I've read articles about how some police departments are training their staff to engage in this behavior and using forfeiture as a profit center. What they are doing is wholesale theft.
No time limit nonsense, get a warrant. Charge them with a crime. That's the law no matter what the idiots running courthouses in this country think, your precedent has no power here.
Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth.
People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.
It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent.
Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies.
Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.
If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights.
If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights.
Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied.
Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!
The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can say anything you want "in the public square" or "with a free press".
For example, go to the public library, or a government building, and they will have a little patch of land designated as the "Free Speech Z0ne" where Jehovah's witnesses and PETA fanatics camp out and hold up signs and vie for your attention.
You can go on Facebook and say stuff, but that's not "First Amendment Free Speech", that's a "private platform" and Facebook's standards control your speech there, not the First Amendment.
I am sorry but you will never convince me that private companies should have more power than the government. It's such an idiotic premise on so many levels and it blows my mind that people like you still come around with that bullshit xkcd comic as if it means anything or is a sound argument for censorship.
Again your 2nd amendments can not supercede my right to keep gunners off my property. It's my property not yours. You can walk around all day with your 50 cal rifle on your property and (lots of ) public land, depending on the state
I could go on...
Relevant XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
You can consent to searches all you want without giving up your rights to not have your stuff taken.
But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent.
Strike: ~~The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.~~
Edit: To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries claims the Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. Further, they created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. So property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.
Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot.
IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening:
Bennis v. Michigan
"On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime."
https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/
Civil versus criminal forfeiture
"...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.
For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t.
No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
> No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought...
Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?
No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope.
That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.
Also while I am ensured of this right by the constitution, the passage "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." affirms that these rights are not granted but instead fundamental. Like the first amendment and others this is one of the "certain unalienable rights" granted by our creators.
Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."
The government suspects someone of committing a crime? File charges and bring them to court.
At the very least, CAF should require a warrant. Cops should not be able to seize assets as part of a typical traffic stop.
I just can't see how CAF has survived so long without being ruled a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The police exist to maintain and protect existing power structures, including the police themselves.
A lot starts making more sense in that context.
Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.
In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands.
Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.
Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority?
Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide.
What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?
I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc.
I mean this list is just from the top of my head.
We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.
The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist.
If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.
You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost.
Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it?
Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?"
No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare.
Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11.
It costs a buck o'five, by the way.
Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows.
-------------
Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting:
> Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order
Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that?
----------------
Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law.
"During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1]
This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army.
Going further back to British history:
"Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2]
Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting.
Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King:
> Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2]
In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution.
In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not.
If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.
[1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/#
[2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html*
* [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.
Police exist because they were funded by governments. They are the way they are because of the various incentives, organizational politics, their day-to-day experiences on the job, and the minds of the people who staff them. Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
The first step to fixing a system is to understand it. Taking a valid description and twisting it in to an accusation of a "fascist plot" is a great way to ensure you will never understand the system in the way which is required to actually improve it.
But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well, which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
You're right about number 2, though.
supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.
Here is a 20 year old very famous book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...
I think this is fairly evident, yes.
> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.
> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.
Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?
That's the picture as it exists today. If you don't see existing power structures anywhere in that picture, you may need [new] glasses.
Congrats, you just provided a description of "power structures". Now you know.
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot
Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
The problem with a phrase like 'power structures' is people who use it get to define it to be whatever they want it to be. You're telling me here that it means 'incentives and organizational politics' (factors that affect any group of humans, regardless of the political 'power' of the group's constituents). But other places I see definitions like 'banks' or 'rich people.'
>Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
That's my reaction when someone tells me I'm a part of a power structure -- they're effectively calling me a fascist. I think it's a fair reaction given the way political conversations go these ways. I appreciate your attention to close reading, though, and am genuinely sorry to hear you don't trust my commentary.
This is a good point. Fascism is made up and has never existed, and it certainly has never been created or perpetuated by police. It is a mystery why anyone would make a statement otherwise when the better option of discussing theoretical incremental change is on the table.
Going to police stations and identifying issues with them, and describing them in apolitical terms, and asking the police chief to consider and act on them, and voting him or her out if they don't act on them, is more 'revolutionary' than standing outside their office with 'ACAB' posters.
