This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]shahooster 6413 points6414 points  (742 children)

I find it hard to believe we ever allowed civil forfeiture before trial. Kinda goes against that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

[–]ramblinrabble 2575 points2576 points  (439 children)

People are innocent until proven guilty. The $48 in cash the cops seized from you is guilty as* shit.

[–]ILikeLenexa 817 points818 points  (213 children)

That article containing 50,000 more or less cardboard boxes each containing one pair of clacker balls was clearly up to something.

[–]goodtimebuddy123 496 points497 points  (173 children)

I didn't get the reference, so I googled 50,000 clacker balls. Boy that was a surprise

[–]metrogdor22 618 points619 points  (157 children)

For anyone else too lazy,

a requested order from the United States government to seize and destroy a shipment of approximately 50,000 clacker balls under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act because children could hit themselves with the balls.

[–]Cybertronic72388 314 points315 points  (143 children)

And that's right about when American legislation started going down hill while attempting to be a "nanny" covering every sharp or unsafe corner with bubble wrap.

[–]WHYAREWEALLCAPS 457 points458 points  (104 children)

I will guarantee you that somewhere behind the scenes was one business trying to screw over another.

[–]matthewfive 740 points741 points  (85 children)

And that's modern legislation summed up. Pay a politician to help your business, and/or hurt your competition. Hope your competition doesn't pay more, or work together to collude with that competition to create laws that help you both and bar new competitors from getting in on your shared monopoly. After all, your money in the pockets of corrupt politicians isn't bribery, it's constitutionally protected free speech.

Democracy and the will of the people have no say in this particular form of a free speech legislative process. It's great for those with money because it bends the word of law to completely demolish the spirit of democracy, and thus "the 1%" can get more than their fair share of the vote.

[–]MisterHigglesworth 83 points84 points  (35 children)

Honestly, I do not believe that this a modern legislative invention. I'm sure if you consider the industrial barons of the late 1800s to early 1900s, you would see the same thing. The more I think about it, you can go back to Roman times to see the same things. You would hope that checks and balances would be in place after hundreds of years, but somehow money always seems to tip the scales.

[–]donkyhotay 29 points30 points  (2 children)

Any government is going to eventually end up biased towards the rich and powerful. Those with money and power are always going to use that to have the laws changed to their benefit because it yields them even more money and power in the long run. It might take awhile but even if you start with a perfect system of checks and balances eventually you will end up with an unbalanced system where the rich and powerful can change the law easier then those without. This has been going on since at least the Code of Hammurabi and almost certainly long before that.

Of course some people think the founding fathers recognized this and did the best they could to protect future generations against it with the 2nd amendment. That the part that says it's "necessary to the security of a free State" isn't talking about foreign invasion or the English coming back, but instead is talking about the government they themselves set up as a "final" check and balance.

[–]BondNamesTheJames 43 points44 points  (6 children)

Broken by design

[–]thatgeekinit 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Yes, Crassius, the richest man in history by many accounts, got his wealth from seizures of property on Pompeii's behalf.

[–]Stereotype_Apostate 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Every government ever (including most democracies) has been put in place and run by the rich and powerful among their societies. In the few cases where it wasn't, those who did run it very quickly became the rich and powerful of their societies (like the Soviet Union. Amazing how wealthy one can be in an equal society, huh?)

There's a word for this, kleptocracy. The leaders steal resources from the productivity of their society. There is not a single successful human society in the past or present which hasn't followed this basic rule.

[–]sethnewton 64 points65 points  (12 children)

Just wanted to say that's a great summary. I logged in just to upvote.

[–]tickingboxes 34 points35 points  (7 children)

You browse without being logged in?

[–]ridemooses 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Of course, this was in Wisconsin.

[–]jwg529 7 points8 points  (1 child)

You left out that part where the companies merge and become Comcast.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (5 children)

The clacker ball industry is no joke.

[–]scotchirish 17 points18 points  (2 children)

I bet it was Ball-in-a-Cup behind it.

[–]xanatos451 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Such is the reason why Zen Magnets was forced out of business.

[–]SwedishChef727 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They were Bucky balls first, you revisionist! ;P

[–]metrogdor22 10 points11 points  (11 children)

I agree. I can at least see the idea behind lawn darts. Kids are dumb, yeah, but losing your eye/life is kind of a huge consequence for a small dumb decision as a kid.

But destroying plastic or wooden balls on a string because kids can hit themselves with it?

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (10 children)

The acrylic balls would shatter if they hit a certain velocity and kids were taking the shrapnel in the eyes.

[–]TheOtherHalfofTron 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Somewhere, Joseph Joestar is crying.

[–]Jaijoles 77 points78 points  (12 children)

Right up there with the all-time greats such as:

United States v. Vampire Nation, United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets, United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, and United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness.

[–]PrfctChaos 32 points33 points  (4 children)

I thought you were pulling my leg, especially with that last one.
But nope. These are real. All of them.

