Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

[dennishoddy]

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/07...o-return-69g-spent-on-hellcat-muscle-car.html

Fox 5 reports that the U.S. Department of Justice has asked the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office to pay back $69,258 that it received from a federal program that distributes seized drug money to law enforcement agencies, which was used to buy the 707 hp Dodge Charger Hellcat in May. ... The black sedan is being used as Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway’s official car...


First we pick your pocket, then we buy a 700+ horsepower Dodge to take racing with that money. While I concede it doesn't note if the funds were criminal or civil forfeiture, I'm going ahead and taking the leap of assuming a good portion of the federal seizures were civil asset forfeiture.

Was it to take racing, or to enable pursuit of a high powered vehicle? I have no clue, but it's an option.
For the record I'm 100% not in favor of the current forfeiture laws.

 

[Dave70968]

Was it to take racing, or to enable pursuit of a high powered vehicle? I have no clue, but it's an option.
For the record I'm 100% not in favor of the current forfeiture laws.

From TFA: "The black sedan is being used as Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway’s official car, which the DOJ said differed from the use stated in the application for the funds as an 'undercover/covert operations' vehicle."

So...it's the sheriff's plaything.

ETA: "The department has also used the car to promote a “Beat the Heat” community outreach program, where citizens get to race against police officers on drag strips and are taught about the dangers of street racing and distracted driving." So, racing...and the sheriff's plaything.

 

[MacFromOK]

Seems like the phrase "public servant" gets lost in translation an awfully lot... :/

 

[dennishoddy]

From TFA: "The black sedan is being used as Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway’s official car, which the DOJ said differed from the use stated in the application for the funds as an 'undercover/covert operations' vehicle."

So...it's the sheriff's plaything.

ETA: "The department has also used the car to promote a “Beat the Heat” community outreach program, where citizens get to race against police officers on drag strips and are taught about the dangers of street racing and distracted driving." So, racing...and the sheriff's plaything.

Possibly part of the best looking Highway patrol program?
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/ge...ected-nation-s-best-looking-2nd-straight-year

 

[Dave70968]

Meanwhile, in neighboring Alabama: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-000-meant-to-feed-inmates-bought-beach-house

 

[sanjuro893]

I remember once on Flashpoint, D.A. David Prater was shouting at a state representative because he had introduced limits on asset forfeiture. Prater stopped trying to make a point after a minute and just started calling him "anti-cop". Once he did that, it stuck. Every law enforcement agency came out against this "anti-cop" legislation.
If they said imminent domain is legal, I wouldn't be surprised if they said the same about CAF. Personally, I think any agency that takes somebody's property without due process is violating their oath and a bunch of thieves. I don't give a damn if it's legal, It's WRONG.

 

[CHenry]

I can see that point of view. And in a way I agree with it. But then you get into the motivation aspect of law enforcement. Lets face it, a certain percentage of cops are lazy and will not enforce the law unless there is a tangible reason to do so. IMO those cops need to be removed and replaced with people who become cops to make their area safer for the average citizen. That being said people need motivation to do anything. Traffic fines, jail time, asset forfeiture, and loss of privileges/rights are all negative motivation to get people to comply with the law. Without a way to enforce negative motivation for cops not enforcing the law, there has to be a positive motivation. Its a double edged sword but such is the way with people. We could scream that all cops should be saints with guns, that they should strictly adhere to precise principles, but this is real life.

We could think up ways to make this better and with each new idea there would be probably a dozen new ways to abuse that idea. Until we can have robots that are not susceptible to laziness, corruption, poor anger management and basically everything that CNN shows us about cops, we have to work with the reality that some cops are going to abuse their power. We have to find a way to create an oversight for those few while providing sufficient motivation for the middle of the road cops to enforce the law.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't know man, that's pretty far out their. lol Motivation for a cop to do his job hu...

 

[Tanis143]

I don't know man, that's pretty far out their. lol Motivation for a cop to do his job hu...

No different than any other job that offers incentives. That money helps to buys new cars, new equipment, etc. Say the police bust a drug ring and seize $250k in cash. Why should that go to the state (and end up in a politicians pocket)? The cops did the work. And the argument that there is a possibility (yes, I know it has happened) for manufactured cases to claim seized items is flimsy. That same argument could be used in many scenarios to limit or remove an activity.

The point though, is civil forfeiture is wrong. Seizing assets that were used in the commission of a crime as evidence is different. Upon a guilty conviction those assets should be forfeited. If found innocent or charges dropped, all seized items, including cash, should be returned to the accused.

 

[dennishoddy]

No different than any other job that offers incentives. That money helps to buys new cars, new equipment, etc. Say the police bust a drug ring and seize $250k in cash. Why should that go to the state (and end up in a politicians pocket)? The cops did the work. And the argument that there is a possibility (yes, I know it has happened) for manufactured cases to claim seized items is flimsy. That same argument could be used in many scenarios to limit or remove an activity.

The point though, is civil forfeiture is wrong. Seizing assets that were used in the commission of a crime as evidence is different. Upon a guilty conviction those assets should be forfeited. If found innocent or charges dropped, all seized items, including cash, should be returned to the accused.

The problem with your conclusion is that the assets that are seized are being done so without a court of law requiring them to be seized when you talk about incentives.
If they bust a crime ring, they should have to prove the assets actually came from the crime, and they don't currently have to do that.
The big house and cars could have came from an inheritance but they disregard that. It's just seized.
Then the person that has been adjudicated guilty before any trial loses their constitutional right that protects one from that very thing.
Then they have to sue the state to gain their property back which may not even come close to what the trial costs and attorney costs may come to, so most just say fawk it, which is what Civil Forfeiture is all about.

 

[D. Hargrove]

Gwinnett County is one of the Stars of LIVE PD, surely the car is just a prop for TV...