Showing posts with label Civil-Asset Forfeiture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil-Asset Forfeiture. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2015

MD governor vetoes civil asset forfeiture reform in wake of Baltimore riots - Watchdog.org

Once upon a time, there was a Senate Bill in the Maryland Legislature. This bill (SB 528) focused on civil asset forfeiture (CAF) reform…and that’s where the libertarians reading this can start swearing, because civil asset forfeiture is a really sore subject in that particular part of the political spectrum.

[,,,]
And, again: why, yes, that is considered a significant reform.  Or, it would have been considered a reform, except that Republican Gov. Larry Hogan vetoed it:
Senate Bill 528, as amended, would greatly inhibit local law enforcement agencies from pursuing asset forfeitures from drug dealers. In addition, the bill poses new restrictions that would interfere with joint federal and State task forces investigating drug crimes. For those reasons, the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association, the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, and the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association have requested a veto of Senate Bill 528.
There was more–mostly using Maryland’s current heroin epidemic as a bit of a smokescreen–but that last sentence is tacitly the meat of Hogan’s rationale, anyway.  Cato, one last time: “Despite the mandate that forfeiture proceeds go the general fund, state law enforcement, working with their federal partners, received more than $50 million in forfeiture revenue from 2000 to 2008.”

MD governor vetoes civil asset forfeiture reform in wake of Baltimore riots - Watchdog.org

Nevada takes steps to strengthen property rights against civil forfeiture - Watchdog.org

The Nevada Legislature may have taken a step toward limiting such abuses. A bill sponsored by state Sen. Don Gustavson, whose district includes Humboldt County, addresses the issue of civil forfeiture.

The original version of Senate Bill 138 would have completely outlawed civil forfeitures, allowing forfeitures only as part of a criminal conviction, plea agreement or agreement between the parties. That version of the bill didn’t last long as the state Senate attached an amendment that stripped most of the protections out of SB138 before passing it.

The version that passed the Senate contained only provisions that would have required each law enforcement agency in the state to file an annual report documenting the property seized and the distribution of any proceeds from property it had obtained through civil forfeiture.

After the Senate passed this version unanimously, the bill headed to the Assembly. The Assembly added another amendment to SB138 that strengthened the protections against abuse of civil forfeiture though it did not go nearly as far as the original version of the bill.
 
Nevada takes steps to strengthen property rights against civil forfeiture - Watchdog.org

Saturday, April 18, 2015

New Mexico Is The Second State To Ban Police From Seizing Innocent People's Property | ThinkProgress

Last week, New Mexico became the second state to ban the practice of civil asset forfeiture, which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to seize property from innocent people.

Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed HB 560 on Friday, which states that property can only be seized if a person is “arrested for an offense to which forfeiture applies, the person is convicted by a criminal court of the offense, and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture.” In other words, property seizure is only permitted if a person is guilty of a crime. The bill, which received unanimous approval in the state legislature, was first introduced by Rep. Zachary Cook (R).

Under civil asset forfeiture laws across the country, people don’t have to be found guilty or charged with a crime to have their property taken from them. The laws incentivize the seizure of property to the benefit of law enforcement agencies, at the expense of innocent people — who are, often, low-income people of color. No type of property is off-limits, as cash, cars, and houses are routinely seized. And in many cases, law enforcement agencies collect assets under the guise of drug enforcement.

New Mexico Is The Second State To Ban Police From Seizing Innocent People's Property | ThinkProgress

Monday, January 19, 2015

Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local, state police - The Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.

Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. It allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said in a statement.
,,,
While police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, Equitable Sharing was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police agencies. Some states have higher standards of proof for forfeitures and some require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.

[,,,]
“It’s high time we put an end to this damaging practice,” said David Harris, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Pittsburgh. “It has been a civil-liberties debacle and a stain on American criminal justice.”

Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. On Jan. 9, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing.

Grassley praised Holder’s decision on Friday. “We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people, and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.”

[,,,]
The Treasury Department is also changing its asset forfeiture program to follow the same guideline included in Holder’s order, the statement said.

Federal agencies make larger seizures of cash and property through avenues other than Equitable Sharing, typically in cases involving defendants ranging from drug cartel kingpins to Bernard L. Madoff, whose fraud case has resulted in more than $9 billion in forfeitures in recent years.