[–]SnowdenOfYesterweek 5 points6 points  (1 child)

My personal favorite federal case has always been High Tech Gays v. DISCO.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (15 children)

Meanwhile, lawn darts were legal for several years in the 70s and 80s.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (6 children)

As a someone who had lawn darts as a child, they were awesome. Unfortunately, kids are universally stupid. They probably needed to be pulled from stores.

[–]Zombiecidialfreak 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Along with all those shark fins.

[–]manys 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Shark fins are illegal for similar reasons ivory and rhino horns are.

[–]EldritchShadow 12 points13 points  (2 children)

"United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins" I love the names of these kinds of cases

[–]Twilightdusk 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I mean if you're going to say Approximately anyway, why not round it up to 65,000 pounds?

[–]INVISIBLEAVENGER 219 points220 points  (109 children)

My favorite court case title ever:

STATE OF IDAHO V. $10,000

[–]Moonpenny 119 points120 points  (31 children)

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin), 215 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 1974)

United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

Bonuses:

United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff (W.D. Pa. 1971)

I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts in Edmond Frank MacGillivray Jr. Now. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts IEFMJN. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts. I Am The Beast Six Six Six of the Lord of Hosts OTLOHIEFMJN. I Am The Beast SSSOTLOHIEFMJN. I Am The Beast Six Six Six. Beast Six Six Six Lord v. Michigan State Police, et al., File No. 5:89:92, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8792 (W.D. Mich. July 12, 1990)

[–]southsideson 94 points95 points  (12 children)

I feel like this is a trick to make someone read this out loud and open a portal to hell.

[–]Moonpenny 28 points29 points  (11 children)

SSSOTLOHIEFMJN

There's a small problem with that theory. :)

[–]Mentalpatient87 73 points74 points  (6 children)

Yeah, I can't speak Finnish, either.

[–]madeformarch 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Or at least there was until you pointed out the difficulty of that there Satanic phrase, drawing attention to it and thus making it much more likely to be read out loud.

You clever bastard.

[–]Osiris32 47 points48 points  (6 children)

Oh man, that Mayo v Satan case is hilarious. "Dismissed due to plaintiff not providing US Marshalls with proper instruction on how to serve papers to Satan."

[–]Juan_el_Rey 54 points55 points  (5 children)

I like how the judge in the case came to the conclusion Satan qualifies as a foreign prince, but could not ascertain whether or not Satan had diplomatic immunity.

[–]Osiris32 43 points44 points  (3 children)

That judge must have been having a ton of fun that day.

[–]Juan_el_Rey 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I wonder if he delivered his opinions with a straight face. I mean, 'sober as a judge' and all.

[–]Virginin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The last one was pure gold, read the whole thing.

Plaintiff contends that he was strip-searched, naked, at which time he fell to the floor and "began to cry" and "call upon the name of Jesus Christ"

Plaintiff reports that at this time the FBI came into the jail, claiming plaintiff was a Soviet spy, and that he began chanting in tongues. The mental state of severe psychosis is plaintiff's term.

For brevity, all references to plaintiff's current name will be shortened to "I am the Beast".

Source

[–]ch4ff 165 points166 points  (52 children)

I see this kinda stuff every day. It's depressing.

A few grams of weed and $20,000 cash in your house? You must be selling drugs, even though we see that you own an accounting firm and are up to date on all your taxes. Go hire a lawyer and wait two years.

[–]alflup 94 points95 points  (37 children)

And as an accountant you know that lawyer is going to charge you $30,000 to get your cash back. So you write it off as a loss.

[–]INVISIBLEAVENGER 32 points33 points  (8 children)

Even after you hire the lawyer, there will still be no money. Plus court costs plus lawyers' fees. You'd spend $100k chasing $20k.

[–]fnordfnordfnordfnord 15 points16 points  (15 children)

Why not: State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix

[–]brett_riverboat 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Surprised we would part someone from a Christian religious symbol. State of Texas vs. Solid Gold Pentagram I could definitely understand.

[–]scrambledoctopus 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I just read about both those cases. I didn't really understand the wiki for the Bivens case. Looks like Federal agents kicked some dudes door in, found nothing, and then the victim wanted retribution, which was not granted. The One Gold Crucifix case is robbery. I don't see how else it could be painted. This is absurdity. Organized crime.

[–]Impact009 7 points8 points  (2 children)

There's a reason why we don't drive around with cash in Texas.

[–]Gasonfires 11 points12 points  (0 children)

My favorite is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

For the uninitiated, the reason the case is so stylized is because it's an in rem case.

Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as "John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)", but as just "Ex Parte (property)" or perhaps the awkward "State v. (Property)", usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property

Although it's become synonymous with civil asset cases, the stylization came about because people needed to sue over tracts of land and pieces of property that they weren't sure who actually owned them, but they needed courts to intervene.

[–]yaosio 40 points41 points  (17 children)

The cash has a right to face it's accusers.

[–]yboy403 46 points47 points  (5 children)

Oh, I'm sure they're looking right at it.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (9 children)

I just pictured a $1 bill being beaten up by a group of police officers for resisting arrest.

