On Civil Asset Forfeiture in the United States

SolitaryRoad.com

Website owner:  James Miller

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Info ] [ Mail ]

Does it seem wrong to you for anyone (including any government entity) to take anything from someone (money, automobile, house or anything else) unless they can prove that he got it illegally? If you feel it would be wrong, why do you feel it would be wrong? What would be your basis for that sentiment? Some deep basic sense or inner knowledge? Is there such a thing as an absolute right and wrong in this world or is right and wrong just whatever some governmental authority says is right and wrong?

The following article is from the SovereignMan.com financial newsletter:

___________________________________________________________________________

November 30, 2018

Denver, United States

[Editor's note: While Simon is traveling today, other members of the Sovereign Man team penned today's missive.]

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year — hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

To your freedom,

Sovereign Man Team

___________________________________________________________________________

Here is another article on the same topic:

Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit

By Mark Joseph Stern

Nov 28, 2018

Tyson Timbs just wants his car back. In 2015, Timbs was charged with selling heroin to undercover officers in Indiana to fund his opioid addiction. After he pleaded guilty, a private law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state to confiscate his Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000. That’s more than four times the maximum $10,000 fine for Timbs’ crimes. But because he briefly carried drugs in the vehicle, the firm claimed that it could seize and sell it, turning over some of the profit to Indiana and pocketing the rest.

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil asset forfeiture, also known as legalized theft. Every year, the federal and state governments obtain billions of dollars thanks to the work of prosecutors who expropriate property with some tenuous connection to a crime. Most states use the money to fund law enforcement, called policing for profit. Indiana also lets private attorneys file forfeiture claims against defendants, earning contingency fees and a share of the profit. That’s what happened to Timbs—so he sued, insisting that extreme forfeiture violates the Constitution. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled that it agreed, with an unusual coalition of justices assailing the practice. A decision for Timbs could curb law enforcement abuses across the country, limiting one of the most scandalous components of our criminal justice system.

In a sense, Timbs v. Indiana is a pretty easy case. The Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of “excessive fines,” and the Supreme Court has already recognized that the forfeiture of personal property qualifies as a “fine” for constitutional purposes. It has also ruled that fines may not be “grossly disproportionate” to an offense. When the government seized Timbs’ car—which, again, is worth vastly more than the monetary penalty for his crime—it would seem to have imposed a grossly disproportionate fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

But, weirdly enough, the court has never explicitly held that this rule restricts state governments. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, as the Framers were hesitant to limit state sovereignty. After the Civil War, Congress drafted the 14th Amendment with the intent to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights against state governments as well. Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that almost all these rights did, indeed, apply to states. That’s why neither Congress nor your state government may infringe upon your freedom of speech, authorize an unreasonable search, or compel self-incrimination. But the court has never had an opportunity to squarely state that the excessive fines clause is “incorporated”—until now.

There is little doubt that the justices will use Timbs to incorporate the clause at long last. Under long-standing precedent, a right that is “fundamental” to “ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted” in history receives protection under the 14th Amendment. And in its extraordinary brief, the Institute for Justice—the libertarian firm representing Timbs—demonstrates that the right against excessive fines checks both boxes. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta and safeguarded by most state constitutions when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. When Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, lawmakers argued that it would nullify “Black Codes” in Southern states that levied crippling, arbitrary fines on newly freed slaves. There is really no plausible argument that the right against excessive fines is not “fundamental” or “deeply rooted” and thus incorporated against the states.

So when Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher approached the lectern to argue that the excessive fines clause doesn’t fully apply to Indiana, Justice Neil Gorsuch pounced. “Can we just get one thing off the table?” he asked. “We all agree that the excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states. … Can we at least agree on that?” Fisher hedged, but Gorsuch shot back: “I think a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would probably be a good starting place.” Fisher tried to suggest the truth was more complicated, but Gorsuch cut him off, noting that most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated “in, like, the 1940s.”

“And here we are in 2018, still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights,” the justice said. “Really? Come on, General.” He leaned back in his chair, grinning like the cat that caught the canary.

