are bad at that game.

If civil forfeiture is a sign of the slowly encroaching police state, then that encroachment is happening at a glacial pace. The practice is well more than 100 years old. It was used against pirates hundreds of years ago. It was used against Prohibition era gangsters, for much the same reasons it's now used against suspected drug offenders. Society has a vested interest in not letting people profit off illicit activity, even if they can't criminally punish those people.

If the criticism isn't against civil forfeiture in theory, but an argument that it's being applied too broadly in practice, I'm not opposed to reforming the practice. But there are valid reasons to seize property that appears to be ill-gotten. My suspicion is that when the war on drugs inevitably ends, the practice will largely become rare anyway (outside of the tax realm).

Part of my problem with the criticisms of it is that people seem to want criminal law standards to apply. Why should they? There's no jeopardy of criminal punishment to a person. It's a civil process of righting an inequity. We don't apply "innocent until proven guilty" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in other civil proceedings, even when the system is setting out to punish somebody (eg, civil fines; eg, punitive damages).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:27 AM   #5
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 38,178
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

The IRS Has Been Holding This Guy's $447,000 For 2 Years, And He's Never Been Charged With A Crime

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-...he-irs-2014-11
__________________
The triumph of evil requires a lot of good people, doing a bit of it [evil], in a morally disengaged way, with indifference to the human suffering they cause.

- Albert Bandura
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:30 AM   #6
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 38,178
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Cash Cops: How Civil Forfeiture Enriched US Law Enforcement

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...aw-enforcement
__________________
The triumph of evil requires a lot of good people, doing a bit of it [evil], in a morally disengaged way, with indifference to the human suffering they cause.

- Albert Bandura
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:37 AM   #7
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
You are bad at that game.

If civil forfeiture is a sign of the slowly encroaching police state, then that encroachment is happening at a glacial pace. The practice is well more than 100 years old. It was used against pirates hundreds of years ago. It was used against Prohibition era gangsters, for much the same reasons it's now used against suspected drug offenders. Society has a vested interest in not letting people profit off illicit activity, even if they can't criminally punish those people.

If the criticism isn't against civil forfeiture in theory, but an argument that it's being applied too broadly in practice, I'm not opposed to reforming the practice. But there are valid reasons to seize property that appears to be ill-gotten. My suspicion is that when the war on drugs inevitably ends, the practice will largely become rare anyway (outside of the tax realm).

Part of my problem with the criticisms of it is that people seem to want criminal law standards to apply. Why should they? There's no jeopardy of criminal punishment to a person. It's a civil process of righting an inequity. We don't apply "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in other civil proceedings, even when the system is setting out to punish somebody (eg, civil fines; eg, punitive damages).
I got to that and realized you were not of sound mind.

Should I not be concerned if a police state happens at a glacial place? Did the changes in the 80s to allow the police to keep the money to pad their budget have no effect on how often it is used? Have we not seen a huge increase in how often it is used? Do you believe there is not an increased incentive for this to take place as a result?

Every article I have seen makes a point about how often civil seizure was used in the 90s and compares it with more recent years and the amount skyrockets. When should we be concerned?
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:38 AM   #8
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 31,897
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
If civil forfeiture is a sign of the slowly encroaching police state, then that encroachment is happening at a glacial pace.
Glacial, huh?



I got my data from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_4.html#4_x)
__________________
"Fifth Element may be as dumb and artless as Johnny Mnemonic, but since a frenchman made it it must be ART!" -Pants
"...I think it's a low blow to draw attention to wendersfan's drunken state. " - dork
"Just because their victims are still alive doesn't mean they didn't commit murder." - grundle
"You concentrate on the sad wanna be hooliganism and let us worry about the actual soccer." - rocketsauce (final score: Columbus 2-Chicago 1)

Last edited by wendersfan; 06-19-15 at 11:45 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:45 AM   #9
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
I got to that and realized you were not of sound mind.

Should I not be concerned if a police state happens at a glacial place? Did the changes in the 80s to allow the police to keep the money to pad their budget have no effect on how often it is used? Have we not seen a huge increase in how often it is used? Do you believe there is not an increased incentive for this to take place as a result?

Every article I have seen makes a point about how often civil seizure was used in the 90s and compares it with more recent years and the amount skyrockets. When should we be concerned?
Like I said, I'm not opposed to reforming the practice. For example, I think it was a serious misstep to allow LE to benefit from some seizures. That places a profit motive on the practice. I'm just saying there are valid reasons for the state to seize property, as there have been for centuries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:50 AM   #10
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
Glacial, huh?



I got my data from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_4.html#4_x)
Cool chart.

