Reason: The Forfeiture Racket

[Winehole23]

Chicago PD steals money from the public to spy on the public:

The Chicago Reader has put together a massive, must-read investigation into the Chicago Police Department's secret budget. The Chicago PD has -- for years now -- used the spoils of its asset forfeiture program to obtain surveillance equipment like Stingrays. This discretionary spending is done off the city's books, allowing the CPD to avoid anything that might prevent it from acquiring surveillance tech -- like meddling city legislators… or the public itself.

Since 2009, the year CPD began keeping electronic records of its forfeiture accounts, the department has brought in nearly $72 million in cash and assets through civil forfeiture, keeping nearly $47 million for itself and sending on almost $18 million to the Cook County state's attorney's office and almost $7.2 million to the Illinois State Police, according to our analysis of CPD records.



The Chicago Police Department doesn't disclose its forfeiture income or expenditures to the public, and doesn't account for it in its official budget. Instead, CPD's Bureau of Organized Crime, the division tasked with drug- and gang-related investigations, oversees the forfeiture fund in what amounts to a secret budget—an off-the-books stream of income used to supplement the bureau's public budget.



The Reader found that CPD uses civil forfeiture funds to finance many of the day-to-day operations of its narcotics unit and to secretly purchase controversial surveillance equipment without public scrutiny or City Council oversight.

It sounds like a lot of money -- $72 million in civil forfeiture funds -- and it is. But it's not like this money comes from a few large busts that have seriously affected the city's drug trade. That may be the rationale for the PD's convictionless seizing of property and cash (just like "terrorism" is often cited when acquiring surveillance tech ultimately destined for plain vanilla law enforcement use). But in reality, the forfeiture's rarely do anything more than financially cripple a large number of individuals who have little to anything to do with drug trafficking. The Chicago Reader reports that the median seizure in Illinois is only $530 -- hardly an amount one associates with criminal empires. In fact, the normal cash seizure probably sounds more like the following than a breathtaking dismantling of a local drug-running crew.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...quipment.shtml

[boutons_deux]

84% of Americans Oppose Civil Asset Forfeiture—But Only Once They're Told What It Is


What's with the other 15 percent?


a new Cato Ins ute/YouGov survey indicates that 84 percent of us are against civil asset forfeiture—the process through which police departments can confiscate property, goods or cash merely suspected to have been involved in a drug crime, without a conviction being obtained—once it’s explained to us.

Because, how would you even think that that’s ok?

It actually gets worse: You don’t even need to be charged with a crime for police to seize your property, and in most US jurisdictions, the police departments that do the seizing get to keep the proceeds, creating an obvious conflict of interests.

“No single policy undermines justice and distorts the mission of law enforcement more egregiously than civil asset forfeiture,”

“One notorious case involved the seizure in December 2011 of an office building worth $1.5 million by the City of Anaheim and the DEA—over a $37 medical marijuana transaction.”

By 2014, as the Washington Post has noted, more property was taken from Americans via civil asset forfeiture than by burglars.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/84-ame...e-told-what-it

[boutons_deux]

National Police Union President Says Asset Forfeiture Abuse Is A 'Fake Issue' Generated By The Media

Colloquially known as "cops going shopping for things they want," asset forfeiture supposedly is used to take funds and property away from criminal organizations. In reality, it's become an easy way for law enforcement to take the property of others without having to put much effort into justifying the seizures. In most states, convictions are not required, meaning supposed criminal suspects are free to go… but their property isn't.

Canterbury, who previously aired his grievances nationally over director Quentin Tarantino's participation in an anti-police brutality rally, opens up this piece by trying to equate factual reporting with current hot button topic "fake news."

Amidst the current national furor against “fake news” is another, more pervasive issue of creating “fake issues” like the myth of policing for profit. There’s been widespread discussion about the need to end the Federal equitable sharing program because a journalist or columnist writes a sympathetic piece describing a case in which the system may not have functioned as intended.

Canterbury admits the "system" doesn't always "function as intended" (although many could argue these cases illustrate the system working exactly as intended), but argues that every report about a questionable seizure is the equivalent of fake news. Innocent people being deprived of their property by profit-focused law enforcement agencies is a "fake issue" -- something that apparently wouldn't be covered by a more responsible press.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ed-media.shtml

Canterbury probably is paid in part with union dues that police dept contribute with forfeiture assets and cash.