Although Gorsuch led the charge, no justice seemed to think that the Constitution permits states to impose excessive fines. So Fisher raised a backup argument, alleging that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t bar forfeitures of property, only money. The problem with this claim is that the court rejected it in 1993’s Austin v. United States. So Fisher asked the court to overrule Austin, further flummoxing Gorsuch.

“Let’s say this court’s not inclined to revisit Austin,” he told Thomas. “You’re going to lose not just the incorporation question but the merits question too.” Justice Stephen Breyer asked if Indiana could seize a Bugatti if it was going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. “Yes, it’s forfeitable,” Fisher responded. Breyer mused: What about a “Mercedes, or a special Ferrari or even jalopy?” Fisher laughed at Breyer’s fanciful hypotheticals. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Gorsuch’s new criminal justice ally, looked unamused.

“Justice Scalia said it very well,” she told Fisher, quoting Scalia’s opinion in Austin. “For the Eighth Amendment to limit cash fines while permitting limitless [property confiscation] would make little sense.” Instead, it would revive England’s notoriously lawless Star Chamber. Gorsuch nodded vigorously in agreement. “Are we trying to avoid a society that’s like the Star Chamber?” Sotomayor asked. “If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today … many of them seem grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged.”

She’s right. In Philadelphia, prosecutors seized one couple’s house because their son was arrested with $40 worth of drugs. Officials there seized 1,000 other houses and 3,300 vehicles before a 2018 settlement that led to reparations for victims. In 2014, federal prosecutors used asset forfeiture to take more stuff than burglars. One Texas police department seized property from out-of-town drivers, then colluded with the district attorney to coerce these drivers into waiving their rights. Law enforcement frequently targets poor people and racial minorities, figuring they are unable to fight back.

Although he said nothing on Wednesday (as usual), Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the court’s fiercest critics of civil asset forfeiture. In 2017, he wrote a solo opinion urging the court to rein in the practice. Citing its “egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas asserted that the Constitution likely does not allow police to “seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use.” And in 1998, he authored a 5–4 decision, joined only by the liberals, outlawing forfeitures that are “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense.”

So while Gorsuch and Sotomayor led the fight on Wednesday, there’s probably a cross-ideological coalition of justices prepared to invalidate excessive forfeitures. Such a ruling would reflect broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that forfeiture has gone too far. Among the organizations that wrote or joined amicus briefs supporting Timbs are the progressive ACLU and NAACP; the libertarian Cato and Goldwater institutes, as well as the Pacific Legal Foundation; the conservative Chamber of Commerce and Judicial Watch; and the fundamentalist Foundation for Moral Law, which is “dedicated to the defense of God-given liberties.”

Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed any interest in allowing civil asset forfeiture to continue unabated. A majority of the court seems poised to rule that all 50 states must stop seizing property in a way that’s grossly disproportionate to the crime committed—a holy grail of criminal justice reformers. In one fell swoop, defendants will receive new protections against the legalized theft of their stuff. And Tyson Timbs, who attended Wednesday’s argument, can demand that Indiana return the Land Rover that it never had a right to seize in the first place.

___________________________________________________________________________

The following is an article that I copied back in 2008 about what seemed to me to be a terrible travesty of justice against a fellow who had unwittingly caused the death of some bald eagles.

Missouri Man Who Killed Bald Eagles Is Pardoned

Associated Press
Monday, December 1, 2008; A05

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 30 -- Leslie Owen Collier was surrounded by cattle at a livestock auction when his cell phone rang. It was the White House.

Twelve years after pleading guilty to federal charges in the deaths of three bald eagles, Collier learned that his name was cleared: He was pardoned by President Bush.

"I guess I was humbled is the best way to say it -- I never thought it would happen," Collier, 50, said in a phone interview. "It was emotional. I almost came to tears, really."

Collier was among 14 people pardoned by Bush on Nov. 24. The president has granted 171 pardons overall -- less than half as many as the other most recent two-term presidents, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

The 1995 incident that changed the life of the farmer from the Charleston area of southeastern Missouri began when he noticed an increasing number of wild turkeys, which were believed to have died away. "I got it in my head that if I eliminated some of the coyotes it would give the turkeys a jump-start" on their comeback, Collier said.