Those programs are not affected by the changes to Equitable Sharing, but Holder also said the new policy is the first step in a “comprehensive review” of civil forfeiture in general.
On a bit of a side, one comment that stood out concerning this point:
Critics of the decision say that depriving departments of the proceeds from civil asset forfeitures will hurt legitimate efforts to fight crime, drug smuggling and terrorism.

Actually, the opposite is true. Because the police want money they routinely wait until the drugs are converted into cash before performing the raid. In other words, they wait until the drugs hit the streets. (which is no better than the police selling the drugs themselves) They have also based the decision on whether or not to move forward with an investigation based heavily on how much money the suspect has. If the police are focused more on the money they can get out of an investigation than justice they aren't doing their jobs.
Now I don't know if what is stated is "true" but it does make one wonder,,,hmm.



Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local, state police - The Washington Post

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

UPDATE::District attorney backs off from taking citizens' homes - Philly.com

THE CIVIL forfeiture "money machine" run by Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams may be getting shamed into submission.

Quietly yesterday, Williams' office agreed to dismiss civil-forfeiture proceedings against two Philadelphia families whose homes were in jeopardy of being seized because a family member was accused of selling drugs at the properties.

"If they don't have anything against you, they're supposed to [dismiss the case]. I didn't do anything wrong," said Somerton homeowner Christos "Chris" Sourovelis, 52.

Doila Welch, 47, whose South Philadelphia rowhouse is also home to her three children, brother and sister, was pleased.

"I'm happy they came to the decision to dismiss the case," she said. Welch, who is disabled, said others who are unfairly targeted by the city should "fight for your property, fight for your civil rights. Don't just sit there and take what they are dishing out."

She and Sourovelis are among four Philadelphians who, in August, filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the D.A.'s office seeking to rein-in its property-and-money guzzling civil-forfeiture program.

That lawsuit is moving forward to help the thousands of other innocent people ensnared by a program that was designed to catch and punish drug dealers, said Darpana Sheth, of the northern Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs.

"We won a battle but not the war. We still have to get a full ruling that the system that Philadelphia has implemented in civil forfeiture is unconstitutional," Sheth said.


District attorney backs off from taking citizens' homes - Philly.com

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required - NYTimes.com

“I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”
__
In some of the cases I have read, I believe the above statement to be very true,,,

For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”

The federal government does.

Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.

[,,,]
Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the I.R.S., said in a written statement, “This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities.” He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not apply to past seizures.

The I.R.S. is one of several federal agencies that pursue such cases and then refer them to the Justice Department. The Justice Department does not track the total number of cases pursued, the amount of money seized or how many of the cases were related to other crimes, said Peter Carr, a spokesman.
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required - NYTimes.com

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Philadelphia Earns Millions By Seizing Cash And Homes From People Never Charged With A Crime

Law enforcement barred the family from living in their own home for over a week. The family could only return home if they banned their son from visiting and relinquished some of their constitutional rights. Adding to the cruel irony, their son has already completed rehab, ending his punishment by the city. “If this can happen to me and my family, it can happen to anybody,” Sourovelis said.

Under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their property. Instead, the government can forfeit a property if it’s found to “facilitate” a crime, no matter how tenuous the connection. So rather than sue the owner, in civil forfeiture proceedings, the government sues the property itself, leading to surreal case names like Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 2544 N. Colorado St.

In other words, thanks to civil forfeiture, the government punishes innocent people for the crimes other people might have committed. Sadly, the Sourovelis family is not alone. Doila Welch faces civil forfeiture of her home, which has been in her family for 17 years, because her estranged husband, unbeknownst to her, was dealing small amounts of marijuana. Norys Hernandez and her sister co-own a rowhouse, but her sister is still barred from living there because Hernandez’s nephew was arrested for selling drugs outside her rowhouse. Welch and Hernandez have not been charged with any crime and both have joined Sourovelis as named plaintiffs in IJ’s class action against the Philadelphia forfeiture machine.

