Asset Forfeiture

Feds on Asset Forfeiture Reform: It's Too Much Trouble to Track Convictions Before Taking People's Stuff

California's participation in federal program threatened just by calling for better due process.

|

Just because there's a process doesn't mean it's "due process."
Credit: Credit: Photographerlondon | Dreamstime.com

Legislation introduced in California to rein in police use and misuse of asset forfeiture laws in order to take people's money and property (often without ever charging with them with a crime) has seen some significant changes in the Assembly since we've previously reported on it.

A not-small amount of the text of Senate Bill 443 has been removed as opposition by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown. Gone is the requirement that local law enforcement agencies follow some of California's more restrictive forfeiture rules. Police departments in California (and other states) often bypass state regulations by participating in the Department of Justice's "Equitable Sharing" asset forfeiture program. The DOJ version of the program has looser requirements and often lets police departments keep a greater portion of the money than state rules do. Gone is the requirement that a big chunk of the money would go to a state-controlled asset forfeiture fund to manage distribution. These were all ways to try to reduce the "profit motive" for police to try to seize whatever they could on the most specious of justifications by eliminating the amount of money they would be able to keep.

But the most important component of SB 443 remains: Prosecutors will actually have to convict people of crimes before law enforcement agencies will be able to permanently keep cash and assets they seize during arrests, even if they partner with the feds. For that reason, organizations like the asset forfeiture reformers of the Institute for Justice (IJ) continue to support the bill.

The bill had already passed the California Senate (with only one vote of opposition) but is now dealing with some heavy opposition from the law-and-order folks lobbying the Assembly. Their opposition efforts are being bolstered by the federal government officials warning that too many restrictions on asset forfeiture will threaten California's participation in federal sharing programs entirely, potentially causing a loss of tens of millions of dollars in state revenue.

The Institute for Justice this week passed along some communications from opponents trying to scare legislators away from reform. The possibility of losing federal dollars obviously contributed to the decision to eliminate the state-level asset forfeiture fund. The federal rules require that law enforcement agencies maintain their own asset forfeiture funds in order to participate in the federal program. Shifting some of the money back into the state would have run afoul of these rules. That's exactly what happened with New Mexico's reforms, which actively forbid law enforcement agencies from maintaining asset forfeiture funds. A representative from the U.S. Treasury warned that the same thing could happen to California.

But perhaps it's best that the complicated state distribution program was eliminated. Do we need even more state bureaucracy managing things? Such a shift could possibly create just a new set a bad financial incentives rather than eliminate the current ones.

Nevertheless, it turns out just requiring a citizen to be convicted of a crime before the government can keep his or her stuff may be too much for the federal government's liking. The Institute for Justice provided a copy of an e-mail from a Treasury representative sent out last week that warned, "I highly doubt our federal agencies can figure out whether a conviction occurred in a timely manner. I'm not sure they would have the resources, desire, or technical capability. …  Accordingly, I think I would still advise our policy officials here that it would be prudent not to share with agencies should this law be passed."

I spoke with Lee McGrath, legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, this morning, and he helped me navigate through the bill's changes. He found the Treasury's argument illogical. California law already requires that seizures of assets worth less than $25,000 can only be kept if there's a conviction. No doubt this law is one reason why local police bypass state rules and partner with the feds, but McGrath's point is that the idea that it's too hard to keep track of whether or not a person is convicted before taking his or her stuff is absurd.

"We have figured it out in California," he said. "We do it all the time when the seizure is less than $25,000. What's so tough about that? They want to continue the idea that somebody could lose their property without even being charged, never mind being convicted of a crime."

Opponents are nonetheless using the potential loss of revenue in their lobbying efforts, pointing out to legislators how much money their districts have raked in from the federal asset forfeiture program. McGrath describes it (in a release from IJ) as a "desperate and cynical attempt to derail civil forfeiture reform in California."

Voting on the amended bill is scheduled for tomorrow. If it passes it will have to head back to the Senate because of the changes. The version the Senate approved was much stricter than this amended bill, so McGrath predicted it would likely survive if it makes it out of the Assembly.

NEXT: Global Temperature Trend Update: August 2015 Hottest Ever in the Tropics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course they leave out any mention of the asset having to be material to the crime.

    Weed in your car? The car is part of the crime! Weed in your house? The house and all of your furniture is part of the crime! Cash in a safe? Definitely part of the crime!!!

