Asset forfeiture: the 'legal' Looting of america

[Dennis]

From the DEA website at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/af.htm

(quote, footnotes added by Dennis)
Asset forfeiture has been a part of American jurisprudence since the founding
of the nation.(1) To protect citizens from the abuse of this power, federal civil
forfeiture laws contain numerous protections.(2) No property may be seized
unless the government meets the standard of "probable cause" - the same
standard of proof required to arrest a person or secure a warrant to search a
person's home.(3) Property is seized by the DEA only when it is determined
to be a tool for, or the proceeds of, illegal activities such as drug trafficking,
organized crime, or money laundering.(4)
(unquote)

1. But never has asset forfeiture been abused to the extent we see today.
2. Those “numerous protections” apparently are largely ignored.
3. The standard of probable cause is horribly abused. And a warrant to “look”
for something specific is different from “taking everything of value”.
4. “... (W)hen it is determined to be a tool for ... illegal activities ...”
“If you live in California and own an SKS rifle with a detachable box magazine,
you have a problem....”
In other words:
- If you have something we want, we will take it.
- If you have something we believe you should not have, we will take it.
- If we don’t like you or your kind, we will harass you until you do something
wrong, then we will take everything you have.
- If you resist us, whether we are right or wrong is irrelevant. We will kill you
and as many of your family members as we care to.

How many more “reasonable compromises” must we have forced upon us
before we wake up?

How many innocent Americans must be killed by our government before we
wake up?

How many Rights enumerated in our Constitution must be violated before we
wake up?

How many illegal activities will our honest police officers permit before they
say, “NO!”?

It is not the police whom I fear - it is the government who controls them and those
members of the government enforcement agencies who ignore their oath to the
Constitution.

This is not cop-bashing. This is the slowly-awakening awareness that our government has exceeded its authority and is using well-indoctrinated, thoroughly trained (and indoctrinated), and well-equipped law enforcement officers for unconstitutional, violent oppression of Americans.

[Jeff Thomas]

Zander, that was an inspired bit of writing. Thank you.

Can we please drop the woe-is-me concern on the part of our respected LEO members? The concern for most of us is not the occasional corrupt cop ... it is the policy, and it is the system. And, this is a serious problem.

Those who find the article above to be merely a pipe dream are not paying attention, IMHO. That perspective is similar to telling us that registration facilitating confiscation of firearms is only paranoia ... I can read history, and we have recent California news as well. Let's not snow each other about reality.

From my perspective, asset seizure and forfeiture is a failed litmus test for the status of American liberty in our times. When a friend told me of these laws many years ago, I told him that he was crazy ... this kind of thing only happens in places like Russia. I wrote my Congressman and Senator, and they soon provided me with substantiation that my friend was absolutely right.

'Lost Rights' by James Bovard examines this issue, and I'm sure there are a number of other credible books on the subject. I don't think all of these folks are making this up.

I even remember a 'COPs' TV segment once, when an LEO lamented that a car was leased, and therefore 'no seizure'. They were clearly disappointed that they couldn't pick up a new car for the department simply because they found a bag of weed in the car. [I continue to be amazed that LEO's don't see how this attitude makes them look to many of us ...]

And, regarding the relationship of this subject to the RKBA ... we've had some BATF stings in AZ. My understanding is that most of these folks have not yet been charged ... but, their firearms have been seized. Governments that seize people's assets and don't charge them with a crime ... that is the behavior we would expect of Nazi's, communists and despots ... not American's.


I share the respect of our LEO's ... I have benefited from friendship with a few LEO's, I respect the dangerous jobs they do, and my family and I can sleep soundly because of the brave men and women who protect our community. It is because of my respect and appreciation that I remain disappointed that many LEO's and their management seem so comfortable with asset seizures and forfeiture. I wonder aloud how they can sometimes behave like any other thief, and then express surprise when the rest of us protest.


This is really quite simple ... this is about due process. Any seizure of assets without due process is absolutely unacceptable. Requiring a citizen to bring suit for return of assets is simply outrageous. A citizen's assets should not be available to the state unless the citizen has been convicted of a crime.

And, if LEO's don't wish to be occasionally viewed as thieves, then they should categorically reject these policies in their communities.

Yes, the change in these policies should come from Congress, first and foremost. But, LEO's that apply the existing seizure laws should expect low marks for this kind of foolishness. It won't do for LEO's to simply throw up their hands and lament that this is 'the law'. We're approaching 'Nuremberg principle' territory here (Individuals may be held accountable for crimes committed by them pursuant to superior orders) ...

Regards from AZ

[Phil Ca]

Several years ago, not long before I retired from the federal job I held for 27 + years, I had a last chance to visit the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. I had rented a car and when i was not involved in meetings at the center I drove around the post to look at how it had changed over the years since I had attended the police academy there.