I'm reminded of the line about how hard it is to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on their NOT understanding it.
I like that saying, too. But not sure it applies here -- there are huge numbers of lawyers who like talking about 'power structures.' It may have been invented by us. We lawyers invented, for example, critical race theory.
You could be right, though, maybe I am biased. I'd be interested to learn how.
Police has lots of problems in USA. But go live in the country without effective police force first, and then talk about how police isn’t here to enforce laws and justice.
Police here are not interested in justice, and this is trivial to prove based on their behavior.
Courts have also ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens.
Policing in the US is fundamentally broken. That there exist places with worse policing problems does not mean ours are not serious, foundational, and endemic.
Is it? There are bad stories, sure. Horrible ones, yes. Police officers who should be in jail for life - yes!
But there’s also a tons of good stories, that just don’t get reported, because they don’t generate outrage and clicks.
Cops do what is easy, by and large. The overriding motivations in the job do not align with the values that the public would actually WANT from a police force. They are not required to "protect and serve," and have actually argued in court (and won!) that they are not required to protect anyone.
They are protected by a union with absurdly outsized power, which prevents real accountability in all but the most egregious cases. These unions and their fellow-travelers work hard to prevent common-sense recordkeeping on national violent incidents by cops, and to avoid any kind of national peace officer licensing and certification that would keep bad cops "fired" by one city from just drifting to the next town over and continuing their behavior.
Cops, in the US, are part of the problem.
Police can have big problems, that you mention, and at the same time can be interested in justice.
Are software engineers force of evil, because of lot of them work for companies that disregard privacy and make billions of dollars off it? And are not required by law to follow ethical standards?
I feel like you're either very naive about American policing, or you are unwilling to engage with this in good faith, so I'm going to bow out here -- but your comparison is honestly risible.
I’m agreeing from a start, that USA police has tons of issues. But it’s not a lawless institution. Really, go live in a country without effective policing and then we can talk if USA police is only bringing lawlessness to the table.
The cops can get a warrant. If they can’t convince a judge then they don’t need to seize anything. The police serve us, not the other way around.
They know who they serve. Seems to be themselves.
It doesn't go into a budget. It doesn't fund anything else. Anything collected goes to victims or it goes back to the people.
This would stop ALL of the perverse incentives.
That would help a ton though.
The idea is that let us say the normal price of electricity would be e.g. 10c / kwH. To incentivize people to use less electricity we charge 20c/ but the extra 10c go to the fund which at the end of the year is split evenly between all electricity consumers.
So basically everyone pays 20c x consumption -10c x (average consumption).
This is more difficult if 100% of it goes out the door. Hypothetically you could still get ecosystem issues, though. Where an org argues for more fines so that their existence is justified and that they don't shrink. etc.
we're discussing the incentives that lead to police becoming thieves. Which is just as important as the police being thieves. Assuming you want to fix the root cause, at least.
You don't think as long as they have incentive to fine more as it directly influences their budget, that it might affect their actions towards fining and seizing citizens? Are you saying it's unrelated?
edit: To word it differently, do you think solving this one problem will end their association with your money and their budget?
We have fundamental concepts like equal representation and equal treatment under the law that clearly show CAF to be wrong.
I'm really tired of seeing internet commentary on "tough on crime" attitudes where people think victims are basically judge and jury, possibly omniscient, and their hurt and revenge fantasies should decide policy for millions of unrelated people, supersedes the needs of everybody else, like our need to have an impartial justice system and prevent wrongful conviction.
But getting back to your comment, if you want to know where the "perverse incentive" is in your proposal, it creates incentive for someone to falsely present themselves as a victim of a crime.
I think you are slightly confused. Civil asset forfeiture does not require any crime (hence civil asset forfeiture, rather than criminal asset forfeiture), and the government charges the property itself, the owner is a third party claimant.
The language of the clause means you can't disconnect persons, houses, papers, and effects.
People are secure in their persons, their houses, their effects.
It's not a weird quirk of some conflicting criminal/civil law.
It's part of the document that binds all other laws.
Making people a third party to their effects means you could also do that to their person, which is complete nonsense.
> Civil asset forfeiture does not require any crime
But it certainly does require suspicion of wrongdoing. You can't just walk up and take something from someone just because you don't charge them.