    1. What, Pl?ya, you think convicted criminals should be allowed to have possessions?

      Worse than Hitler.

      1. The Kennedy family has been allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains. Why shouldn’t everyone else?

        1. For the same reason that killing 5 people makes you a sick fuck, but killing 500,000 makes you a hero.

        2. The Kennedy family are nothing but crooks! Yet, the liberal asshole media loves them.

    2. We will never see any real asset forfeiture reform. The government crooks like it the way it is. They get to seize property and cash with no evidence of any criminal conduct whatsoever. And as always, government employees are exempt from having any of their assets taken.

    3. It does not matter if no crime was committed. Police, prosecutors, and judges want your assets! It helps to fund their six figure retirement pay packages and free healthcare, including vision and dental for life. You have no rights, only government actors have rights. And they are always above the law anyway. They always have been above the law and always will be.

    4. Playa Manhatten,

      Pigs, persecutors, and rubberstamp judges want your assets. They need it to fund their six figure retirement pay packages, and free healthcare, including dental and vision for life. It makes no difference that no crime was actually committed.

  2. “I highly doubt our federal agencies can figure out whether a conviction occurred in a timely manner. I’m not sure they would have the resources, desire, or technical capability. ? Accordingly, I think I would still advise our policy officials here that it would be prudent not to share with agencies should this law be passed.”

    The government is pleading incompetence. For one, they are being at least PARTIALLY honest.

    The idea that they don’t thave the desire to keep track of convictions that means free money for them is bullshit, though.

    1. It’s not incompetence, more like a veiled, “Thieves don’t check for convictions before stealing from their marks, and we’re the best thieves there are!”

    2. Requiring convictions would actually incentivize putting criminals in jail, while not requiring convictions is less work, and they get to keep more stuff. Who’s side are you on, the criminals?!
      /sarc (in case it not obvious)

  3. No person shall…. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    If you believe in the plain, obvious meaning of these words, you are a chump. Our Top Men (AKA SCOTUS), through the magic of their “legal reasoning”, have pretty much eviscerated these words. Fuck you SCOTUS. SCOTUS is no longer a legitimate arbiter of what is considered Constitutional. You spineless fucks.

    1. SCOTUS hasn’t been a legitimate arbiter of constitutionality since at least Wickard.

      1. Agreed.

      2. Meh, McCulloch v. Maryland not only predates and sets up Wickard, it is far broader in scope to boot.

        1. See, I think McCulloch was legit.

          Wickard, though . . . .

          1. The problem with McCulloch is that it fundamentally undermined the purpose of enumerated powers. As long as Congress (or some executive flunky) can dream up a convoluted train of “logic” that connects an action with an enumerated power, said action is considered Constitutional, unless it directly infringes one of the enumerated rights.

            Even the case itself is a prime example of abuse; nowhere is the USG authorized in the Constitution to run a bank and moreover to exempt that bank from the laws of sovereign entities (in this case, the State of Maryland). Yet somehow all of that magically falls out of “the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof”.

            The idea that federal authority should be limited to the narrowest means necessary to effect the exercise of an enumerated power is only prevalent in the few cases that fall under strict scrutiny. Otherwise, if you can’t point to something in the Bill of Rights, the feds can pretty much do whatever they want, and the states can’t stop them.

  4. Exactly how is the desire of a federal agency not to abuse the rights of citizens relevant to them being required to not abuse rights? Does that argument even make sense in their heads?

    1. You’re just confused because you think government should have constraints on its power. Few people in America really believe that.

      1. With a government large enough to give us everything we want, we can be truly happy!

  5. “Prosecutors will actually have to convict people of crimes before law enforcement agencies will be able to permanently keep cash and assets they seize during arrests, even if they partner with the feds.”

    See, I’d have thought the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would have taken care of that. It seems to me that any public official who participates in civil asset forfeiture without due process should be jailed under contempt–but maybe that’s just if the victims are gay?

    Has anyone found out whether there are any gay victims of civil asset forfeiture? Because I think violating the rights of gay people, for whatever reason, is still unconstitutional.

    1. You are clearly forgetting the FYTW clause.

    2. Fairly certain the recent raid of backpage would qualify.

    3. Has anyone found out whether there are any gay victims of civil asset forfeiture? Because I think violating the rights of gay people, for whatever reason, is still unconstitutional.