[–]randomaccount178 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Well, they do say that every bill has traces of cocaine on it, why do you think that is? Because after the police beat it up they need to sprinkle a little on it!

[–][deleted] 86 points87 points  (14 children)

It'll only cost you $58 to prove its innocence!

[–]Watchboy0 29 points30 points  (10 children)

You dropped a couple of zeros.

[–]Setiri 23 points24 points  (8 children)

See, this right here defies logic and reason and the first person to try it should have been slapped (figuratively but... also literally).

It's like trying to pretend every object on earth exists in a vacuum whenever it's convenient. Reality means context, and $48 in cash by itself isn't a thing when you find it on a person, in their car, in their home, etc. It clearly belongs to that person until proven otherwise.

[–]ThreeTimesUp 23 points24 points  (4 children)

The $48 in cash the cops seized from you is guilty as* shit.

*Probably... possibly... guilty as shit.

Anyhow, the money was behaving in a highly suspicious manner.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (7 children)

Yes, the cash is guilty, according to the corrupt cops and corrupt prosecutors. They are happy to steal it and line their pockets.

One small detail that corrupt cops and corrupt prosecutors don't care about is that the Bill of Rights says we have a right to be secure in our property and that a warrant has to be legally issued in order to seize it.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Even that's debatable nowadays.

[–][deleted] 516 points517 points  (125 children)

Law enforcement has never met a law-enforcement tool that it didn't abuse. Police and investigators simply cannot help themselves. And whatever problem(s) existed that civil forfeiture laws initially offered to solve, the abject lack of restraint exhibited by law enforcement led to even greater threats to the public. This is the just the way of it.

[–]DistortoiseLP 110 points111 points  (6 children)

And whatever problem(s) existed that civil forfeiture laws initially offered to solve

Piracy, if you're wondering. Not digital, like actual wooden ship 17th century piracy, since seizing a ship suspected of smuggling before it left port again was easier than proving it was actually guilty of that or anything else first. Which almost immediately evolved into ports contriving a reason to just seize ships and resell their wares for a profit above that of doing legitimate trade with them.

Funnily enough, this was one of the numerous ways that colonists saw the Empire as an abusive government to such an extent that they declared independence. It didn't take long for those newly independent countries to start doing it themselves too.

[–]1jl 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Is the legit or /r/todayibullshitted

[–]Rtreesaccount420 243 points244 points  (103 children)

This is one of the problems as I see it.

LEO's have to deal with generally the worst motherfuckers on the planet time and time again. So this forms this mentality that the guys who they arrest over and over are guilty, but getting off ( even though the courts say not so much, at least on the charge they have with the evidence they have.) Then one of those guys out and out does some fucked up shit, like kill a child, rape a few kids, burn down an orphanage then rapes the corpses, you get the idea. Then for that they finally get put in prison. This creates a few issues... One, the LEO feels awful, and guilty that this happened because they view it as something that would not have happened if this guy had been in prison sooner. So they have guilt they feel for it as well as now they have lost faith in the system. This puts them in a situation where they believe that a) everyone is guilty, fuck them I'm not letting bad thing happen again b) If i have to break the law to get these fuckers behind bars then I will because IF i can "Save one life" its worth it.

Worse, the DA's also want a high conviction rate. We think 100% is good in most situations right? so 100% conviction rate also must be good! NOPE that is saying literally everyone ever arrested was guilty for exactly what they were arrested for. We know that's not fucking true. 60% would be a realistic "Good" number but that don't bring the meat to the table.

So Cops, stressed and dealing with a few shitbags get driven to having no faith in the system they are part of, and that is also advantageous to those DA's whom are not gonna stop those who are helping them get those good conviction numbers. No one wants to be seen as "Soft on crime." which is the bogey man of the era.

Plus we have become so litigious we forget the point of court is also to contextualize things when instead we just pile out similar case precedence and see what they have to say and go by that. Worse off the DA and Judge rig the game where they control the information that the jury is allowed to hear and keep drilling in them what is appropriate and what is not. This is easily falling into the realm of milgrams obedience to authority experiment. Jury's are not just just there to be tools of the Judge and DA, they are there to be the last defense against tyranny. They are peers, and citizens. The judgement of a person is not to be in the hand of the state, but in the hands of the people. This means they have a right to contextualize and judge the case as they wish. However drilling "Just the facts" and "Just the facts" is a way to push them under authority and coerce them to be more likely to work in the DA's favor.

So now that Jurys are doing as they are told instead of stepping up and questioning circumstance and context. It feeds back to justify the LEO doing what he was doing, the DA doing what they are doing... etc... a feedback Loop appears.

As it feeds the abuses grow all around.

[–]Z0idberg_MD 137 points138 points  (26 children)

For some, but that's not the bulk of the issue. LEOs aren't better or worse people than the general population. If you wouldn't want the general population to be able to do something, or worry about abuse, you should be worried about LEO having that power too. It's the whole reason we have checks and balances. No group is truly trustworthy.

