Strychnine 1,804 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/06/08/new-frontiers-in-asset-forfeiture/ While much of the progress on criminal justice reform has stalled in recent months, there has been quite a bit of progress on civil asset forfeiture. Several states have continued to put curbs on abuses. New Mexico, Montana and New Hampshire recently passed laws requiring a conviction before property can be forfeited. (Although at least in New Mexico, police agencies appear to be straight-up ignoring the law.) But law enforcement agencies aren’t giving up the lucrative (for them) practice without a fight. The most common form of property seized is cash. In fact, carrying large amounts of cash is now in and of itself viewed as suspicion of criminal activity. People who still do carry a lot of cash today have as much to fear from law enforcement as they do from criminals, particularly if they’re planning to fly or drive on a highway that passes through a “forfeiture corridor.” The police theory has been that because most criminals work with cash (probably true), most people carrying a lot of cash are probably criminals (probably not true). Don’t want to be under suspicion? Don’t carry cash. But the Oklahoma state police are now using some new technology that could make that advice obsolete. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards. It’s called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month. Here’s how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money. “We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.” Troopers insist this isn’t just about seizing cash. “I know that a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money. That’s a very small thing that’ s happening now. The largest part that we have found … the biggest benefit has been the identity theft,” Vincent said. “If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we’ve done that in the past,” Vincent said about any money seized. Since we’re talking about prepaid cards, I’m not sure how this is going to help fight identity theft. Unlike a regular credit card, a prepaid card can be used only if someone adds money to it. Maybe I’m overlooking something, but I just don’t see any advantage to using someone’s identity to obtain a prepaid card unless the thief also has access to the victim’s banking account. But if a thief has access to your bank account, I’m not sure why he’d go to the trouble of then obtaining a prepaid card and filling it with your money. There is some evidence that some criminals are moving to prepaid cards as alternative to cash. But a lot of low-income people and people with bad credit use prepaid cards, too. Not coincidentally, they’re also more likely to be pulled over and more likely to be suspected of using or selling illicit drugs. Wealthier people with conventional credit cards don’t have to worry about this new technology. The even scarier question here is whether this technology can also seize money in accounts that are tied to check cards or secured credit cards. One more thing: News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes. Sorry, but that sort of arrangement is shady. As we’ve seen with traffic cameras, private probation and other areas of criminal justice, giving a private company a cut of seized assets is an arrangement rife with bad incentives and ripe for corruption. Let’s not forget that this is the same state where a district attorney was caught contracting forfeiture actions out to private company, including the authority to pull over motorists. Another prosecutor used forfeiture funds to pay off his student loans. Still another used the law to live rent-free in a seized house, despite a judge’s order to sell it. He also used forfeiture proceeds to pay his utility bills. A report published last year found that of the $6 million seized by Oklahoma law enforcement agencies over the previous five years, two-thirds was taken from people who were never charged with a crime. The state received a “D” grade for its forfeiture polices by the libertarian advocacy law firm the Institute for Justice. And Oklahoma’s law enforcement community has been especially hostile to any efforts at reform. Last year, Tulsa District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler warned that if Oklahoma passed a law like the one in New Mexico, the state could expect to see decapitations by drug cartels and corpses swinging from bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Law enforcement for profit. Helluva plan if you can work it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Should be one of those moments where the thinking man finally realizes it's not about our safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 I cannot say that I have a problem with the concept of civil asset forfeiture, but I do have a problem with the way it is employed by some agencies. Taking anyone's assets without a conviction is wrong. This practice that OHP is preparing to employ is wrong. The United States projects itself globally as the bastion of freedom, yet we allow some of our own law enforcement agencies to effectively commit armed robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 "A report published last year found that of the $6 million seized by Oklahoma law enforcement agencies over the previous five years, two-thirds was taken from people who were never charged with a crime. " "Let’s not forget that this is the same state where a district attorney was caught contracting forfeiture actions out to private company, including the authority to pull over motorists. Another prosecutor used forfeiture funds to pay off his student loans. Still another used the law to live rent-free in a seized house, despite a judge’s order to sell it. He also used forfeiture proceeds to pay his utility bills." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 "A report published last year found that of the $6 million seized by Oklahoma law enforcement agencies over the previous five years, two-thirds was taken from people who were never charged with a crime. " "Let’s not forget that this is the same state where a district attorney was caught contracting forfeiture actions out to private company, including the authority to pull over motorists. Another prosecutor used forfeiture funds to pay off his student loans. Still another used the law to live rent-free in a seized house, despite a judge’s order to sell it. He also used forfeiture proceeds to pay his utility bills." That's why I call it armed robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnNTexas 7,198 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The law should be simple not guilty until proven guilty. So can't take assets if you haven't been convicted of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The law should be simple not guilty until proven guilty. So can't take assets if you haven't been convicted of a crime. This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 “If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we’ve done that in the past,” Vincent said about any money seized. This is the mindset that is the root of my problem with law enforcement agencies that do this, and it confirms to me that those people do not belong in law enforcement. It is not my responsibility to prove to law enforcement that my money was obtained by legal means, while they hold it until I do. It is their responsibility to prove that it was not, and the mere presence of a large sum of money is not such proof. In fact, it is not my responsibility to prove anything at all to law enforcement. When a law enforcement agency starts operating with a policy that they can take your money or property (without you being convicted of any charges) until you prove to them that it is legal, they have told you everything you need to know about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I cannot say that I have a problem with the concept of civil asset forfeiture, but I do have a problem with the way it is employed by some agencies. Taking anyone's assets without a conviction is wrong. This practice that OHP is preparing to employ is wrong. The United States projects itself globally as the bastion of freedom, yet we allow some of our own law enforcement agencies to effectively commit armed robbery. Why? Does it not completely undermine the concept of "due process"? As it is being applied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted June 11, 2016 Author Share Posted June 11, 2016 I cannot say that I have a problem with the concept of civil asset forfeiture, but I do have a problem with the way it is employed by some agencies. Taking anyone's assets without a conviction is wrong. This practice that OHP is preparing to employ is wrong. The United States projects itself globally as the bastion of freedom, yet we allow some of our own law enforcement agencies to effectively commit armed robbery. Why? Does it not completely undermine the concept of "due process"? As it is being applied? Did the rest of that post, or my subsequent ones not answer those questions? I have no problem with forfeiture of assets linked to a crime someone is convicted of. I do have a problem with civil asset forfeiture when law enforcement agencies are seizing assets or property without conviction or even charges, and then requiring someone to prove it was legally acquired or possessed. I think such practices undermine the concept of due process and violate the 4th Amendment, in spirit if not in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I cannot say that I have a problem with the concept of civil asset forfeiture, but I do have a problem with the way it is employed by some agencies. Taking anyone's assets without a conviction is wrong. This practice that OHP is preparing to employ is wrong. The United States projects itself globally as the bastion of freedom, yet we allow some of our own law enforcement agencies to effectively commit armed robbery. Why? Does it not completely undermine the concept of "due process"? As it is being applied? Did the rest of that post, or my subsequent ones not answer those questions? I have no problem with forfeiture of assets linked to a crime someone is convicted of. I do have a problem with civil asset forfeiture when law enforcement agencies are seizing assets or property without conviction or even charges, and then requiring someone to prove it was legally acquired or possessed. I think such practices undermine the concept of due process and violate the 4th Amendment, in spirit if not in fact. No, I did not. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.