Asset forfeiture, the cash cow of the drug war

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
http://www.vice.com/read/bad-cop-blotter-asset-forfeiture-the-cash-cow-of-the-drug-war

During a July 9 traffic stop in Meridian, Mississippi, police found $360,000 stashed in a secret compartment in the car. Though that’s perhaps an eyebrow-raising amount of money, readers of that linked article might notice something odd—the driver was let go, but the money was kept by the cops. The unnamed individual may or may not get that cash back, but whether they’re charged with a crime is not necessarily the point. If you have a suspicious amount of cash—sometimes much less than 360 grand—the cops can seize it, and it’s on you to prove that the money isn’t connected to a crime. This is the intersection of civil law’s low burden of proof for prosecutors and criminal law’s aggressive reach. And it’s done a lot to fund bad police policies.

One example of cops using asset forfeiture aggressively comes from a report by a Fitchburg, Massachusetts, newspaper on local motel owner Russell Caswell, who battled the government for three years over his right to keep his own motel. Authorities made 15 drug busts there between 1994 and 2008, but Caswell was never charged with any crimes. Having successfully managed to keep his property, Caswell now intends to lobby for changes in the civil asset forfeiture laws that brought him dangerously close to losing his livelihood.

Although state laws regarding asset forfeiture vary, thanks to the practice known as “equitable sharing” local and state police keep up to 80 percent of the profits from selling off the property they seize from criminals, as long as federal law enforcement is involved in the case, however tangentially. And in civil forfeiture cases, like that of Caswell, the owner of the property’s guilt is not the issue debated—if the property was used for crimes, it can be seized. The Justice Department’s asset forfeiture fund was at $1.8 billion in 2011, and it gave away nearly half a billion dollars to local police departments. If the law changed, a lot of that money would disappear, and we all know how much government agencies cling to money.

With rewards like that, who wouldn’t prioritize drug crime, when that’s the only kind of investigation that will bring in new patrol cars and help maintain expensive SWAT teams? You could use that money to buy football tickets and home furnishings, as a district attorney in Georgia did. Cops in Pittsburgh bought $10,000 worth of Gatorade, officers in Bal Harbor, Florida, took trips to LA and Vegas and rented luxury cars, and other DAs and police chiefs have bought everything from tanning salons to booze for parties.

Such headline-ready corruption sticks out, but those examples aren’t the biggest issue with asset forfeiture laws in the US. The system is an endless feedback loop of drug busts that result in seized property leading to more more funding for fancy cop gear that is used most often for drug busts. These absurd policies that incentivize police to prioritize drug arrests because that's where the money is have got to end.

Now on to this week’s bad cop stories:

cont: http://www.vice.com/read/bad-cop-blotter-asset-forfeiture-the-cash-cow-of-the-drug-war
 
yea the system is a joke
they get a drug dog to sniff the money, give a false indicator and then good luck getting your money back without hiring an expensive lawyer
 
Why do we as citizens need to be victimized by our do called protectors....? How can we as citizens stand up to our abusers without taking our lives into our hands?
 
cops seized the money in my wallet (few hundred) when they found drugs in a car. never convicted, and I had to sign my right to the money away to be released from legal hell.

basically cops stole my money.
 
Yep seventy six dollars for me because I had rigs on me. Seventy six dollars!?!!have fun at the strip club fellas...you earned it.
 
The Constitution...but does it even mean anything anymore??

Yes, it protects a woman's right to have an abortion under a famous 1973 Supreme Court ruling, according to the right to privacy. But that privacy only seems to cover abortion, at least as far as controversial topics go. Hell, it doesn't even cover homosexuality which is not nearly as harmful even if it's controversial. Physician assisted dying using barbiturates should also be covered but it isn't and again it's nowhere near as potentially psychologically damaging as abortion is since when is allowing someone to die peacefully psychologically harmful? Forcing someone to die in agony from cancer is far more damaging. Cannabis doesn't even appear on the radar screen as far as psychological harm goes. Even if it does benefit so many people, abortion has been proven to cause enormous psychological damage that does not go away with time but the Feds are OK with that. Some drugs benefit people too, but the right to privacy doesn't apply to that. Only to abortion, which begs the question. What was the push for abortion really about, especially since it happened many decades ago? Privacy, women's rights, or some Nazi/population control agenda? Bear in mind that women always had the right to abortion in Britain and Australia if they were raped or if the mother's health was at risk, so we'll leave that out.

That about sums it up. The Constitution as we know it is well and truly dead.
 
Top