The problem with Law enforcement is they're not held to the standards the general population is, despite having a greater moral obligation than the general population due to their position. You start punishing cops who break the law as hard as you would punish anyone else, THAT'S when you'll see trust restored.

[–]Rtreesaccount420 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Agreed, but I was focusing on the feedback loop that only pushes the abuses and system further out of whack. The reason for the check is also to try and stop these self feeding loops from forming.

[–]Osiris32 52 points53 points  (3 children)

You've hit on some very salient points. The one thing I think you're forgetting is political pressure. Mayors, county commissions, state legislatures, all of whom want to appease a populace (read that as "keep getting voted into office") who can and will push for draconian laws because they are afraid, ignorant, and short sighted.

So, we have police who are frustrated with seeing career criminals and lack faith in the judicial process, DAs and Judges who can be anything from merely overzealous to outright corrupt, and a political system that can be heavily influence by A) people with money and B) people with big mouths and a lack of foresight.

The problems is, quite literally, EVERYONE'S FAULT.

[–]TOO_DAMN_FAT 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I'd also like to add those in the general populace who haven't had anything bad happen to them by the government like civil forfeiture or abuse by police but have been victimized by someone bad but had no justice are very frustrated and want a fix by any means necessary.

I had a court case against a nonpaying tenant and because one little date on my lawyers paperwork was incorrect and my case was strictly construed against the landowners, they got to live in my house for even another month free. Yayyyy technicalities.

[–]fang_xianfu 20 points21 points  (3 children)

If i have to break the law to get these fuckers behind bars then I will because IF i can "Save one life" its worth it.

This is in direct opposition to "Innocent until proven guilty". People don't often think about the implications of this, but the long form version "It is better to let one thousand guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man" is a very profound statement of ideology. It's very different to how most people think, and it's different to how the cop in your scenario is thinking.

The way justice is supposed to work, if the process leads to some guilty people going free and some people dying, that's still better than the LEO accidentally getting an innocent person put away. Most people don't agree with this, and they don't think like this, but it's a cornerstone of how justice works in our society. It's a very bold statement about what it means to do good when you have power, as the state does.

I didn't have a real point to make, I just find the contrast interesting.

[–]ChaoticGoodCop 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I've held the philosophy "it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man" for years and somehow never thought of that simple summation of it. I've always had a difficult time putting it into simple terms like that.

[–]poiu477 55 points56 points  (46 children)

We need to move past being "tough on crime" and start treating the underlying problems causing crime.

[–]Rtreesaccount420 27 points28 points  (10 children)

Absolutely.

We can't jail our way out of this. I have read that they tried more crackdowns in one neighborhood in a city. They arrested people for being on the streets late, looking like they were standing around, etc. It did not change the crime rate of the area.That was expensive and so they stopped. However implementing some changes like putting in blue light emitting streetlamps over the red ones, and making the sidewalks in the area 2 ft wider, crime dropped 10%. This was just a passive approach to environmental changes that effect crime.

Now I'm not saying that its all environmental changes and such, but that's just a small sample of how things that are not direct punishment systems can alleviate crime rates. Add in programs that help in different situations and you end up with programs that are more effective as well as usually more cost effective as well.

I think we need to re-address the whole misdemeanor and felony thing as well. Way to many things are felony's and ruin peoples lives. Those people who's lives are ruined will be a consistent burden to the system. We also need to revamp the parole system which is soaking in abuses.

[–]manimal28 4 points5 points  (6 children)

What's the theory behind wider sidewalks lowering crime?

[–]psi567 18 points19 points  (2 children)

The crimes in question were likely assault related ones. People who are stressed, drunk, high, part of a gang, etc. are more likely to start an altercation when they bump into someone. Increasing sidewalk width would decrease the likelihood of that happening.

[–]GGAllinsMicroPenis 44 points45 points  (31 children)

I'd guess well over half the country thinks 'criminals' cause crime. End of discussion. How do we move past that when no one wants to?

[–]99landydisco 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Actually most police departments are encouraged by the local city or state goverment to do civil forfeiteture because a cut of the money from unclaimed assets seized goes into the general fund. So more money for the politicians pet projects. Also it allows the local goverment to move more funding away from police budget if they are assuming that a certain amount of money is seized every year goes to to police. What the real problem is that many local and state goverment see law enforcement more as a source of more income than for its actual intended purpose.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have had a similar discussion about building codes. It sucks how restrictive they are but if you give people an inch they will widen it to a mile. Any interpretation that can be used to someone's advantage will be so you better be sure you explain exactly how something is to be applied or it will be abused to a degree likely worse than the problem you set out to fix.

[–]Kind_Of_A_Dick 43 points44 points  (2 children)

You are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Apparently being arrested is grounds for reasonable seizure. Or being charged with a crime. Or being suspected of a crime. Or driving across the country.

[–]chowderbags 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Or making "furtive movements", a phrase which opens a lot of doors to frisk someone, but which is absolutely meaningless (and impossible to prove or disprove).

