Comment by BrenBarn 4 days ago
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
> Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption.
Civil asset forfeiture already facilitates corruption, but it's worse because that corruption is targeted at innocent random civilians.
> Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
Even better: remove qualified immunity for everything.
> Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police
You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers over everyone else.
> concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.
That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute.
Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?"
The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
> That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute.
Assuming such a thing exists. . .
> The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go through a court proceeding to establish that the money was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that process.
I'd bet this is covered by other laws. Practically if you come back to claim it you probably expose yourself to being advised of running the meth lab. If it's unclaimed it's then abandoned property, and pretty sure there's laws of how that gets dealt with.
>so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?
Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car.
It hurts society less to not seize things than to have the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of suspicion of involvement in a crime.
> The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
Use criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction. Shouldn't be too hard to secure in those circumstances.
Make a law the the police can only operate under criminal law, not civil law. Problem solved instantly and with common sense. Anything the police do should have the protections/restrictions/rules/requirements of criminal law, not the looser standards used by civil law.
>"Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
Civil asset forfeiture means a lot more than what you think it does.
Do you remember a story a couple of years ago about a couple who foreclosed on a local Bank of America branch after Bank of America wrongfully started foreclosure proceedings on their home? That's civil asset forfeiture.
The sheriff's deputies who went with them to enforce the foreclosure are not criminals.
If you are a freelancer and your client doesn't pay you and you get a court order to collect what you are owed: civil asset forfeiture.
A clerk filing the paperwork to get you your money is not a criminal.
Even the ACLU is fighting civil asset forfeiture ABUSE because as actual lawyers they understand what it means.
There is a really simple difference here.
The couple who foreclosed on a BoA branch got a court order to do so, otherwise the deputies would not have enforced it.
Seizing money in your trunk because you had a tail light out because you have a "suspicion" that the money is somehow criminal does not have the same standard.
I don't think many people have a concern with that.
So sure, maybe, "any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture absent a valid court order shall be a felony".
Or maybe law enforcement should only be empowered to carry out criminal asset forfeiture.
> Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.”
Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption.
Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.