      I don’t imagine the people who ran RentBoy are getting their shit back. Or the gay bar owners that sometimes get charged for distributing drugs after sting operations and police raids.

      But sure, go ahead and bitch about Teh Gays just to ruin the harmony we should all have on this one issue.

      1. Whining about homos is far more important than highway robbery asset forfeiture, dude. Haven’t you figured out people’s priorities yet?

        1. Only my issues are important. Not your issues, fuck you. Only me.

          1. Fine! I’ll make your issues my issues! See how you like that!

            1. NO. You’re agreeing with me all wrong, dammit!

              /Dalmia

        2. Haven’t you figured out people’s priorities yet?

          It seems to have something to do with making America Great Again.

      2. Seems to me the complaints about the treatment of RentBoy are mostly about gay people being treated equally before the law–but, yes, let’s not forget the harmony of “Teh Gays” civil asset forfeituring themselves a wedding cake?

        Is the gay rights community upset about civil asset forfeiture violating the rights of non-gays? ’cause that’s what harmony with libertarians on the issue of civil asset forfeiture would look like.

        If I happen to support the free speech rights of vile neo-Nazis, I wouldn’t describe that as being in “harmony” with Nazis on the issue. I’m not in harmony with neo-Nazis on any issue, and if gay rights activists don’t give a shit about our rights–only how what the government does impacts gay people as a protected class? Then they’re not in harmony with us on the issue of civil asset forfeiture either.

        1. You’re absolutely deranged.

          1. If by “deranged” you mean I support the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments and that I oppose the government violating people’s rights regardless of whether the victims are gay, then, yeah, I guess I’m deranged.

            Maybe you mean I won’t pretend a group of anti-libertarian privilege seekers are actually libertarian–and that’s what makes me “deranged”? And, yeah, supporting the individual rights of, for instance, gays (for more than ten years on this site) despite the fact that I’m not gay (for instance) is an important part of what distinguishes me as libertarian.

            If the gay rights community, on the other hand, won’t support anybody’s rights unless doing so is somehow pro-gay, and, in fact, they actively support violating people’s rights if and when those people get in the way of the gay community’s quest for exclusive privileges? Then that’s an important part of the reason why they are distinctively not libertarian, too.

            Maybe noticing those distinctions makes me “deranged”? If so, then, yeah, I guess I’m deranged.

            1. gay rights community

              … which nobody but you is talking about. You’re “deranged” because you keep obsessing about people who have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You keep trying to shoehorn irrelevant nonsense into this thread.

            2. What makes you deranged is that you brought up gays for absolutely no reason other than that they have apparently become a personal bugaboo.

              Everyone here knows that the state is just as willing to steal the property of homosexuals via “civil asset forfeiture” as it is for anyone else. Your implication otherwise is asinine.

              1. “Everyone here knows that the state is just as willing to steal the property of homosexuals via “civil asset forfeiture” as it is for anyone else. Your implication otherwise is asinine.”

                I was being snarky and provocative, but I wouldn’t call it asinine.

                1. I was being snarky and provocative, but I wouldn’t call it asinine.

                  That would be more credible if (a) gays had any remote connection to this post or (b) you weren’t doing this on the regular with other unrelated posts.

              2. Ken’s usually pretty consistent about being for equal individual rights, including gay marriage for gay people. Not sure what he’s after here.

                1. “Ken’s usually pretty consistent about being for equal individual rights, including gay marriage for gay people. Not sure what he’s after here.

                  Pointing out that the gay rights community is not for equal individual rights seems to have upset some of these people.

                  1. Pointing out that the gay rights community is not for equal individual rights seems to have upset some of these people.

                    Hmm, maybe because instead of commenting about something related to the thread, you use random opportunities to bitch about gay rights activists?

                    If you were just doing it to make a point about identity politics, it seems a bit strange that every time you land on the same group.

                    1. “If you were just doing it to make a point about identity politics, it seems a bit strange that every time you land on the same group.”

                      I didn’t say I was justdoing it to make a point about identity politics–I said it pulled the rug out from under identity politics (rather than supported identity politics).

                      And always land on the same group? Why ignore all the other times, over the last 10+ years, that I’ve excoriated fundamentalists and socons for similar violations of gay individual’s rights?

                      And, fer Cripe’s sake, not that being off topic has ever been a sin around here before, but my post wasn’t entirely off topic.

