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

[_CY_]

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

sorry I don't have specific cases, data comes from Loveless. that's why I've noted my comments are based on the assumption Loveless' data is correct. Loveless is alleging 99% of all seizures in Oklahoma are under $50k with an average of about $1,200.

whereas your examples of interdiction of drug carriers involve huge amounts of drugs and/or cash. which is clearly not the case for smaller average $1,200 seizures. again .. it's my belief that the average $1,200 seizure are financially not feasible to recover due to attorney costs involved. The numbers says virtually all seized funds will NOT be recovered regardless if defendant and/or citizen were charged or not.

this is flat not right and to me a clear violation of the forth amendment. last I heard our court system is based on the presumption of innocence. which is handily stepped around by filing charges against the asset, NOT the defendant and/or citizen that was never charged. this of course is total BS! and IMHO a violation of the 4th amendment.

'No justice at all': Sen. Loveless unveils details on civil asset forfeiture reform plan
http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_a96da58d-7ce2-5c3a-b67a-b942602681f0.html

SB 838 by Loveless and Echols
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb838

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB838 INT.PDF

 

[Glocktogo]

sorry I don't have specific cases, data comes from Loveless. that's why I've noted my comments are based on the assumption Loveless' data is correct. Loveless is alleging 99% of all seizures in Oklahoma are under $50k with an average of about $1,200.

whereas your examples of interdiction of drug carriers involve huge amounts of drugs and/or cash. which is clearly not the case for smaller average $1,200 seizures. again .. it's my belief that the average $1,200 seizure are financially not feasible to recover due to attorney costs involved. The numbers says virtually all seized funds will NOT be recovered regardless if defendant and/or citizen were charged or not.

this is flat not right and to me a clear violation of the forth amendment. last I heard our court system is based on the presumption of innocence. which is handily stepped around by filing charges against the asset, NOT the defendant and/or citizen that was never charged. this of course is total BS! and IMHO a violation of the 4th amendment.

'No justice at all': Sen. Loveless unveils details on civil asset forfeiture reform plan
http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_a96da58d-7ce2-5c3a-b67a-b942602681f0.html

SB 838 by Loveless and Echols
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb838

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB838 INT.PDF

That's the crux of the problem with CAF as it stands today. Without a conviction, they shouldn't be allowed to keep the money. It incentivizes shoddy work and places the burden of proof on citizens when dealing with an all powerful government entity. Law enforcement officers should not be roadside and in home tax collectors. It's a conflict of interest, particularly when they're directly benefiting from the haul. That's what makes it immoral.

 

[Foghorn]

sorry I don't have specific cases, data comes from Loveless. that's why I've noted my comments are based on the assumption Loveless' data is correct. Loveless is alleging 99% of all seizures in Oklahoma are under $50k with an average of about $1,200.

whereas your examples of interdiction of drug carriers involve huge amounts of drugs and/or cash. which is clearly not the case for smaller average $1,200 seizures. again .. it's my belief that the average $1,200 seizure are financially not feasible to recover due to attorney costs involved. The numbers says virtually all seized funds will NOT be recovered regardless if defendant and/or citizen were charged or not.

this is flat not right and to me a clear violation of the forth amendment. last I heard our court system is based on the presumption of innocence. which is handily stepped around by filing charges against the asset, NOT the defendant and/or citizen that was never charged. this of course is total BS! and IMHO a violation of the 4th amendment.

'No justice at all': Sen. Loveless unveils details on civil asset forfeiture reform plan
http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_a96da58d-7ce2-5c3a-b67a-b942602681f0.html

SB 838 by Loveless and Echols
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb838

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB838 INT.PDF

Ok, now I understand better. Thanks..

While Loveless's figures are probably accurate the 99% he's referring to are not roadside siezures like I have been involved in. They are most likely tied to ongoing investigations ie, cops made a buy, or stopped the person on the way to a pre-arranged buy/sale ect.
This is what I was talking about earlier with his figures. I don't believe it's proper to lump those types of siezures in with interdiction type roadside siezures. They are a different animal all together.
Frankly 1200 bucks isn't worth my time roadside to do all the paperwork, nor do I know anyone else who does what I do who would waste thier time on it. It'd be like going elephant hunting and shooting mice.