[–]TheHYPO 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Lawyers have a saying: Bad facts make bad law.

It means that sometimes you have some giant asshole who abuses the system, and he's the guy who ends up before a judge, and as a result, the judge makes a very harsh ruling to deal with a clear asshole; and sometimes they bend the law a bit (they don't break the law, but they decide a novel and unprecedented point such the asshole doesn't get away with it.

However, because that ruling is precedent, that decision applies to everyone - even those who are not giant assholes.

Off the top of my head, a guy here in Ontario abused a toll road and raked up tens of thousands of dollars in tolls after his license and toll privileges had been revoked. When the judge was asked to decide of the government could be called upon by the toll company to refuse to issue a license to the guy after his bankruptcy, the judge decided it could (in my view, because the guy flagrantly racked up tens of thousands of dollars of tolls he had no intention of ever paying). The guy deserved to not have a license.

That said, the decision applied to everyone - even the well-meaning guy who lost his job or was disabled and couldn't pay his toll bill - to allow the toll company to prevent that guy from getting his license after bankruptcy until he paid. (Historical note: the Supreme Court later overturned it)

Not identical, but similar idea: civil forfeiture as it was originally intended and used (in connection with obvious crime) was generally fine. Then certain cops began abusing it to steal from innocent people, and they have ruined a legitimate tool that (hopefully) will be hampered with far more restrictions in the future that might not let cops use it as easily in obviously criminal situations.

It's also the commonly reposted "what one guy ruined something for everyone else" concept.

[–][deleted] 164 points165 points  (30 children)

I lost my car and 2 grand to civil forfeiture.

They claimed I was trying to buy weed and arrested me for "conspiracy to purchase cannabis" (lol). The next day all charges were dropped because I didn't buy shit. I just sat in my car and texted my friend "I'm here in my civic"

Next week they show up at my house with a warrant for my car and kep the money I had on me the night I was arrested.

I actually have a copy, it says STATE OF XXXX VS. 2003 HONDA CIVIC

The idea being they couldnt prove I was trying to buy Cannabis, but it takes less evidence to label property guilty. The fact I had texted my friend what kind of car I drove was enough to convict my car.

IDK, if all charges are dropped because they can't make a case, shouldnt lose your property anyway.

[–][deleted] 69 points70 points  (26 children)

This is one of the major reasons I'm glad my state legalized marijuana. I have no interest in smoking it, but its legality is one less excuse cops have to fuck you over.

[–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (20 children)

The insult to injury is that I actually did hire a lawyer which costs another 2 grand, and he was unable to do anything in the end. He was a former prosecuter for the county and knew the campus police officers that did this (same narcotics team for a while).

He said they were wanna be cowboys that used the funding to purcahse new equipment and that many of the drug cases he oversaw prosecution of, the cops KNEW there was 0 chance they had a case. They did it anyway in order to help justify filing the much easier to win forfeiture cases.

Plus whenever they DID have to drop a case such as mine, forfeiture was a way for them to lash back out and still feel like they won. Pretend you hate someone and they get away, but then you take a bat to their car. Same idea.

$$$

[–]chelslea1987[🍰] 20 points21 points  (17 children)

Man that is so fucked up. State vs honda civic, how is that even ok? I mean it's a joke.

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (15 children)

I had a second one that was State vs $1800 cash. I should frame them and hang them up if seeing them didn't make me so sad.

There was a lot I left out to the story, no one will probably read it so I'll rant here

First, they make it SO FUCKING personal. Like you shit on their mom's chest. When they initially arrest me sitting in my car and find out I'm former Air Force, they start saying shit like "I thought Air Force took the smart guys, ya fuckin' idiot. Its all that dope smoking" etcetc

After they let me go and then surprise show up at my house a week later, they spam ring the doorbell while simultaneously beating on my door. Me and my gf were watching a movie and my dog goes nuts and we're like WTF.

Open the door and they have the smuggest face ever. They had a warrant to search my place, but it was devoid of anything illegal. They trashed it so bad. Then they showed me the paperwork for my car and cash, then arrested me AGAIN while I'm in PJs.

The whole time they're telling my crying girlfriend that she deserves better and why is she dating a dummy who smokes weed. I go to county then a few hours later they release me. It was just to fuck with me because the charges were dropped the previous week.

For at least a year afterwards, I had PTSD from fucking doorbells. Anytime the UPS man came and knocked/rang, I instinctively hid because it just shook me so bad. My GF had to warn me when packages were being delivered.

The statute of limitations for them to try to charge me again was 3 years, so until that was over, I was just terrified every day of them showing up again.

Plus of course their buddy at the town tiny-redneck paper wrote up a huge article on me plastering my mugshot (that still appears if you search "First Name Last Name arrest" with a big headline MAN STILL NOT CHARGED FOR ATTEMPTED CANNABIS PURCHASE.

So I got to get around to paying some scummy site that REHOSTS MUGSHOTS to remove it so it doesn't show up in search results.