At on former housing area on the base I came across a rather scary sign. It was the Fin-Cin Asset Forfeiture Training Area. I took a photo of the sign and the buildings and if I can locate them I will see if I can post them here for all to see.

Asset Forfeiture is in my opinion about as illegal as anything. The very idea that you can have your money "arrested" just because you happen to have more than some dweeb with a badge thinks you should is right down un-American.

I have been in law enforcment for nearly 30 years and I for one would never deprive anyone of their personal property based on flimsy BS like that. If they are making oe selling drugs I would consider the case a bit differently.

[Tshoes]

Good Guy,
as is OFTEN the case with these forums, and the written word...you just can't cover all the bases, and cross every t and dot every i.......
Restate the position, you are correct......you are not a felon, UNLESS they want you to be.
The point I was trying to get across is this can, and often is labeled "Structuring'.........and you can, and will go down for it...if they want to take you there.
As with any question of Fed LE , FINCEN, etc.......there are variables...and you don't know, and will usually NEVER know WHEN you have crossed this "Invisible", line........
My whole point, was to POINT out the fact, that these types of transactions can, and are routinely LOOKED at....it is up to THEM..when and if your Butt goes down.
Guilty, until proven innocent.............FACT: up to 98% of ALL paper currency has traces of cocaine on it......you got any bills in your wallet?????.

LEO's......guy's....if you aren't the problem, then you are part of the solution.....so chill........do not take it so personally.
I/ WE, do NOT lump ALL LE into the same category........

[Edited by Tshoes on 03-04-2001 at 10:40 PM]

[Steel]

I'd like to see a mass mailout to all the reps and senators (at least the Republican and Libertatian ones,)under the TFL's inspiration,stating how we are sick of this. The non-coward badges can join in too.

I'd love to see Bil O'Reilly get a hold of this (The O'Reilly Factor). Some of you that are better spokesman for this problem - please email him and suggest it as a topic...I will.

[email protected]

[Zander]

"Zander, that was an inspired bit of writing. Thank you."

Thanks, Jeff. Coming from you, that is high praise indeed.

[Don Gwinn]

The High Road, gentlemen, remember the High Road. At TFL one does not refer to people who disagree with you as cowards.

For the most part this thread has been a lot more civil than I expected and has certainly lasted longer than I thought it would without a lock. That's a testament to the self-control of TFL members in general. You have debated the issue rather than personalities and that makes threads like this one possible.
Keep it up, please.

[Waitone]

I want to expand the concept of asset forfeiture. I want to make it possible for other agencies of the Executive Branch of the federal gov't to obtain funding apart from the appropriations process.

Let's start with the military. Delta, Seals, Rangers, etc. have big and urgent training needs. Why if you believe Big Media over the last months, the Army just ran out of 9mm ammo. Why not as part of their training, let military groups needing additional fund to knock over the local 7-11. They'll get the practice they need in planning and executing missions.

How 'bout the FBI. Who knows how much the FBI costs. Let's let them keep all the table scraps that fall during an embezzlement investigation.

Let's let the Marines and Navy freelance a revolution. It won't take much tribute from foreign countries to fund MEU's for a year.

I just want to be fashionable assinine. It is patently dangerous to a "free" society to have agencies of the enforcement arm with a stream of revenue divorced from the appropriations process. Lose the power of the purse and you ultimately lose control, period. I think it appropriate that LE agencies gain from forfeiture but that money should go into the pot not to the agency making the bust.

The day will come and may have already past when some agency will free to stick a thumb in the eye of the legislature because they have a means of continuing business even when cut off from funding. When that occurs the clock begins ticking on the end of our "freedom."

[iso1]

Gee, I guess I'm just not understanding this one statement. Can somebody translate this for me, and tell me where it states a difference between civil and criminal?

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Guess I'm just to naive.....

[Futo Inu]

are indeed happening all over the place, and it's outrageous because the Supreme Court has held:

1. It is NOT double jeopardy (somehow);
2. The burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence" (more than 50% likely), rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" like a criminal charge;
3. The innocent property owner whose spouse/friend/relative used the property in a criminal enterprise or purchased jointly owned property with proceeds of a criminal enterprise which the innocent co-owner knew nothing about, can still be swindled by the forfeiture law.

It's absolutely outrageous. It violates due process of law, the fifth amendment, and equal protection of the law, IMO (not the SCOTUS's though, which is what counts).

The very LEAST we could do to start reform is protect the innocent co-owner, and most importantly, make the beneficiary of the seizure the GENERAL coffers/funds of the gov't, NOT the LEOA or DA. That eliminates the immediate LEOA or DA incentive to engage in this legal robbery.

