Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions w/ local, state police

[_CY_]

That case is not about asset forfiture, it was a counterfeit credit card case. The standard set by it would not apply to asset forfiture since Leo's would be looking at the card balance.

Also there's a ton of hype out in the media right now, most of the info in the media is false. The erad's only work on stored value cards, like the visa gift cards you see at walmart or get when you return merchandise without a reciept. It does not access your checking/savings or ira accounts.

I've personally seen this system in testing and know what it can/can't do. Used "properly" It's a valid tool, although it does have the potential for abuse.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

thanks very much for your first hand information. to me ANY seizure without due process is a violation of the Forth Amendment. if this is correct, it's not possible for civil seizures on the road to be legal.

when would civil seizure be "properly" used?

====

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Foghorn]

thanks very much for your first hand information. to me ANY seizure without due process is a violation of the Forth Amendment. if this is correct, it's not possible for civil seizures on the road to be legal.

when would civil seizure be "properly" used?

====

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I've been involved in several siezures, all resulted in criminal charges.

In several of the cases the subjects had trafficking weight of narcotics and large amounts of cash (over 20k).

In another subject had only a large amount of cash (elaborate electronic false compartment) but acknowledged under Miranda he was transporting money for a well known narcotics group.

I'm perfectly comfortable with these seizures.

I've let money roll on several occasions (more than my yearly salary on a few) because I didn't think I could make the case in court, personally I'd rather lose on the highway than in court.

I've said before that asset forfiture needs to be reformed, I just think that loveless' plan is not the right path.

Hope this answered your questions..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Glocktogo]

I've been involved in several siezures, all resulted in criminal charges.

In several of the cases the subjects had trafficking weight of narcotics and large amounts of cash (over 20k).

In another subject had only a large amount of cash (elaborate electronic false compartment) but acknowledged under Miranda he was transporting money for a well known narcotics group.

I'm perfectly comfortable with these seizures.

I've let money roll on several occasions (more than my yearly salary on a few) because I didn't think I could make the case in court, personally I'd rather lose on the highway than in court.

I've said before that asset forfiture needs to be reformed, I just think that loveless' plan is not the right path.

Hope this answered your questions..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

If the ones digging their heels in on ANY reform would just admit the system as it currently stands is open to abuse, the Loveless plan probably wouldn't be so harsh.

 

[_CY_]

I've been involved in several siezures, all resulted in criminal charges.

In several of the cases the subjects had trafficking weight of narcotics and large amounts of cash (over 20k).

In another subject had only a large amount of cash (elaborate electronic false compartment) but acknowledged under Miranda he was transporting money for a well known narcotics group.

I'm perfectly comfortable with these seizures.

I've let money roll on several occasions (more than my yearly salary on a few) because I didn't think I could make the case in court, personally I'd rather lose on the highway than in court.

I've said before that asset forfiture needs to be reformed, I just think that loveless' plan is not the right path.

Hope this answered your questions..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

according to Loveless the average seizure in Oklahoma amounts to about $1,200, with 99 percent of seizures falling below the $50,000 threshold, so the bill would protect the majority of innocent victims of asset seizure. http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_a96da58d-7ce2-5c3a-b67a-b942602681f0.html

if above is true then your scenario with huge qualities of narcotics and $20k+ sums of cash are the rare occasions where seizure might actually be justified.

assuming numbers Loveless used are correct, what about the other 99% of seizures averaging $1,200?

“An agency shouldn't be able to grow its budget based on how much property it takes,” Loveless said.

He cited examples of a district attorney who took up residence in a seized home and another who used seized funds to pay off student loans. He said that’s the reality of the situation, one that he said has to change.

“We've already seen too many examples of civil asset forfeiture being abused in Oklahoma and around the nation,”

 

[Foghorn]

Loveless is taking all seizures and lumping them together while only talking about one type of siezure.

Roadside siezure verses other types like investigative.

Investigative is I use a CI to buy drugs from you then arrest you. You have 1200 in cash in you pocket so I seize it. Or a street cop arrests a guy with intent weight narcotics and seizes the 500 in cash he had.

Roadside is a cold stop, officer develops reasonable suspicion to detain or is given consent to search, finds 200k concealed in a floor trap.