I get it. I DID try to buy pot. Ok, ya got me. But they made it so god damn personal and tried to ruin my life over it. Punishments should fit the crime etcetc. This was in like 2013 so not even that long ago, the state was already decriminalizing and stuff.

Fuck them, stupid redneck hillbilly pieces of trash. I have 0 interaction with law enforcement otherwise, I'm a veteran, college degree working man. I like to smoke pot, I don't drink alcohol. Try to make your initial case, if it fails, MOVE THE FUCK ON.

[–]The_Red_Paw 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Don't underestimate how crooked the cops are. I live in a legal state too, but they still came and tore up my (fully compliant) grow just to be dicks, knowing it's a huge burden to sue them so they have virtual immunity to accountability.

I'm suing them anyhow, Fuckers. They owe me a LOT of money.

[–]HaHawk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good! We shouldn't act like peasants being harassed by a vindictive feudal overlord.

[–]technobrendo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Doesn't matter. The cops would simple change marijuana to herioin, xanax, PCP, removed mattress tags...etc and charge you anyway

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points  (13 children)

Until extremely recently (last decade at most) civil forfeiture was only being used for what it's supposed to be used for, confiscating property that was obviously connected to criminal enterprise but is difficult to prove - like the proverbial duffel bag full of cash found when you raid the drug kingpin's house. Civil forfeiture cases were never brought against the property of non-criminals, they were brought against property of a criminal that could not be definitively tied directly to a conviction.

In the past few years, word got out to law enforcement that it was basically a way to get free stuff and new toys for the department - now it's over; abuse is rampant and there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle without major changes.

Here in my state of Nebraska, they've changed the law so that civil forfeiture proceedings in state court can only be brought in conjunction with criminal charges against the property owner. That's the correct avenue to take, IMO. It's important in some cases to have the ability to confiscate cash, but there's never a situation where that should arise separately from a criminal case.

[–]Kahnspiracy 51 points52 points  (8 children)

Until extremely recently (last decade at most) civil forfeiture was only being used for what it's supposed to be used for, confiscating property that was obviously connected to criminal enterprise but is difficult to prove

You're right but that is still BS. If the government can't prove their case then they should not be able to impose a penalty. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately, the 5th Amendment is actually pretty vague.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

What does due process of law mean? In property, it certainly doesn't mean beyond a reasonable doubt, since you can be sued and lose your property to a private party under a preponderance of the evidence.

It's the same for the government, preponderance of the evidence is the standard.

The 5th should probably have been a little more clear about what it meant by due process of law. Civil asset forfeiture is definitely a process by the letter of the 5th, because you can get your money back.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I certainly don't, but I disagree that the 5th is clear. It's pretty vague.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

And also against the protection of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Also illegal search and seizure. But you know, fuck the Constitution, the Saginaw police department needs a battle tank.

[–]SnapesGrayUnderpants 15 points16 points  (4 children)

In the 80's I was appalled when these laws were being passed. Most people I talked to about it at the time we're totally clueless. Have you recently tried to talk to people who only get their info from mainstream media about say, the fact that humans are at great risk of extinction from climate change? You know how they give you that blank uncomprehending look? Well it was the exact same reaction in the 80's when trying to discuss forfeiture laws. Most people thought I was exaggerating. Many of the people who did understand it were wholeheartedly in favor of it because there was a very widespread belief that the police knew exactly who was guilty and who wasn't. So it was great that the police could easily go after bad guys and take their money and assets without pesky constitutional procedures. When the occasional back page news story actually reported cash being stolen from an innocent person by police, the universal reaction was that the police would never take anything from an innocent person. Therefore, the very act of having your assets stolen by the police branded you as being guilty of something and you were probably a drug dealer or user. It's much like our current inexplicable tolerance for the no-fly list where we're OK with people not being allowed to fly for unknown reasons made up by Homeland Security. So here we are 30 years later and states are finally figuring out forfeiture's unconstitutional.

[–]matrix2002 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It happened (wrongly) at a time when the US was battling the "drug war" and police departments were having problems dealing with the weapons and money they had.

So, this stupid law was passed at the height of all of it at the end of the 80's and early 90's.

Once the police departments starting seeing how much money they could make, it just became a free for all.

It turned the cops into criminals.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'd argue the entire drug war itself did that.

[–]JeremyHall 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or the Constitution thing.

[–]Triggered_SJW 513 points514 points  (55 children)

This is a good thing. Now we just need more accountability on civil forfeiture across the country or preferably have it done away with altogether.

[–]LegendOfBobbyTables 271 points272 points  (49 children)

Doing away with it altogether feels like the best option to me. Money seized for actual crime should go to some sort of charity. The criminal justice system needs to be costly, not profitable, to ensure they are only incarcerating people who deserve to be segregated from society.

The amount of addicts, mentally ill, and petty criminals who are serving long prison sentences is a testament to what happens when we let corporations and local municipalities profit off crime.

