The Government's License To Steal

[mrjarrell]

Indiana's own Radley Balko has a new crime column up at Reason and it deals with Indiana's asset forfeiture system. We're looking at a system that is corrupt and, quite likely unConstitutional. Not to mention that corrupt judges, cops and lawyers are diverting forfeitures from their legal destination, the schools fund. The "justice" system is stealing from Hoosier kids (in more ways than one). There's even a mention in the piece of INGO member Paul Ogden.

The Government's License To Steal - Reason Magazine

 

[lashicoN]

Why would a government need a "license" to steal? They already believe, falsely, that they own absolutely everything, including your body.

 

[level.eleven]

Its pretty awesome knowing schools are funded by gambling and drugs. Seriously, someone defend this. Shouldn't Christian parents be objecting to these practices?

 

[dross]

Its pretty awesome knowing schools are funded by gambling and drugs. Seriously, someone defend this. Shouldn't Christian parents be objecting to these practices?

In Judaism it's called blood money, and it's immoral to take it.

 

[thej27]

So next time the schools and teachers unions complain about Gov Daniels lowering their funding he can just tell them to contact their local police departments.

 

[Eddie]

The settlement and contracting issues are what I see the most of around here. They don't bother charging the defendant with a crime if there is a lot of cash involved; they just seize the cash then offer to give some of it back. If the guy takes the deal he never gets charged. Its just an incentive for drug dealers to keep some cash on hand for their legal "bribe" to avoid prosecution.

 

[level.eleven]

The settlement and contracting issues are what I see the most of around here. They don't bother charging the defendant with a crime if there is a lot of cash involved; they just seize the cash then offer to give some of it back. If the guy takes the deal he never gets charged. Its just an incentive for drug dealers to keep some cash on hand for their legal "bribe" to avoid prosecution.

So....it has nothing to do with public safety and more to do with extracting cash from citizens?

 

[Loco179]

Legal Way to steal again. What a crock. Greg is now a POS imho.

 

[j706]

Asset seizure is a good idea when it is used properly. Almost all LE agency's know that if you want any of the seized cash you have to go federal. I do have a major problem with money or assets being seized and the owner not being charged with a crime.

There are more than a few agency's that have "Interdiction Teams". Many are funded primarily with seized funds. It works out to no seized funds= no interdiction team and back to taking the BS calls. A strong incentive to seize cash IMO.

A lot if not most of seized cash is drug money. The person/persons transporting most often sign a denial of ownership. If the vehicle has a hidden compartment it will/can also be seized. Federal law allows seizure of any vehicle with a non factory hidden compartment. Money couriers will never claim ownership of the cash they are transporting. Send them on their way and let the drug king pins sort it out. Anyone can guess what happens after that.

There has been abuses of the asset seizure laws. There will always be some. But for the most part it is hitting the drug and cash runners pretty hard at times. It will never be a game changer due to the numbers of people doing it.

Like I said I do think it is wrong to seize someones cash just because they have a large amount in their possession. If there is no drugs/contraband involved and the person does not refuse ownership, then the cash should not be seized IMO.

 

[level.eleven]

Legal Way to steal again. What a crock. Greg is now a POS imho.

Yeah, Garrison is a crook. Kind of makes want to call in to his show.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In reporting my story last February, I found that many counties in Indiana are contracting out their civil forfeiture cases to private attorneys, who then get to keep a hefty commission (from 25 percent on up) of what they're able to extract from defendants.

Holy cow! Which counties are these?

Eddie, is Vigo County doing this? I got to call Luther!

My solution to this would be to raise the standard of proof to clear and convincing. Having this higher standard would eliminate some of the fun and games that prosecutors play.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Kirk, I am not 100% sure, but I think that Delaware County (Muncie) either was or is contracting out the forfeitures. The doo-doo has hit the fan in Delaware Co. over some of this issue in the past year with the Mayor filing suit against the current Prosecutor for handling some of the forfeiture cases when he first took the office - a no-no because he benefited from it.

 

[jbombelli]

Asset seizure is a good idea when it is used properly. Almost all LE agency's know that if you want any of the seized cash you have to go federal. I do have a major problem with money or assets being seized and the owner not being charged with a crime.

There are more than a few agency's that have "Interdiction Teams". Many are funded primarily with seized funds. It works out to no seized funds= no interdiction team and back to taking the BS calls. A strong incentive to seize cash IMO.

A lot if not most of seized cash is drug money. The person/persons transporting most often sign a denial of ownership. If the vehicle has a hidden compartment it will/can also be seized. Federal law allows seizure of any vehicle with a non factory hidden compartment. Money couriers will never claim ownership of the cash they are transporting. Send them on their way and let the drug king pins sort it out. Anyone can guess what happens after that.

There has been abuses of the asset seizure laws. There will always be some. But for the most part it is hitting the drug and cash runners pretty hard at times. It will never be a game changer due to the numbers of people doing it.

Like I said I do think it is wrong to seize someones cash just because they have a large amount in their possession. If there is no drugs/contraband involved and the person does not refuse ownership, then the cash should not be seized IMO.

I agree with that. The only problem is... it still happens in enough places that it's obviously a problem. It may be localized and not necessarily systemic, but it's a problem nonetheless.


Therefore this power needs to be taken away.


It is better that 100 guilty men go unpunished than one innocent man be punished wrongly. But I guess that's where I differ from a lot of people.

 

[dross]

It is better that 100 guilty men go unpunished than one innocent man be punished wrongly. But I guess that's where I differ from a lot of people.

An important principle you don't hear much anymore.

+1

 

[mrjarrell]

I agree with that. The only problem is... it still happens in enough places that it's obviously a problem. It may be localized and not necessarily systemic, but it's a problem nonetheless.


Therefore this power needs to be taken away.


It is better that 100 guilty men go unpunished than one innocent man be punished wrongly. But I guess that's where I differ from a lot of people.

Well said! I'd rep you, but the system won't let me.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

In Judaism it's called blood money, and it's immoral to take it.

Judaism? I don't know about how that works within that culture, but I'm pretty sure it comes from the scandinavian tradition... weregeld.

 

[Compatriot G]

Judaism? I don't know about how that works within that culture, but I'm pretty sure it comes from the scandinavian tradition... weregeld.

Think Judas Iscariot and the thirty pieces of silver. When Judas tried to return the money, the High Priest couldn't take it back because it had been paid to essentially put someone to death. It was blood money.

 

[Eddie]

Holy cow! Which counties are these?

Eddie, is Vigo County doing this? I got to call Luther!

My solution to this would be to raise the standard of proof to clear and convincing. Having this higher standard would eliminate some of the fun and games that prosecutors play.

I am pretty sure that Vigo, Putnam and Parke are all using the same guy.

I will agree that asset seizure has its place in criminal law, but let me give you a hypothetical:

You own a small business. In today's economy you can't get a line of credit so you have to maintain cash on hand. Someone reports to the police that you are a drug dealer. (Actually you use marijuana occasionally but don't sell it.) The police raid your home. They seize two joints from the coffee table and $20,000 in cash from your safe in the bedroom, destroying the safe in the process.

Now, if you get charged with the misdemeanor you'll pay a small amount of money to cover court costs and such, be put on probation and have to take a drug and alcohol class, but instead of charging you the government says, "Naw, we aren't gonna charge you, we'll just keep your money instead."

Now you have to get an attorney and fight. You shell out the bucks for the lawyer and the State offers to give you $15,000 of your money back. What do you do?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well said! I'd rep you, but the system won't let me.

I got him, but that was from me. You'll have to get him later.

 

[jsgolfman]

Theft is theft.