Now refer back to the quote I replied to:
Quote:
I will do my best to never say "police state" in this thread because that is preposterous. This is merely the state being able to take your property without charging you with any crime, while the burden of proof is on you to prove your money/assets have not been used in one, and the state gets to keep the money.
That is addressing the existence of the procedure of civil forfeiture as an indicia of a police state, not the rate at which it was applied. And as I correctly pointed out, the procedure has existed for hundreds of years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 11:50 AM   #11
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 31,632
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post


Part of my problem with the criticisms of it is that people seem to want criminal law standards to apply. Why should they? There's no jeopardy of criminal punishment to a person. It's a civil process of righting an inequity. We don't apply "innocent until proven guilty" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in other civil proceedings, even when the system is setting out to punish somebody (eg, civil fines; eg, punitive damages).
Then can't we at least apply the civil law standards? You know, where the one making the claim has to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence? Even in civil cases, the defendant isn't required to prove that he isn't negligent, the plaintiff must prove negligence.
__________________
"...Bando...you are perfect and awesome." - 4KRG
"Bando 4 Prez" - DVD Polizei
"[Bando is] nowhere near as big a weasel as Ted Cruz" - dork
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 12:00 PM   #12
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
Like I said, I'm not opposed to reforming the practice. For example, I think it was a serious misstep to allow LE to benefit from some seizures. That places a profit motive on the practice. I'm just saying there are valid reasons for the state to seize property, as there have been for centuries.
Then let's be friends and try to get that changed. See what the guys in your department think.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 12:01 PM   #13
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandoman View Post
Then can't we at least apply the civil law standards? You know, where the one making the claim has to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence? Even in civil cases, the defendant isn't required to prove that he isn't negligent, the plaintiff must prove negligence.
Sure? I don't care? I'm not out to defend any specific system of civil forfeiture, and I'd agree that the current implementation has problems. I'm not going to be the whipping boy in this thread for "civil forfeiture as it exists in 2015 in the USA."

I'm just saying civil forfeiture isn't new, exists for valid reasons, and isn't in and of itself a sign of a police state.

Edit: I will say there are problems with your suggested scheme. If you stop a rental car traveling cross country, get consent to search the car, and find $50,000 in cash in a bag,and the driver says, "I don't know whose money that is... I've never seen it before" (which happens a surprising amount), what do you suggest be done? The driver is disclaiming it, but while you also have reason to believe it's illicit, you can't prove it. Do you let him go with money he says isn't his? Or do you bring an action against that money and say, "if anybody wants to claim this and can prove its theirs, step up and do so?"

Last edited by CaptainMarvel; 06-19-15 at 12:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 12:05 PM   #14
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
Then let's be friends and try to get that changed. See what the guys in your department think.
I don't believe we use civil forfeiture; I could be mistaken, but I believe we only use criminal forfeiture, which is a different beast.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 12:20 PM   #15
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
Sure? I don't care? I'm not out to defend any specific system of civil forfeiture, and I'd agree that the current implementation has problems. I'm not going to be the whipping boy in this thread for "civil forfeiture as it exists in 2015 in the USA."

I'm just saying civil forfeiture isn't new, exists for valid reasons, and isn't in and of itself a sign of a police state.
I don't believe we live in a police state. However, I think we are headed more in that direction than in the other. But these things tend to ebb and flow.

Quote:
Edit: I will say there are problems with your suggested scheme. If you stop a rental car traveling cross country, get consent to search the car, and find $50,000 in cash in a bag,and the driver says, "I don't know whose money that is... I've never seen it before" (which happens a surprising amount), what do you suggest be done? The driver is disclaiming it, but while you also have reason to believe it's illicit, you can't prove it. Do you let him go with money he says isn't his? Or do you bring an action against that money and say, "if anybody wants to claim this and can prove its theirs, step up and do so?"
I think we have a lot less problem with "lost and found" cash than with the stories that are posted.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 01:11 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 835
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post

Edit: I will say there are problems with your suggested scheme. If you stop a rental car traveling cross country, get consent to search the car, and find $50,000 in cash in a bag,and the driver says, "I don't know whose money that is... I've never seen it before" (which happens a surprising amount), what do you suggest be done? The driver is disclaiming it, but while you also have reason to believe it's illicit, you can't prove it. Do you let him go with money he says isn't his? Or do you bring an action against that money and say, "if anybody wants to claim this and can prove its theirs, step up and do so?"
That's a totally different situation. In fact, if the person holding money (or any good) denies it's his, there doesn't even have to be an action against that money (or good), as it is then basically a res nullius.

In these cases, all people do claim it's their money or property.

It blows my mind that "just" an action can be taken against a property that's being claimed by somebody. Just as I cannot take a bike or car and then request conclusive proof of rightful ownership from the person holding the keys, the same should hold true of the authorities. In fact, stable ownership is a basic fundamental, personal right in any capitalistic democracy (in your case codified in the 5th amendment). This leads to the conclusion that you should bring any action of this kind against the person and not against the property.

Last edited by Mark_vdH; 06-19-15 at 01:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 01:33 PM   #17
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_vdH View Post
That's a totally different situation. In fact, if the person holding money (or any good) denies it's his, there doesn't even have to be an action against that money (or good), as it is then basically a res nullius.