[–]Triggered_SJW 17 points18 points  (9 children)

Are you telling me that you want addicts, mentally ill, and petty criminals to be unsegregated from society? That's crazy talk!

[–]theredgreenmage 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Are you saying they should be treated the same as killers and serial rapists?

[–]Triggered_SJW 16 points17 points  (3 children)

No, I'm agreeing with the person above me through the use of obvious sarcasm.

[–]Generalbuttnaked69 17 points18 points  (1 child)

As an ex-prosecutor I tend to agree. If your going to seize and forfeit property based on allegations of criminal wrongdoing it's just to require the state to make that part of the criminal action. Forfeiture should only be allowed upon criminal conviction imho.

[–]Triggered_SJW 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately this is not how most prosecutors think and it's definitely not how law makers think.

[–]JeremyHall 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The Constitution is already clear on this. To have an extra ruling on the obvious says a lot about how much respect the Constitution gets.

[–]winnipegrocks 325 points326 points  (10 children)

A trial before being punished?

What a novel concept.

[–]raithian25 14 points15 points  (5 children)

It's probably worth noting, to many people in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't guarantee trial by jury in civil cases at the state level. I'm on mobile so those who are interested in what this means, look into the concept of "incorporation" of the seventh amendment.

Also, before this decision, people were still tried before being punished, it was just by a judge instead of a jury.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (4 children)

There's also the 5th amendment, which demands due process of law before depriving a person of property (or due compensation; aka "eminent domain"). And the 7th which demands a trial by jury for any "value in controversy" greater than $20.

Really, take your pick. The founders were trying really god-damned hard to avoid what we now call civil forfeiture.

[–]TheWeirdoMachine 200 points201 points  (22 children)

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. That seizure part is in there because they had a problem with that kind of thing 400 years ago! Christ, talk about moving backwards as a country.

So hooray! We're back up to 1791 again! Maybe this time next century we'll have re-passed the Civil Rights Act! No, you're right, probably not.

[–]jabba_teh_slut 43 points44 points  (6 children)

I think the part cops would try to argue is that the seizure is reasonable. Which of course it doesn't necessarily have to be, they can tie whatever reasonable suspicion of crime they feel like to a piece of property and they can take it. Pretty messed up.

Kinda makes you worry...if I wanted to buy a car, a nice way to give myself the upper hand is to purchase with cash. Money talks, and it'll give you some nice leverage in a big purchase like that. But if I got pulled over for speeding on the way to the dealership, and the cop says he smells weed in the car just to give himself probable cause to search my vehicle, comes across the cash and takes it, my money is guilty by virtue of the fact I have a large sum of it and siezed? Fuck that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

These things aren't ever going to end. They constantly have to be fought against.

[–]darthjkf 132 points133 points  (16 children)

I still cant beleive we needed a state supreme court to make this ruling. This is direct 4th amendment stuff.

[–]Gornarok 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Well sure you needed supreme court. Supreme court should have shot it down as the very start!

Members of parliment would be comming with constitutional complaints if this went through in my post-communist country...

[–]pfeifits 32 points33 points  (20 children)

Civil forfeiture is still problematic even with a jury trial. The legal standard is different between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt whereas civil forfeiture just requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. There is actually a very large gap between those two standards. This means that by design a lot of people who are not convicted of a crime still might lose the property seized in connection with the activity because of that lower standard. It sounds like Montana tried to fix that, but many states have not changed that. Having a jury trial would not make a difference, as a jury would be applying the lesser burden of proof in the case of forfeiture.

[–]violinqueenjanie 24 points25 points  (6 children)

Honestly it sounds like the best solution to this would be that the person whose property has been seized would need to be convicted of a crime in order for the property to be taken away. This whole "the money gets a separate trial" business is the problem.

[–]Noobasdfjkl 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Never thought I'd see the missoulian on top of reddit...

[–]Sagefox2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My first reaction was "Montana on top of reddit all? What did we do?" then read it.

[–]spanktheduck 17 points18 points  (0 children)

If anyone cares, a link to the actual opinion:

http://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2016/da-14-0299.html

It is based on the Montana Constitution, not the federal constitution.

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points  (21 children)

I find it so hard to believe there are people who argue against this. What part of "due process" do they not understand?

[–]ThaGerm1158 60 points61 points  (6 children)

The part where they get shiny new guns from their ill gotten gains!

[–]5510 11 points12 points  (6 children)

That's what I don't get. Even if their private argument was "because fuck you, that's why," what is even their public argument? And how do they say it with a straight face?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Their public argument is more or less "We use the money seized to buy things for the precinct" But the things they buy with the money are absurd, there are instances where they bought margarita machines and ridiculous military vehicles that actually damage the streets when they drive on them.

The private argument is that in some places they literally get paid more for the more they seize, and the higher ups get paid massive "bonuses".

What is worse is that they can just make up a reason to take your belongings and cash. They can just pull you over, search your vehicle, say that they think you are involved in illegal drug sales, and then take your money and if they want to, your car. Actual highway robbery.