Although the outcome is the same they are different and should be treated as such.
The way he presents the stats make it appear that the folks doing interdiction vacuum up the change from under the floor mats on every stop.
That ain't even close to the truth. 99% of the siezures he's talking about had nothing to do with interdiction.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Foghorn]

according to Loveless the average seizure in Oklahoma amounts to about $1,200, with 99 percent of seizures falling below the $50,000 threshold, so the bill would protect the majority of innocent victims of asset seizure. http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_a96da58d-7ce2-5c3a-b67a-b942602681f0.html

if above is true then your scenario with huge qualities of narcotics and $20k+ sums of cash are the rare occasions where seizure might actually be justified.

assuming numbers Loveless used are correct, what about the other 99% of seizures averaging $1,200?

“An agency shouldn't be able to grow its budget based on how much property it takes,” Loveless said.

He cited examples of a district attorney who took up residence in a seized home and another who used seized funds to pay off student loans. He said that’s the reality of the situation, one that he said has to change

“We've already seen too many examples of civil asset forfeiture being abused in Oklahoma and around the nation,”

That da should have been prosecuted and disbarred somehow the bar association got him out of it. Now it's up to the locals to vote him out, or tar n feather his a$$.

In my opinion local control is always better than state or federal oversight. It's easier for the public exert control at the local level.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[_CY_]

Loveless is taking all seizures and lumping them together while only talking about one type of siezure.

Roadside siezure verses other types like investigative.

Investigative is I use a CI to buy drugs from you then arrest you. You have 1200 in cash in you pocket so I seize it. Or a street cop arrests a guy with intent weight narcotics and seizes the 500 in cash he had.

Roadside is a cold stop, officer develops reasonable suspicion to detain or is given consent to search, finds 200k concealed in a floor trap.

Although the outcome is the same they are different and should be treated as such.
The way he presents the stats make it appear that the folks doing interdiction vacuum up the change from under the floor mats on every stop.
That ain't even close to the truth. 99% of the siezures he's talking about had nothing to do with interdiction.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

which is exactly the point of Loveless legislation, those 99% seizures averaging $1,200 NOT falling into interdiction catagory. but as you pointed out the results are the same .. cash and/or property seized without due process. which without getting into specifics of each case sure seems like a direct violation of our forth amendment.

one point that cannot be disputed is the fact that seized funds are going directly into operating $$$ of arresting agency. when we are talking about millions of $$$ of additional funding. It's impossible those millions $$$ of seized assets NOT affect how that particular LEO agency operates.

it doesn't take an accountant to figure out legal costs to recover said $1,200 could exceeds recovered funds. with defendant and/or citizen never charged end up owing attorney additional $$$, even if said $1,200 successfully was recovered.

 

[_CY_]

That da should have been prosecuted and disbarred somehow the bar association got him out of it. Now it's up to the locals to vote him out, or tar n feather his a$$.

In my opinion local control is always better than state or federal oversight. It's easier for the public exert control at the local level.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

totally agree local control is always better .. the exception of course is when things are totally out of control. which clearly is the case in Oklahoma. then the feds NEEDS to step in.

when 99% of seized funds are potentially violating the 4th amendment, the say 1% of legit drug interdiction seized assets are being thrown out with the 99% bad. sorry but the numbers favor Loveless proposed legislation. our existing system of asset seizure is out right being abused!!!

 

[Foghorn]

totally agree local control is always better .. the exception of course is when things are totally out of control. which clearly is the case in Oklahoma. then the feds NEEDS to step in.

when 99% of seized funds are potentially violating the 4th amendment, the say 1% of legit drug interdiction seized assets are being thrown out with the 99% bad. sorry but the numbers favor Loveless proposed legislation. our existing system of asset seizure is out right being abused!!!

Could you provide some cases for reference? Not doubting you, just never heard 99%. Iirc even Loveless only provided like 4 or 5 examples out of the 100's that occurred last year.

Don't get me wrong, even one abuse of power is too many, I just don't think it's as bad as the media and people would have us think....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[dennishoddy]

I read in our local news paper today that said only prepaid CC can be seized, although data from regular CC can be obtained.
http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/06/07...ces-to-seize-funds-loaded-onto-prepaid-cards/