                    2. Read it again:

                      “See, I’d have thought the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would have taken care of that. It seems to me that any public official who participates in civil asset forfeiture without due process should be jailed under contempt–but maybe that’s just if the victims are gay?

                      Has anyone found out whether there are any gay victims of civil asset forfeiture? Because I think violating the rights of gay people, for whatever reason, is still unconstitutional.”

                      It’s primarily about how the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments should render civil asset “forfeiture” a moot point, but somehow hasn’t.

                      That Fourteenth Amendment justifications–in the popular imagination if not in the courts–for equal protection (by way of accommodation, etc.) might have had something to do with the erosion of people’s respect for things like due process protections against civil asset ‘forfeiture” (contained elsewhere in the Fourteenth Amendment) isn’t entirely off topic. In fact, it’s something that someone else might have brought up if I hadn’t.

                      Does the term “suspect classification” mean anything to you?

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Suspect_classification

                      Is it okay to unjustly screw people over–so long as you screw everyone over equally? If it isn’t, but people imagine it is, is it okay to talk about that in a Nikki thread? And if it isn’t, can you give me a list of topics that are okay to talk about when you’re around?

            3. Jesus Ken.

              It’s better to oppose the practice on first principles rather than some relativistic analysis of the law in action. Whether or not you are actually correct, it’s a strained argument and only furthers the identity politics that are already in play.

              1. “Whether or not you are actually correct, it’s a strained argument and only furthers the identity politics that are already in play.”

                My arguments here don’t further identity politics in any way. They target identity politics specifically and pull the rug out from under them.

                P.S. That we should be free to make choices for ourselves is my first principle.

        2. Serious Man is not talking about “harmony” with gay rights activists or neo-Nazis, he’s talking about “harmony” among libertarians.

          We all agree that civil asset forfeiture is wrong, and moreover it has nothing to do with gays, so what the fuck is your problem?

          1. What kind of man sits around thinking about gays all day?

              1. I almost created the first gay Godwin thread, but you had to come along and shut me down.

          2. Serious Man was talking about harmony between the gay rights community and libertarians.

            “I don’t imagine the people who ran RentBoy are getting their shit back. Or the gay bar owners that sometimes get charged for distributing drugs after sting operations and police raids.”

            If the gay rights community is upset about these things, it is not because they’re worried about our right to choose for ourselves whom we screw or because they oppose interference from the government. It’s about the government targeting a gay website.

            If the gay rights community is upset about gay bars being shut down because of drug distribution in those clubs, it isn’t because they want an end to the drug war and support our right to make choices for ourselves without government interference. It’s because a gay bar was shut down.

            Is there a community that skews more progressive than the gay rights community? These people are not our allies. That we stand up for their rights anyway is a testament to the magnanimity of libertarians–it does not indicate that the gay rights community is on our side in regards to personal choice.

            If you chose to do something that the gay rights community thought wasn’t in the interests of the gay rights community? They’d all stand up and cheer if the government dragged you away and locked you up for it. Make no mistake about that.

            1. No, he wasn’t. But please, keep ignoring all the people pointing out that you are wrong, and continuing to harp about irrelevant bullshit.

            2. No, that’s not what Serious was talking about. He gave evidence that yes, homosexuals do have their property confiscated by the state. Then he said you bitching about gays was needlessly ruining the harmony we, here, have on this issue.

              1. When have we ever had harmony here?

                “I don’t imagine the people who ran RentBoy are getting their shit back. Or the gay bar owners that sometimes get charged for distributing drugs after sting operations and police raids.

                But sure, go ahead and bitch about Teh Gays just to ruin the harmony we should all have on this one issue.”

                That’s what he wrote.

                I’m ruining the harmony between us libertarians here at Hit & Run?

                That’s ridiculous.

                He’s saying I’m ruining the harmony between people who care about the government violating people’s due process rights and “Teh Gays”.

        3. What Nikki said.

  6. OT

    After $200M investment from Comcast that values Vox at $1B, Vox writes a piece on why you should be thankful your cable bill isn’t higher.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/9/8/92…..l-high-why

    Most cable TV is produced via a weird kind of capitalistic socialism, wherein really big channels make the majority of the money, but it gets spread across numerous other channels. A show like Rectify exists because it’s found a kind of protected zone in this world. It could only exist on Sundance, and television as a whole is better for its existence.