[Bob Locke]

My little story on this topic:

Was working the counter at my favorite gun shop in Virginia back in the summer when a fellow came in and wanted to look at a Glock 21. I commended him for his taste in firearms (I had one on my hip at the time) and pulled the display from the case, checked it clear, and handed it to him. He handled it a little, asked me a few questions, and handed it back. I asked him if he was interested in purchasing the gun. He replied that he didn't need to buy it because he was about to be given one by a circuit court judge. Seems this firearm was seized in a bust of some sort, and he had filled out the proper paperwork and was going to be given the gun free of charge. He was a clerk in the court of record in the case, so he gets a $500 gun for free.

One of my co-workers at the gun shop was a deputy sheriff. He told me that things like that happen ALL THE TIME. I was dumbfounded.

I cannot fathom how the government gets away with seizing property like this. It is stealing under the guise of "the law", which makes it even worse than strong-armed robbery in my book. At least the criminals don't try to pretend to be the "good guys".

Has anyone heard from the ACLU on this one? It seems to me that this would be right up their alley.

This is clearly un-Constitutional. I don't see how anyone can possibly argue to the contrary. There are violations of the fourth and fifth amendments that are so obvious that it makes you wonder if our elected officials and peace officers (not all, but the ones who condone and even eagerly participate in these unlawful activities) even bother reading the Constitution. Apparently their oaths of office are meaningless.

And I would hasten to point out that it has been the Republican party that has championed these types of activities. And since John Ashcroft was very much among those champions during his time in the Senate, I don't expect to see any significant changes at the federal level during his tenure as Attorney General.

[Pepperbox]

A friend of mine with whom I associate at another site was banned at this one. This thread was his last participation.
Now, upon reading the following here at 'TFL':

There are only Four rules for participation:

****1) All Topics and Posts must be related to firearms, accessories or civil liberties issues. ****

2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is quite unwelcome here.

3) No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor. If you take issue with a Member's position, by all means speak your mind. If you have a problem with a Member's religion, creed, national origin, sex, politics, associations or personal hygiene, take it to email.

4) As we can never convey a philosophy through a few rules, we reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to edit or delete posts and/or to revoke Membership. No Second Chances; No Argument; No Trial; No Way. At best you will receive one warning.

I am curious as to why this individual was banned?
Profanity?
Spamming, trolling, flaminig? (If being contentious is flaming... or being opiniated... well...)

So everyone, why was this person who enjoyed 'TFL' banned?

WHY WAS 'RUGER 45' BANNED?

I forward this from 'RUGER 45' at his request:

'Why did you ban Ruger.45 considering its obvious many members support and appreciate the thread.'

If many of the members had been also attacking me Id understand and wouldn't be barking up a tree like this. But if you've seen the thread you'll notice many spoke in favor of it.
I find it interesting that they got rid of me in a way that none of the other members knew, so that their was no way they could speak in my defense if they so desired.

end

[AUTiger73]

Good question Pepperbox. On this board it is better to just "go along to get along". Considering this, I have no comment on Asset fofeiture and I limit my participation to the discussion of guns. My libertarian thoughts would prove to be unpopular and certainly not respected here!

[madison46]

AUTiger73

The fact you are an Auburn fan would cause some of your "thoughts ...to be unpopular and certainly not respected here!" by some of us. :-) (Sorry I couldn't resist- Roll Tide!)

On Assets. I believe congress did a little last year to put more of the burden on the police. Not enough in the spirit of the 5th Amendment, but some.

Reason magazine usually has a lot of these stories. One gentlman driving with target pistols was pulled over for speeding I believe. They confiscated them- about 2k each. He tried to get them back, but they 'disappeared'. Some clerk is probably walking around with some mighty fine firearms for free.

I really don't care what the 'common law' is. The Constitution is not commmon law. Certain rights were 'cannonized' to supercede anything else. Due process is one of them.

madison46

[Phil]

This isn't all that complicated. In fact the only people who seem confused by the concept are lawyers and judges (and maybe the very small minority of corrupt cops).

If you take something that doesn't belong to you its called "stealing". Hence the term "stolen property". It doesn't matter if its a junky, a common thief, a punk teenager, a cop, or a judge, its still the same thing: "stealing".

People are either honest or they're not. People who steal, regardless of what some judge says about it, are not honest.

[George Hill]

PepperBox - I'ld email you but you dont have a public email address.

Another rule of TFL is "Dirty Laundry is handled behind closed doors - not in public."

Ruger45 - if he is really interested in this issue - can email anyone of the Staff instead of crying about it.

[Jeff Thomas]

AUTiger73, I can't imagine where you got the idea that libertarian thoughts are unwelcome here. I've had a lot of 'em, and written in such a vein for some time. TFL is very pro-freedom, pro-individual rights, and pro-personal responsibility.