In these cases, all people do claim it's their money or property.
But you realize all the vast civil forfeiture numbers you see thrown around to describe the scope of the problem include the scenarios like the ones I describe (and those happen a lot... the mules won't claim the money)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 02:01 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 835
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
But you realize all the vast civil forfeiture numbers you see thrown around to describe the scope of the problem include the scenarios like the ones I describe (and those happen a lot... the mules won't claim the money)?
I don't see how that makes any difference. I am sure that if I round up 100 persons on "instinct", 90 of those would be fellons. That doesn't give me the right to round op 100 persons; every single one deserves a fair trial.

And in your case, it might be that the persons in question don't want the suspicion or can't pay attorney's fees.

Either way, you should bring an action to the person who is in possession of any goods to seize control of said goods.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 02:09 PM   #19
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

How would such a procedure work in your mind, specifically? It's nice to say "bring the charge against the person," but what are the actual mechanics you believe that should follow?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 02:36 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 835
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
How would such a procedure work in your mind, specifically? It's nice to say "bring the charge against the person," but what are the actual mechanics you believe that should follow?
Well, I am not sure how that is a problem. In fact, in my country, actions can only be taken against a person. A person who is in possession of a good, is suspected to be the rightful owner of said good. As amendment 5 of your Bill of Rights prescribes (or protocol 1, article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights implies), it is then on the state to convince a judge otherwise.

In my country, you could start an action against a possessor that you deem is not a rightful owner. You can't just take away the possession without due process, though. You should "just" summon someone in a court of law and let the judge declare he is not the rightful owner. If the judge finds he is not the rightful owner, the judge wil condemn this person (at your request) to give up possession of said goods. While ownership is in question, a court's bailliff can "keep" the goods if one of the parties deems this necessary (and the judge agrees).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 02:57 PM   #21
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Thanks for the cite to the Bill of Rights. I hadn't read that before.

There is due process. People don't seem to particularly care for the process in its current form (including me), but there is a specificied process for these seizures and for challenging them. Unless you're wandering into the murky waters of substantive due process, and even then these seizures routinely survive those challenges.

"Bad policy" is the best argument that can be made against CAF; constitutionality has typically lost everytime.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 03:16 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 835
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
Thanks for the cite to the Bill of Rights. I hadn't read that before.

There is due process. People don't seem to particularly care for the process in its current form (including me), but there is a specificied process for these seizures and for challenging them. Unless you're wandering into the murky waters of substantive due process, and even then these seizures routinely survive those challenges.

"Bad policy" is the best argument that can be made against CAF; constitutionality has typically lost everytime.
When you have to take action against specific property and not against a person, I would argue there is no (substantive) due process.

Although you laugh at my assertion, let's take the 5th literally:

Quote:
No person shall be [...] deprived [...] of property, without due process of law
This to me means that you first apply due process, AND THEN deprive them of property. To first deprive them of property and then allow them to take action against you is not what the 5th entails.

It's about as logical as starting an action against an electric chair to electrocute someone and then provide some sort of way for that person to petition the courts. That's not how the system works. If YOU want to DEPRIVE someone of liberty, property or life, the onus is on you to provide society with some valid arguments.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 04:44 PM   #23
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_vdH View Post
When you have to take action against specific property and not against a person, I would argue there is no (substantive) due process.

Although you laugh at my assertion, let's take the 5th literally:

This to me means that you first apply due process, AND THEN deprive them of property. To first deprive them of property and then allow them to take action against you is not what the 5th entails.

It's about as logical as starting an action against an electric chair to electrocute someone and then provide some sort of way for that person to petition the courts. That's not how the system works. If YOU want to DEPRIVE someone of liberty, property or life, the onus is on you to provide society with some valid arguments.
There's your problem... if you're trying to apply a literal reading of the Constitution, you've already failed the game. The 1st Amendment, for example, literally only limits Congress, and it casts a blanket prohibition on Congress making any laws that affect religion, press, speech, etc. The actual law surrounding the 1st Amendment is both greater (applying to more than just Congress) and narrower (some laws are allowed). Similar non-literal rules apply to the other amendments.

So yeah, the 5th explicitly says you can't be deprived of property without due process. You seem to be asserting that the deprivation occurs at the time of original seizure, and that unless such a seizure is preceded by a hearing, the seizure is prohibited by the 5th. That is just obviously just not always the case in American law (e.g., I can seize evidence of crime in an automobile without any sort of hearing or warrant).

FWIW, in reference to the earlier claim by somebody else about the burden of proof, the Federal civil forfeiture statute reads:
Quote:
(c) Burden of Proof.— In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;
(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to forfeiture; and
(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 04:51 PM   #24
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,598
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

Part of that isn't on the police, it's on the judge.

Police/DA: We think this was used in a drug transaction. We rest our case.
Judge to citizen: can you prove this isn't the case?
Citizen: How can I prove a negative?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-15, 05:00 PM   #25
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: The One and Only Civil Seizure thread

I'm not sure that squares with the statute I just posted.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0