    The end of this world is inevitable. The internet and streaming services have increasingly disrupted television business models. Eventually, there will be a contraction. Hopefully there’s a way for that world to crumble while still allowing for the sheer diversity of programming that’s sprung up in recent years.

    I forget what happens when a market’s unfettered, does it typically offer more choices or less?

    1. Despite streaming services having the capability to disrupt tv business models the diversity of offerings there do not count as a replacement for unsustainable tv programming.

    2. Unfettered markets offer more choice of course. Why do you think people like Bernie Sanders are so opposed to unfettered markets? You offer stupid people choices and the stupid people make stupid choices. Much better to just have everybody doing what I tell them what’s good for them.

    3. By “diversity” they mean “stupid bullshit nobody actually likes to watch”. There’s a lot of diversity of programming under the new business models, because there’s a lot of diversity in consumer tastes. The problem is that shows have to actually appeal to people who are willing to pay for them and that right there is a bridge too far for these people.

      1. I haven’t had cable for a long time, but as I recall, “stupid bullshit” describes 90% or so of what is on all of the channels.

        1. Indeed, which is why so many people are unsurprisingly “cutting the cord”. It’s to the point that the major providers (Comcast and Verizon, at least) are offering television+Internet bundles at lower prices than just Internet service.

          1. Yeah, I cannot imagine paying whatever it costs for cable now (it still costs $50/month in my mind, which I am sure is way low) when an internet connection gives me all the TV watching I need. I guess it’s mostly for old people and people who must watch live sports.

    4. More choices isn’t the same as more channels.

      1. +14 QVC

      2. The contraction will birth a bloody and beautiful age of streaming.

      3. It sort of is if you are talking about cable TV. Doesn’t mean the choices are good.

        1. The choices could mean more packages or a la carte services.

          1. Yeah, I’m just being obnoxiously literal.

      4. Exactly.

    5. How the hell is that website worth that much money? Who is to blame? Who can I hate?

  7. See, I’d have thought the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would have taken care of that.

    Who the fuck do you think you are, Ken? That law license doesn’t give you permission to think, pal. It merely gives you permission to attempt to earn a living. Please report to your local re-education camp to ameliorate your crime-think.

  8. The federal rules require that law enforcement agencies maintain their own asset forfeiture funds in order to participate in the federal program.

    Isn’t this pretty much the feds telling the locals “Pay no attention to what your ‘bosses’ in the Statehouse tell you to do, you work for us now. And we pay much better than they do. Here, have some cash.”?

  9. Why couldn’t he just be honest?

    “We’re not trying to fight crime here, we’re trying to steal peoples’ stuff! Would you really expect thieves to see if their marks have convictions before stealing from them?”

  10. Here in Maine all fines and proceeds from stuff that the cops steal from people go into the state’s general fund. This helps to eliminate the incentive for cops to police for profit. Though I have noticed that many city departments have been partnering with federal agencies. I assume it’s so they can keep a portion of what they steal.

    1. Here in Maine all fines and proceeds from stuff that the cops steal from people go into the state’s general fund.

      It would be really entertaining if it went to fund public defenders.

  11. Incidentally, calling it “civil asset forfeiture” is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

    The victims aren’t forfeiting anything. The government is seizing their assets.

    We should call it “asset seizure”.

    1. Or, to be even more succinct, “robbery.”

      1. Yeah, that one’s even better.

        If you take someone’s property under the threat of violence–unless it’s part of a sentence or A verdict in court proceeding? Then there’s a word for that, and the word is “robbery”.

    2. I think “armed robbery” is more accurate.

    3. True, but what kind of person expects the truth from those who take things from others? The real Newspeak is where they call it “asset sharing,” as, f’rinstance, in the INSCR document that caused the March flash crash.

  12. It says they need a conviction before they can keep the loot. I assume though that they’re holding it the whole time. I mean, if they didn’t then the accused might be able to afford an attorney instead of getting stuck with a public pretender. Can’t have that. They might decline the plea deal and win in a jury trial!

    1. I’ve said it before. These practices would have been considered revolution worthy by the Founding fathers.

      1. Yep. Except that we’re not the same wild people who fought the revolution. We’re their domesticated descendants.

  13. Example 65,744 of what happens when we abandon federalism and let the feds order the states around.

  14. Actual Trump quote:

    “”We will have so much winning when I get elected, you may get bored with winning!””

    1. You sure this isn’t spot the not?

    2. “I will be the best [X] candidate ever. You’re going to love it. You’re going to be so proud.”