I'd honestly like to see the breakdown of the stats for only highway interdiction in oklahoma.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[_CY_]

That's the crux of the problem with CAF as it stands today. Without a conviction, they shouldn't be allowed to keep the money. It incentivizes shoddy work and places the burden of proof on citizens when dealing with an all powerful government entity. Law enforcement officers should not be roadside and in home tax collectors. It's a conflict of interest, particularly when they're directly benefiting from the haul. That's what makes it immoral.

+1 .. unfortunately abuse of CAF has grown all over USA forcing Feds to limit use of Federal laws for CAF.

"police have made cash seizures worth almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa...s-federal-civil-asset-forfeiture-program.aspx

Holder Severely Limits Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Program

January 16, 2015 |

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 evidence that a crime occurred.

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 Washington Post reports.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa...s-federal-civil-asset-forfeiture-program.aspx

 

[dennishoddy]

Your link is from Jan 16

 

[_CY_]

Your link is from Jan 16

Jan 16, 2015 is when Holder announced restrictions for use of Federal laws for CAF.
which also is the date/reason this thread was started.

 

[_CY_]

Ok, now I understand better. Thanks..

While Loveless's figures are probably accurate the 99% he's referring to are not roadside siezures like I have been involved in. They are most likely tied to ongoing investigations ie, cops made a buy, or stopped the person on the way to a pre-arranged buy/sale ect.
This is what I was talking about earlier with his figures. I don't believe it's proper to lump those types of siezures in with interdiction type roadside siezures. They are a different animal all together.
Frankly 1200 bucks isn't worth my time roadside to do all the paperwork, nor do I know anyone else who does what I do who would waste thier time on it. It'd be like going elephant hunting and shooting mice.

I'd honestly like to see the breakdown of the stats for only highway interdiction in oklahoma.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

thanks again for your valuable first hand feedback. actual breakdown stats for highway interdiction in Oklahoma would go a long ways in showing CAF working as it should. which if I understand correctly your earlier example of interdicting large drug shipments and/or cash on Oklahoma highways.

if 1% asset of seizures in Oklahoma are drug interdiction related. this cannot help but imply the other 99% of use of CAF should not be happening.

from one of the Washington Post articles on this topic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”

Civil forfeiture cash seizures
Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use.

Tulsa Police

Participated in 19 seizures

$625,694

of $1.9 million

Oklahoma City Police

Participated in 18 seizures

$346,833

of $3.6 million

Alva Police

Participated in 1 seizures

$331,997

of $442,750

Goodwell Police

Participated in 3 seizures

$264,431

of $589,764

Norman Police

Participated in 17 seizures

$251,949

of $4.2 million

Note: Table does not include statewide agencies or task forces and only includes local agencies who received more than $250,000.

Source: A Washington Post analysis of Department of Justice data.

 

[vvvvvvv]

In addition, other documents show that ERAD touted its relationship with the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office and listed a controversial Illinois law enforcement official who was heavily involved in the Desert Snow/Black Asphalt firms as a reference for the program.

DPS solicitation originally requested bank account and ABA routing numbers.

 

[_CY_]

Convictions now required to seize cash or property from criminal suspects

Law enforcement officials across California will no longer be able to share in the proceeds of most cash and property seizures unless there is a criminal conviction resulting from the case, under a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The legislation, authored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, represents a significant win for civil-right advocates, who have complained for years that the law gives police and sheriff agencies a financial incentive to seize cash and other assets.

“Why should private property be forfeited to the police agency which confiscated it when no conviction has shown any connection to a crime?” Mitchell asked, when urging Brown to sign her bill. “Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.”

“For years, asset forfeiture abuse has wreaked havoc on innocent people throughout the country, especially people of color, immigrants, and low-income people who cannot afford to fight the government in court,” said Mica Doctoroff of ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy.

The ACLU issued a report earlier this year that found what it called widespread abuse of federal civil-asset forfeiture rules.

According to the study, 85 percent of the proceeds of federally seized assets in California went to agencies in jurisdictions where a majority of residents are people of color. It also said half of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration seizures in California involved people with Latino surnames.

“SB 443 will not only rein in the abuse in California, but also offers a blueprint for workable solutions to other states seeking reform,” Doctoroff said.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-asset-forfeiture-20160929-story.html

 

[travisstorma]

California actually got something right.