Policing for profit

[RadiomanATL]

Lexington: A truck in the dock | The Economist

Zaher El-Ali, a Jordanian immigrant, worked hard and built up a small business renovating and selling cars and houses. He is now a proud American citizen. But, ridiculous though it sounds, his truck is in trouble with the law.

Six years ago, he sold a Chevy Silverado to a man who agreed to pay for it in instalments. Before the truck was paid off, the buyer was arrested for drunken driving. It was his third such arrest, so he was sent to prison and the police seized the truck. Mr Ali applied to get it back. He pointed out that he still held title to the vehicle, and that since the buyer had stopped making payments on it, he was entitled to reclaim it. But the government refused.

In most states the police can seize property they suspect has been used to commit a crime. Under “civil asset forfeiture” laws, they typically do not have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a crime was committed, or even charge anyone with an offence. What is more, the money raised by auctioning seized houses, boats and cars is often used to boost the budgets of the police department that did the seizing. That can mean fancier patrol cars, badass hardware or simply keeping the budget plump in lean times. In one survey 40% of police executives agreed that funds from civil-asset forfeiture were “necessary as a budget supplement”. This conflict of interest has predictable consequences. It spurs the police to pay more attention to cases that are likely to involve seizable assets (such as drug busts) and less attention to other ones. A report from the Institute for Justice, a pressure group, calls it “Policing for Profit”.

An owner can usually challenge a seizure by arguing that he did not know his property was being used for criminal purposes. But in 38 out of 50 states, the burden of proof is on him to prove his innocence. In February Texas demanded to know from Mr Ali whether he had asked the buyer about his previous arrests for drunk driving—as if that were a car dealer’s responsibility. It also demanded a sheaf of irrelevant documents, such as Mr Ali’s bank and tax records for the past two years. Mr Ali’s lawyer, Scott Bullock, argues that this is “clearly designed to intimidate” Mr Ali into giving up. Instead, he is suing to have the Texas civil asset forfeiture law struck down.

 

[Oddball]

Asset forfeiture has been a bad blot on police for a couple of decades now.

Some have even confiscated all the cash of someone who is carrying around "too much" of it, under the pretext that he may be dealing drugs with it. Of course, they then put the onus on the citizen to prove that they weren't dealing drugs or doing anything else illegal.

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Middleman]

I've heard of this being used unfairly before. Parents who have loaned their car to their no good son have lost it when he got busted for drugs while using it. People have even lost their houses under this loophole, merely because they were naively helping out a wayward relative who happened to be dealing drugs on the side.

It's very wrong. Any confiscation of property should be able to stand up in a court of law. Innocent people should not be punished.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This is obviously an abuse of a sensible law. Which is why rational people opposed laws that seem sensible at first. You know someone is going to abuse it.

There is no way Ali should loose title to the truck. There is no way he could have known about the guys drinking habits, and I think seizure of the truck is suspect in the first place.

 

[Middleman]

I think this whole thing started with Reagan's war on drugs, am I correct? There were a lot of excesses committed by law enforcement in the name of stamping out drugs.

 

[Oddball]

This is obviously an abuse of a sensible law. Which is why rational people opposed laws that seem sensible at first. You know someone is going to abuse it.

There is no way Ali should loose title to the truck. There is no way he could have known about the guys drinking habits, and I think seizure of the truck is suspect in the first place.

Seizing property in absence of proven wrongdoing and conviction for such is not sensible in the least....That's what asset forfeiture is all about.

 

[RadiomanATL]

When it reaches the point of a police department relying on the supplemental in order to meet their budget, there is a serious issue.

Also, the article makes a distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. Seems that the issue is primarily with the civil side. The truck is guilty until proven innocent.

Thanks for the reps too, guys. I wasn't expecting it for the OP (and I also promised that I wouldn't PM "thanks" anymore).

 

[Middleman]

I think he probably more accurately meant 'well-intended' law. But anything that gives an entity the power to seize property without going through due process, and then funnel the profits from those seizures back to that entity, will 100% most certainly be abused.

Even with due process mistakes are made. Without it, we're doomed to failure and injustice.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Some of the cars seized are repainted and used by the cops. Some cops have really pimped rides.

 

[nraforlife]

Asset forfeiture has been a bad blot on police for a couple of decades now.

Some have even confiscated all the cash of someone who is carrying around "too much" of it, under the pretext that he may be dealing drugs with it. Of course, they then put the onus on the citizen to prove that they weren't dealing drugs or doing anything else illegal.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Other than a handful of Ron Paul's at the State & Fed level 95% or more of republicrat politicians FULLY support asset forfeiture as a fine tool for raising revenue on the backs of the narod.