    3. Anyone care to place bets on how long it is till he insists he’s a Vatican Ninja Warlock Assassin?

  15. The Institute for Justice provided a copy of an e-mail from a Treasury representative sent out last week that warned, “I highly doubt our federal agencies can figure out whether a conviction occurred in a timely manner. I’m not sure they would have the resources, desire, or technical capability. ?,/blockquote

    IOW: “We’re a bunch of lazy, incompetent fuckwits and don’t give a shit. We can’t be expected to do the slightest amount of due dilligence before fucking someone in the ass without even the God-damned common courtesy of a reach around.”

    At least they’re (almost) honest about it.

    1. More honesty. Tell me exactly how many bottles of vodka it will take to make this go away, Officer Friendly.

  16. Chip them all…

  17. Blah blah asset forfeiture violates due process like whoa, and it is obscene that the American public lets it happen, blah blah blah.

    I am tired of people talking about queers, so let’s put an end to that nonsense. No more queer talk!

  18. I know everybody’s slagging on Ken for talking about gay people, but I think you’re missing something.

    A big part of winning a test case is having the right plaintiff. Right now, gay folks are riding a wave of media/cultural celebration. Ceteris paribus, that could make them the right plaintiff for a case like this.

    “Equal Protection is nice, thanks for that. Could we get some Due Process, too?”

  19. Like it or not, so-called Law Enforcement, in my view, absolutely must follow the law. if they fail to so do, they are, in plain English, criminals in fancy dress costume, and nothing else. As to what appears to be their lobbying efforts to avoid the all to necessary restrictions on their antics, the legislature should reject their lobbying. Should members of the legislature fail to uphold their responsibility to the citizenry, then they too are, in plain English criminals, in fancy dress.

  20. Well put. We need pigs and persecutors to respect the law. Same for our weasel judges and politicians that let them do whatever they want.

  21. Asset Forfeiture absent a conviction or guilty plea by the individual whose goods are “forfeited” is, in plain English, theft. It matters not who the thief is, who the thieves are, or what flavor of uniform the thief or thieves might wear. Theft is theft. In such cases, the taking, absent conviction or admission of guilt, the “takers” should be held both civilly and criminally liable, without limits. No excuses, no baloney references or claims of “some greater good being accomplished” are acceptable. If officialdom isn’t bound by the law, then claims that the individual citizen is are ridiculous.

  22. In Texas one small town on the Interstate made a great deal of money on asset forfeitures by simply stopping travelers, asking everyone if they minded a search for contraband, then if there was any money on these travelers, they confiscated it as contraband.

    Lots of small money amounts (less than $5000) were confiscated, some from folks who were going to the races across the state line in Louisiana.

    The thing is, the travelers have to sue in court to get their money back and if the amount is relatively small, are you going to get an attorney to travel to this small town and go through all the legal work of a lawsuit to get it back. Most didn’t have the money to do that as it wasn’t economically feasible.

    The small amounts add up and are usually safe to steal….er…confiscate….since the supposed drug dealers can’t afford the legal followup. Ironically, the big amounts that might actually be drug money are more often disputed in a lawsuit for recovery by folks who might be drug dealers.

    1. That’s are government bums for you! They steal from innocent people all the time!

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  24. This asset forfeiture is not a new thing. A Senator conveniently named John Glenn pushed for exactly the same thing during Herbert Hoover’s prohibition enforcement administration. Glenn, who favored legalizing beer, recommended 100% asset forfeiture for all beer barons. Within six months or so every bank in America had shut down. This 2007 “Subprime” crash was more of the same, this time with hemp as the pretext.

  25. The possibility of losing federal dollars obviously contributed to the decision to eliminate the state-level asset forfeiture fund.

    Sounds like the fear that modern American governments have of raising taxes is coming home to roost! States and local governments in particular have become dependant on FEDERAL money to tide them over.

    Levying taxes is the governmental equivalent of an individual working at a paying job. Both provide the money needed to pay the bills. When an individual who can’t–or won’t–get a job becomes dependant on social security they get castigated as bums living off governmental handouts. Yet apparently it is now acceptable for governments to live off governmental handouts themselves. That way they can bitch about the evils of taxes without having to levy taxes themselves (which is the equivalent of someone living off welfare bitching about the evils of working for a living). They see it as a win-win–until the handouts threaten to dry up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.