[boutons_deux]

Can a Bipartisan Effort to Repeal Civil Asset Forfeiture Overcome Police Resistance?

In Texas, an average of $41.5 million per year is funneled into local law enforcement budgets as a result of forfeitures.

A bipartisan coalition is forming in the Texas Legislature to overhaul a Reagan-era police practice that allows law enforcement officers to confiscate personal property without charging the owner with a crime.

During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, states passed asset forfeiture laws to direct funds confiscated from drug operations back into the law enforcement agencies fighting the war on drugs. Civil asset forfeiture became law in Texas in 1989.

According to the OCA report, DAs and law enforcement agencies used the majority of the funds they received through civil asset forfeiture to pay for equipment, training and salaries.

And many law enforcement agencies aren’t going to give up without a fight, according to Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT).

https://www.texasobserver.org/civil-...rm-texas-lege/

[boutons_deux]

“We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,”

Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis.

"With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures.

No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.

Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-of-loveliness

[boutons_deux]

New York City Council Passes Bill Making NYPD's Forfeiture Process More Transparent

For months now, the NYPD has been arguing in court it can't possibly hand over records related to its forfeitures.

The problem appears to be the NYPD itself.

The department spent millions on new software specifically to track the disposition of seized items. But when faced with a public records suit by the Bronx Defenders, the

NYPD claimed the software can't do the one thing it's supposed to do: track the disposition of seized items.

The NYPD provides limited reporting on forfeitures, but the numbers produced have almost zero relation to reality.

According to the NYPD, it only forfeited $12,000 in cash in 2015.

According to numbers obtained by the Bronx Defenders, the NYPD's forfeiture office had nearly $69 million in cash on hand when queried in 2013

-- something that would take 5,750 years to amass at the rate cited by the NYPD.

Not only that, but other do ents showed NYPD property clerks were processing thousands of dollars every month, totaling $6 million in forfeiture transactions in 2013 alone. It seems unlikely the NYPD's forfeitures dropped to this impossibly-low level between 2013 and 2015.

This forces the NYPD to provide information proactively. It can no longer hide behind claims of faulty software or a particularly labyrinthine public records process.

It won't force the NYPD to say how the money's being spent,

but will at least provide more transparency and accountability.

The new data should make it slightly easier to identify abuse and could assist those fighting to reclaim their property. All it needs is the governor's signature to make it official.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...nsparent.shtml

summary: NYPD is totally corrupt, an operation totally beyond, totally unamenable to oversight.

[Th'Pusher]

House passes amendment to restrict asset forfeiture

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/...et-forfeiture/

[boutons_deux]

House passes amendment to restrict asset forfeiture

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/...et-forfeiture/

A cop in Berkeley CA cited a bacon hotdog street vendor for no permit. OK, gotta comply

BUT, the cop confiscated all the cash from the vendor's wallet.

[boutons_deux]

Saying Someone Might Do Something Illegal With Cash Isn't Enough For Gov't To Seize It, Court Rules

The panel reversed the district court's judgment of civil forfeiture of $11,500 under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) from claimant Charles Guerrero, and remanded for a new trial.

When Guerrero, through a friend, tried to post the $11,500 as bail for his wife, the government seized the cash. At trial, the government alleged two theories: that the money was proceeds from the claimant's drug deals, and that the claimant used or intended to use the money to facilitate drug transactions.

While Charles waited outside, Wood went to the MCDC’s bail window and told an officer he was there to post the cash to free Rosalie.

Jail officials ran Wood’s records and discovered that he had a criminal history.

Coupled with the fact that Wood was attempting to bail out a repeat drug offender with a wad of cash, this prompted jail officials to call Agent Guy Gino of the federal Department of Homeland Security.

Agent Gino went to the MCDC, asked Wood a few questions regarding the origin of the $11,500, and requested permission to have a drug sniffing dog smell the currency. Wood agreed.

The dog (Nikko) alerted to a drug odor on the money. Agent Gino asked Wood if Nikko could sniff his car. Again, Wood agreed.

On the way to the car, the group encountered Charles, who was waiting for Woods to come out of the jail.

Charles objected to law enforcement searching the car but Wood nonetheless permitted Nikko to do so.