[,,,]
Meanwhile, the owners who want to defend themselves and retrieve their seized property must venture to the Orwellian-sounding Courtroom 478. Despite its name, there are neither judges nor juries in Courtroom 478. Instead, there are only assistant district attorneys and a scheduler, who deal with up to 80 forfeiture cases in a single day.

With the prosecutors running this kangaroo court, the DA’s Office clearly wields enormous power. Poring over 8,000 asset forfeiture cases filed against cash in 2010, the Philadelphia City Paper found that 83 percent were decided on the very first court listing. Of those, a staggering 96 percent of the decisions favored the DA.

Philadelphia Earns Millions By Seizing Cash And Homes From People Never Charged With A Crime

1/7/2015::Updated Tags

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Couple wants its cash back

What makes this case of civil forfeiture so egregious, Iowa has terrible law that makes   it almost impossible for innocent people to win in court. The police only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they have reason to believe the money is connected to criminal activity. 
Iowa’s civil forfeiture laws place a heavy burden on property owners.  Under state law, the prosecutor must only show that the property is related to criminal activity and can be forfeited by a preponderance of the evidence.  Once the prosecutor meets that burden, the burden is on the property owner to show his innocence, or in other words, that he did not know and could not have reasonably known of the conduct or that he acted reasonably to prevent the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture.  Moreover, law enforcement receives 100 percent of the value of any property seized under Iowa forfeiture law, and law enforcement agencies are not required to collect or report their forfeiture proceeds. 
A Minnesota couple has filed a petition against the Iowa City Police Department and three of the department's officers requesting the return of more than $40,000 in cash that police seized from the couple's vehicle during a traffic stop last month.

Tiffani D.S. Barber and Kearnice C. Overton, of St. Paul, Minn., filed an application April 11 in Johnson County District Court claiming that officers from the Iowa City Police Department wrongfully seized $48,000 cash from Overton's vehicle March 16.

Overton was driving from Davenport to St. Paul with his four children when Officer Michael Clark stopped his vehicle on Interstate 80 for traveling in a group of vehicles that was speeding, according to the court document.

During the traffic stop, officers Travis Neeld and Ian Alke responded along with the K-9 unit. One of the officers said the dog gave a silent indicator on the vehicle, allowing police to search, according to the document.

[,,,]
"This money was wrongfully seized. I was not arrested, nor were any charges lodged against me in connection with this money," Overton states in the document. "This money was in no way connected to any criminal activity."

According to court documents, Overton traveled to Rock Island with the money in early March to buy two properties from his cousin, but the sale didn't go through and he was driving back to St. Paul when he was stopped by police March 16.

Couple wants its cash back

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Michigan Leading Changes To Asset Forfeiture Laws - Exposing The Truth

Asset forfeiture (aka civil forfeiture) has been a trending topic the past 12 months, enough so that it has caught my eye as something to keep tabs on. When originally introduced, it was a tool for law enforcement to battle drug kingpins and gang leaders. But in recent years it has become a juggernaut of abuse, raking in at least $250 million worth of property and money from Michigan citizens since 2001. In other words, it has become a supplemental form of funding for police.
Two bills [HB 5212 and HB 5081] are being introduced in the Michigan state legislature, which are aimed at curbing some of the power that the state has in its asset forfeiture laws. One of the leading opponents of asset forfeiture is the pro-bono, public interest law firm, The Institute for Justice, which previously evaluated the asset forfeiture laws of each state and graded them, assigned a D- grade to Michigan.

[,,,]
Michigan requires prosecuting attorneys to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is (either directly or indirectly) related to the crime and thus subject to forfeiture. This standard is significantly lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required to actually convict someone of any criminal activity.

On the other hand, law enforcement receives all proceeds of civil forfeiture to enhance law enforcement efforts, creating an incentive to pursue forfeiture more vigorously than combating real criminal activity. As the numbers indicate, multi-jurisdictional task forces work extensively with district attorneys and police departments, and over 1.6 billion being deposited federally in 2010. The number and scale of property being seized is rising nationally.