So he put out hamburger meat laced with the pesticide Furadan in an effort to kill the coyotes. It worked; seven coyotes died.

The problem occurred when the eagles fed on the coyotes' carcasses. They died, too. So did a red-tailed hawk and a great horned owl, among other animals.

The birds are federally protected, and killing them is illegal. Collier said the crime became a felony when the second eagle died. He pleaded guilty in late 1995 and received two years of probation.

While he did not go to prison, the conviction was hard on Collier. He was ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution. As a convicted felon, the hunter had to give up his guns.

Beyond that, there were the occasional news articles and Web postings referring to Collier as the guy who killed bald eagles, America's national bird. Sometimes in town, he said, he would get looks that were difficult to ignore.

"For a while, you think people kind of look at you different," Collier said.

But many in and around Charleston, a town of about 5,000 residents, felt Collier was penalized too harshly because he did not intend to hurt the eagles. Among those in his corner was Lanie Black, then the state representative for the region, as well as a friend.

Black and other supporters began writing letters seeking a pardon. Several months ago, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway contacted Black and requested the full story. Hanaway had been asked by a pardon attorney for the Justice for input about the possibility of a pardon.

___________________________________________________________________________

I don’t know about you but when I hear about a gross travesty of justice, I feel outraged. That is the way it hits me. I repeat the above:

In Philadelphia, prosecutors seized one couple’s house because their son was arrested with $40 worth of drugs. Officials there seized 1,000 other houses and 3,300 vehicles before a 2018 settlement that led to reparations for victims. In 2014, federal prosecutors used asset forfeiture to take more stuff than burglars. One Texas police department seized property from out-of-town drivers, then colluded with the district attorney to coerce these drivers into waiving their rights. Law enforcement frequently targets poor people and racial minorities, figuring they are unable to fight back.

I ask this question: How can people in positions of authority — prosecutors, lawyers, district attorneys, policemen --- do such terrible things to people? How can they commit such crimes against conscience, against justice? What kind of justice system do we have that allows them to get away with gross injustices like this? All of the lower courts of Indiana decided against Tyson Timbs. He had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for justice. What kind of system do we have that it is so hard to correct obvious injustice?

What do these kinds of things tell us about the moral character of our lawyers, prosecutors, policemen, governmental officials? I guess they feel they can do anything that is not specifically, technically illegal. Conscience or morality means nothing to them. Stomp on people, cheat them, steal from them. Nothing is off limits. No conscience or sense of right. They transgress the limits of conscience in just the same way that Hitler and the German people did in Nazi Germany in their terrible atrocities against the Jews. Lawyers with a good, detailed knowledge of the law calculate just far they can go in ripping people off, plundering them, and still remain technically within the limits of the law. And many others very carefully calculate just how far outside the law they can go in the way of lying, deceiving, and robbing people with only a minimal chance of being caught. And then there are others who are very bold in their misdeeds. They boldly, brazenly, brashly lie, deceive, and rob in the belief they can get away with murder in our system without actually being arrested and imprisoned for it.

Why does it take all kinds of obtuse, arcane legal arguments up on the Supreme Court to arrive at laws that are morally just and right? I can tell you what is right or wrong without using any formal argument whatsoever. I just know what is right and wrong. It is a knowledge I was born with. And it is closely connected with the teachings of Christianity. (And with reason and common sense.) The problem is most people don’t have that Christian orientation. So they don’t know what is right and wrong and you can’t get any consensus on right and wrong. So lawyers try to determine justice through examination of legal precedent. Is legal precedent a valid way to establish right and wrong?

And by what obtuse, arcane legal arguments has the Court managed to enact such gross travesties of morality as laws making homosexual marriage legal? You can’t determine justice and morality by abstract legal argument. And you can’t arrive at it by political consensus. Morality lies outside legal argument. It is law given by God. If you don’t believe in a God you can justify anything you wish by sophistical argument.

Dec 2018