Nikko alerted to a black bag in the vehicle—which, the officers later discovered, belonged to Charles—containing 3.6 grams of heroin.

Officers also found an additional $2,971 in cash on Charles. Agent Gino arrested Charles and seized the drugs, the $2,971 found on Charles, and the $11,500 Wood had tried to post as bail.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rt-rules.shtml

[boutons_deux]

The IRS seized $59,000 from a gas station owner. They still refuse to give it back.

Just a few years after he opened it, zealous government investigators fishing for criminals seized all of the station’s money on a hunch — and wiped the family out.

No, they weren’dt money launderers or terrorists or mobsters or tax evaders. The government found no evidence of criminal activity.

But after the investigation ended, after the gas station went under, and Kwon’s wife died amid the stress of it all, after he moved from his neighborhood in shame and

the Internal Revenue Service changed its policy so no other small business would get steamrolled this way — the agency won’t give Kwon his money back.

That’s $59,117.47 the IRS is holding on to.

As recently as August — the last time Kwon, now 73, asked for his money back — the IRS said no.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...nl_most&wpmm=1

[boutons_deux]

“It’s been complete ”: how police used a traffic stop to take $91,800 from an innocent man

The money was supposed to go toward buying a legendary music studio. Now his dreams are on hold

Phil Parhamovich had been waiting for this moment for a long time. The 50-year-old had spent years restoring houses, cars, and musical instruments, often clocking 12-hour workdays, to save up more than $91,000. And now it was all going to pay off: He would buy a music studio in Madison, Wisconsin, where Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins recorded songs — not just fulfilling a dream of owning a monument to grunge rock, but also giving him a space to work on his own career as a musician.

Then came the police stop this past March. By the time it was over, police in Wyoming would take all of Parhamovich’s money — the full $91,800. Parhamovich, who has no criminal record, was not accused of or charged with a serious crime;

he only got a $25 ticket for improperly wearing his seat belt and a warning for “lane use.”
But Wyoming Highway Patrol officers found and eventually seized the $91,800 in cash, as it was hidden in a speaker cabinet — by getting Parhamovich, under what he claims was duress, to sign away his interest in the money through a waiver.

He has since tried to get his money back. But state law enforcement officials have rejected his pleas. Responding to a request for records related to Parhamovich’s case,

state officials said they consider the cash “abandoned.”

The state has even moved to forfeiture the money without notifying Parhamovich of the relevant court hearing until after it happened.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vil-forfeiture

[Winehole23]

Chicago area again:

https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent

[RandomGuy]

Chicago area again:

https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/...-cars-innocent

It may interest you to know that Sessions is pushing to reverse course on stopping this.

[Winehole23]

It may interest you to know that Sessions is pushing to reverse course on stopping this.

God forbid taxes should pay for LE bureaucracy.

[boutons_deux]

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on. U.S. Customs took it without charging him with a crime.

A 64-year-old Cleveland man is suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection after agents strip-searched him at an airport in October and took more than $58,000 in cash from him without charging him with any crime, according to a federal lawsuit filed this week in Ohio.

Customs agents seized the money through a process known as civil asset forfeiture, a law enforcement technique that allows authorities to take cash and property from people who are never convicted or even charged with a crime.

The practice is widespread at the federal level. In 2017, federal authorities seized more than $2 billion in assets from people,

a net loss similar in size to annual losses from residential burglaries in the United States.

Customs says it suspects that the pe ioner in the case, Rustem Kazazi, was involved in smuggling, drug trafficking or money laundering. Kazazi denies those allegations and says that the agency is violating federal law by keeping his money without filing any formal complaint against him.

He carried the cash in three counted and labeled bundles in his carry-on bag, he said, along with receipts from recent bank withdrawals and do entation pertaining to his family's property in Tirana, the Albanian capital.

The CBP agents led Kazazi to a small, windowless room and conducted multiple searches of him and his belongings, he said.

According to Kazazi's declaration, the

agents asked him to remove all of his clothing and gave him a blanket to cover the lower portion of his body.

Kazazi said that a man wearing rubber gloves then “started searching different areas of my body.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.67756f6e88d5

America The Beautiful, Ugly as

[boutons_deux]

Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures

A win for at least one resident -- and victim of shady forfeiture practices -- has been handed down by Utah's top court.

Kyle Savely had $500,000 taken from him by Utah law enforcement during a traffic stop.

No charges were filed and Savely was never arrested,

but a dog told the Utah Highway Patrol it could search the vehicle and seize the cash, even though the search failed to produce any drugs.

The Utah Highway Patrol apparently had no charges to file,

but rather than return the money when Savely requested it back,

it chose to hand it over to the DEA via equitable sharing.

Equitable sharing with the feds allows state agencies to bypass more restrictive state laws and help themselves to 80% of whatever's seized.

The DEA pitched in, too, hoping for 20% of the seized cash, further demonstrating the perverse incentives of the federal forfeiture loophole. From the decision [PDF]:

On February 10, 2017, seventy-five days after UHP’s seizure, Mr. Savely filed a pe ion in state district court seeking the release of his property.

In a hearing on February 21, 2017, the state district court ruled in favor of Mr. Savely, concluding that UHP was required by the Act to procure an order from a state district court that authorized UHP to release the seized cash to the DEA and,

thus, that UHP had unlawfully transferred the funds.

Additionally, the state district court concluded that UHP had failed to take one of the actions required by Utah Code section 24-4-104(1)(a) and therefore ordered UHP to return the funds to Mr. Savely.

UHP immediately stopped payment on the January 24, 2017 check sent to the DEA.

In response, the DEA served UHP with a second federal seizure warrant

on February 23, 2017, after which UHP requested that the state district court reconsider its initial ruling.

Savely challenged this move, claiming the state had jurisdiction over the seized cash and could not use equitable sharing to route around state law. The court agrees for the most part,

the court sides with Savely.

It points to one clause of the law, along with its intent -- "to protect property owners" during forfeiture proceedings --

as evidence the state government (and its residents) were seeking to close the federal loophole that would have erased the protections it had enacted.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180902/18044740570/utahs-top-court-says-cops-cant-use-federal-loophole-to-dodge-criminal-charge-requirement-forfeitures.shtml

[Winehole23]

forfeiture without legal authority.

Mississippi LE agencies didn't notice the law had lapsed.

An Associated Press review of a Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics database shows more than 60 civil asset forfeitures with nearly $200,000 in property taken by state and local agencies under a law that lapsed on June 30.


That law allowed police to take $20,000 or less in property associated with illegal drugs, regardless of whether someone was convicted criminally, unless an owner fought the seizure in court within 30 days. Police agencies keep 80 percent of the money, with 20 percent going to a district attorney or the Bureau of Narcotics.


Now, Mississippi agencies must sue in court and get a judge to approve seizures, as they already were required to do with larger amounts.

https://www.tampabay.com/ap/national...2f3974606fe889

[boutons_deux]

He lost his $42,000 Land Rover for a $385 crime.

The Supreme Court considers whether the cons utional ban on 'excessive fines' applies to states

the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover from a man who made two small drug sales valued at under $400.

It rejected his claim that this was “excessive” and ruled the 8th Amendment did not protect him.

That decision ran into sharp skepticism Wednesday from the justices and will almost surely be reversed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cut off the state’s attorney before he could launch into his defense and upbraided him for ignoring decades of court history and centuries of English law.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-fines-20181128-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

[Winehole23]

Philly cops seized houses then bought them at auction:

[Winehole23]

[boutons_deux]

SC, once a slave state, always a slave state.

The Confederacy + red states are why America can't make progress to a better America

[Winehole23]

police might lose their taste for policing if they don't get to keep the money they take from people they pull over:

Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn’t pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.


If police don’t get to keep the money from forfeiture, “what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?” Bruder said. “What is the incentive for interdiction?”

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/sto...nt/2746412002/

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court says cons utional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

on just her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the decision for the court, saying that the 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protects against government retribution.

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history:

Exorbitant tolls undermine other cons utional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote.

“Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies .

. . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
The court ruled in favor of Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind.,

who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized after he was arrested for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-cons utional-protection-against-excessive-fines-applies-to-state-actions/2019/02/20/204ce0d4-3522-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0fa91f8b4f9b& wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

So who defines what is "excessive" ?

[Winehole23]

A court defines what is excessive.

This is an encouraging decision