Regards from AZ

[Dangus]

LawDog,

I totally appreciate your need to keep things clean here, but I must point out that this problem not only can and does apply to guns, but it is in many ways exactly the kind of abuse of power for which the 2nd ammendment was created to combat. It is theft, and it is being done under the cover of 'law'. It doesn't happen everywhere, but even some very good departments, like that of Waterloo, IA, have had a few incidents where they publicly abused the very absurd forfeiture laws. I still remember the infamous 'corvette incident' where the chief took a corvette from a guy who really was a bad guy, but his ground for taking it were really not based on anything, but he did anyway. After public outrage, they ended up sending it to somewhere to be sold off, and the original owner never saw it again. Now the original owner was no saint, but the grounds under which they took the car were very flimsy, and when the public found out about it they were freaked cause they didn't realize that by sitting back and not keeping an eye on their lawmakers, the police had been given power to take anything you own if you commit the slightest of crimes, and worse yet, they can take your assets and proceed to sell them BEFORE you are proven guilty, and they are not obligated to repay if you are cleared of charges.

Why is this such a big deal? Cause you screw up at all on anything and when confiscation time comes, it will be legally easy for them to take your guns no matter how much they are worth.

[Hal]

Dangus,
I whole heartedly agree with what you wrote. One thing that isn't mentioned so far though is the fact that lots of these abuses and violations have been aimed at the rank and file cop for years (Thanks mrat for pointing that out to me a few months ago.) Even now, look at who is first in line to lose their job for a domestic violence conviction? How common a practice is it in the LEO community to secure, even privatly owned firearms of an LEO under investigation? Methinks stuff like this has been floated in the LEO circle, aimed at rank and file, for a number of years, and now that it's hitting others it's just now becoming an issue.

[AUTiger73]

Jeff Thomas: Any discussion pertaining to Constitutional rights in general, and 5th Amendment rights in particular as it relates to law enforcement is not possible with any level of civility on this board. I made the mistake of starting a thread on a similar subject and all it accomplished was stir-up trouble.

The way I see it, the real questions are as follows:

(1) What can be done about reversing UN-Constitutional laws dealing with asset forfeiture and search & seizure?

(2) Given the current situation, do LEOs believe it is their duty to uphold UN-Constitutional laws? - and if so why? In otherwords, what is the moral justification for enforcing UN-Constitutional laws?

This is an EXCELLENT discussion board as it pertains to firearms. However, these [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]-stirring subjects are counter-productive. Maybe the "freerepublic" discussion board would be more appropriate format for discussion of "LEO sensitive" material. Enuf said, I'm out of this discussion.

Madison46: Yep, Auburn Class of '73 here. WAR EAGLE! Note the current NCAA investigation of Univ. of Alabama, apparently Auburn is not paying their players enough as it appears the Tide is getting all the "big" ones.





[Edited by AUTiger73 on 03-07-2001 at 03:43 PM]

[RepublicThunderbolt]

Your assets are not all you stand to lose. Not firearms related, you say?

Secret evidence, sealed warrants, no-knock license to kill. Couldn't happen in America, right?

[mrat]

RAE,
I am honored that someone remembers one of my rantings, especially from a few months ago. You have an interesting theory: have they been desensitizing LEOs by violations of the LEOs rights? For example,most people do not know is an LEO does not have the right to remain silent when questioned, courts have ruled we must answer our employers questions during interrogations when the interrogation is conducted in an IA.

[Don Gwinn]

Actually, I thought this one was pretty civil.

[Hal]

mrat,
I'm certain desensitizing is the final product of strict policy and close scrutiny. Zero tolerance, I believe, had it's beginnings in the law enforcement sector. Look where that finally ended up. I gotta wonder just how much "Fair for the goose, fair for the gander" creeps across the line from both sides? My main b*tch about carry laws is being denied the same chance as LE to "go home safe" at night. You can pat yourself on the back for making me see that it's a two way street. Funny how that stuff works isn't it? Not the topical stuff in this thread, but making a difference. If one of the reasons you got into LE was to make a difference, you done good fella.

[tc556guy]

Mrat:
That is not entirely true. Yes, we must answer questions put to us by our employer during the course of an investigation. However, we do not give up our rights against self-incrimination. If we must answer questions about a critical incident under threat of termination, then Garrity v. New Jersey 385 US 493 (1967) and Spevack v. Klein 385 US 511 (1967) kick in. Any statement we give cannot then be used against us, the same as any private citizen.
I did up a statement form I intend to use in a critical incident interview that utilizes the neccesary language covering Garrity and Klein; I'd be happy to email you a copy to plagerize.