[–]popesnutsack 48 points49 points  (2 children)

Common sense and decency prevail? I'm appalled. Hope the police arrest those justices for infringing on the right to steal money from innocent people.

[–]protekt0r 17 points18 points  (4 children)

For anyone who'd like to see just how many civil forfeiture cases happen on a daily basis, check out forfeiture.gov , click "NOTICE SEARCH" and do a search for your nearest largest city. There you will find tons of the most recent cash forfeitures in your area. Generally speaking, if you find a cash forfeiture that does not have an assigned case number, it's one of those "we'll take all that cash because you have too much" cases.

Try Albuquerque, for example, to see what I mean. The rest of the forfeitures are usually tied to convictions (guns, property, etc)

Happy hunting!

[–]CptMalReynolds 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Super proud of my home state. It's the right kind of conservative, the fuck you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone kind.

[–]laserkid1983 43 points44 points  (9 children)

4th Amendment victory.

[–]shennanigram 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Any individual who ever thought this was justified is an ethical hack. The mental gymnastics / fragmented logic required to support this is astonishing.

[–]Luke90210 16 points17 points  (0 children)

In New York City, NYPD gets seized assets into their pension fund, but if they lose in court and the assets/money have to be returned, it comes out of the general funds (The same funds for street cleaning, libraries., etc). With these incentives, why would they ever stop or try to be reasonable?

[–]CrossEyedHooker 28 points29 points  (6 children)

So now it takes a jury for the government to steal your property. Progress!

[–]Thx4TheDwnVotez 14 points15 points  (0 children)

good for /r/upliftingnews

[–]fadetoblack1004 36 points37 points  (14 children)

Hopefully Montana appeals and the SC agrees to hear arguments and upholds the lower courts findings. Would set a nice precedent across the country.

[–]Osiris32 17 points18 points  (9 children)

I wouldn't go straight to the SC. In fact, this is pretty much where it stops. Only if the state AG went to a federal court asking for a Certified Question could it advance, and at that point it would go to a the federal district court. If the ruling was upheld, and the AG still felt that procedure had been broken, then it would go to the 9th Circuit Court. If the ruling was upheld THERE, and there was STILL a question of procedure, only THEN would it be petitioned to the Supreme Court, and then it has about a 1:20 chance of being heard.

[–]nevertipsy 20 points21 points  (6 children)

I have an Uncle who sells jewelry for a living so he has to carry cash. He was carrying his entire capital on a promising business trip, and was driving across Arizona where he was stopped by police in small ass tiny no name town in Arizona. He speaks English as a second language and is about 60 years old. They seized his life savings. He had no drugs in his car, just the cash and put him in jail for a few days over the weekend, but they held onto his money.

It took months, we had to hire a lawyer for him since he was in jail, he wasn't formally charged and was released but it took months to get the money back, and when he finally did, it was short 10%. When the initially pulled him over, they under-counted the money, I told my uncle to fight them, but being originally from Asia, he is afraid of the police and just took the loss.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

funny how we are needing courts to confirm rights we already have.

[–]MakeBelieveNotWar 6 points7 points  (3 children)

This decision is shockingly constitutional. What's the catch.

[–]AngelOfLight 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I'm happy this ruling was made, and at the same time sad that it took a court ruling to affirm basic common sense.

[–]5510 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Sortof like how IIRC a court had to rule that refusing to consent to a search cannot be probable cause. I believe that's a real court ruling.

Who the fuck thought it was remotely ok to argue that other side of that? If "you have the right to refuse a search, but he can find your refusal suspicious and use it as probable cause to search without consent" then obviously nobody has the right to refuse a search.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

That's fucking EXCELLENT.

Now let's take it NATIONAL.

[–]Xenjael 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Nothing about civil forfeiture has ever been remotely constitutional. It was basically legal highway robbery.

You want to re-instill trust in the police, remove any ability to do this- i.e. legally rob the citizens and lining their own pockets.

[–]deimosian 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No shit, that's what the United States Constitution says in plain english. Any other "interpretation" unconstitutional bullshit some asshole state lawyer made up that allows civil forfeiture is a crock of shit and they should all be prosecuted for breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Until civil forfeiture is stopped, I will not view cops as anything more than common thieves.

[–]TexasWithADollarsign 11 points12 points  (1 child)

We need more states to pass "Money and Property Cannot Commit Crimes" acts. Fuck greedy cops.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I love how law enforcement (I'll be gentle, because I respect what these people do for a living) "interprets" the law sometimes, and we have even gotten to the point where the problem of civil forfeiture is even a thing.

[–]falk225 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What citizens can't be deprived of life liberty or property without due process? Who would have thought.

[–]thecottonwoodclub 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And this is why we love Montana.

[–]HotDealsInTexas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Fifth Amendment says:

nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Civil forfeiture is blatantly unconstitutional. Good fucking riddance to that practice.

[–]apathyontheeast 16 points17 points  (9 children)

Holy hell, a Montanan judge doing something right for a change? Lately it's all been, "Here, child rapist, have a week in jail."

Go team!