This newly introduced bill, aimed at providing more stringent measures aimed at protecting private property from unjust seizure. The bill was crafted by Representative Jeff Irwin(Democrat) from Ann Arbor. There are actually two bills, but the most important of the two would require a conviction before a seizure can take place.
House Bill 5081, is a bill sponsored by Rep. Tom McMillin, which would require more transparency in forfeiture cases.
But a new bill seeks to change that in Michigan. House Bill 5081 would "give taxpayers the ability to see the full picture of what assets are seized, whether the person was ever convicted of a crime, the value of the assets, and other details pertaining to the process."

[,,,]
Rep. Geiss said the bill, "sheds sunlight on what type of materials or dollars are being forfeited and what is being done with those."

"The goal should be that we have zero forfeitures," Rep. Geiss said. "But the reality is that a lot of departments base their budgets on recurring forfeiture dollars. There have been allegations in the state of Michigan that monies have not been used properly and inventory has not been maintained. I think the bill puts a structure in place that everyone has to follow, with a central repository. It is my hope that this will make sure funds are not diverted and confiscated property is tracked."
Michigan Leading Changes To Asset Forfeiture Laws - Exposing The Truth

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Cops Ordered to Return Over $1 Million Seized From Innocent Woman - and Fed Gov Ordered to Pay Nearly $40k in Legal Fees | The Daily Sheeple

Here is a "positive" news story to report.

Civil Forfeiture is slowly coming into the minds of the mainstream but in a very negative and IMO abusive way. Last year (August and September) I posted about two of the more prominent cases of abuse. One has reached its conclusion.

What one needs to remember in regards to Civil Forfeiture, and the article does point this out, "Mishra’s ordeal happened because of civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow law enforcement to seize property that is suspected of being linked to criminal activity. One does not have to be charged with anything to permanently lose their cars, homes, or cash."

Cops Ordered to Return Over $1 Million Seized From Innocent Woman - and Fed Gov Ordered to Pay Nearly $40k in Legal Fees | The Daily Sheeple

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Government Attorneys Appealing Judges Order For Government To Return $1 Million To Woman

And yet again, the bullies in law enforcement trying to steal that which is not rightfully theirs. Last month I posted concerning this issue in regards to a small Texas/Louisiana border town. This case is from Nebraska,,,

In July, Nebraska police seized over $1 million dollars in cash from husband and wife during a traffic stop. At the time, officers claimed that the enormous sum of cash present in the car indicated it had been earned in the illegal drug trade.

But this wasn’t the case. The cash was actually given to the couple by exotic dancer Tara Mishra. Mishra says the money is her life savings, and that she gave the couple the money to invest in a New Jersey strip club.

The husband and wife were never charged after being pulled over, but police retained the money seized during the stop. The money is being retained under civil forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement to seize the money and property of people involved in crimes.

Police say they found drug residue on the money. But as U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion points out, it is believed that almost all money in circulation is tainted with drug residue.

Mishra filed a claim to reclaim her money from the government, but her request was denied. Officials ruled that since Mishra had given money to the couple she no longer had a claim to it.

Government Attorneys Appealing Judges Order For Government To Return $1 Million To Woman

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker

On a bright Thursday afternoon in 2007, Jennifer Boatright, a waitress at a Houston bar-and-grill, drove with her two young sons and her boyfriend, Ron Henderson, on U.S. 59 toward Linden, Henderson’s home town, near the Texas-Louisiana border. They made the trip every April, at the first signs of spring, to walk the local wildflower trails and spend time with Henderson’s father. This year, they’d decided to buy a used car in Linden, which had plenty for sale, and so they bundled their cash savings in their car’s center console. Just after dusk, they passed a sign that read “Welcome to Tenaha: A little town with BIG Potential!”

They pulled into a mini-mart for snacks. When they returned to the highway ten minutes later, Boatright, a honey-blond “Texas redneck from Lubbock,” by her own reckoning, and Henderson, who is Latino, noticed something strange. The same police car that their eleven-year-old had admired in the mini-mart parking lot was trailing them. Near the city limits, a tall, bull-shouldered officer named Barry Washington pulled them over.

He asked if Henderson knew that he’d been driving in the left lane for more than half a mile without passing.

No, Henderson replied. He said he’d moved into the left lane so that the police car could make its way onto the highway.

Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car.

The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two tables were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcotics.” The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)

The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.

“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.

Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.

Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker