Comment by michaellosee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaellosee | Hacker News Reader

There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in spite of offering better than average protection from the law[1].

With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS. I expect ALS would benefit very little but at least it would save thousands of people from having their assets stolen by the police. It turns out I'm not the first person to have this idea. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR)[2] seeks to remove the profit incentive and conflict of interest from civil asset forfeiture (along with some other good ideas). There have been other attempts for reform in various states, but FAIR has a lot of potential to change things at the federal level.

1-https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california 2-https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644

> With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS.

That would certainly reduce the problem, but the correct solution is to prevent assets from being seized without criminal charges and require them to be immediately returned without further proceedings if the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assets are the proceeds of a criminal enterprise of which the owner/defendant is found guilty.

Good point. This has me thinking more about the root of the problem. It seems like the justification they use most of the time is related to drugs. Perhaps asset forfeiture is a another example of how the war on drugs undermines our civil liberties, and yet not even John Oliver has framed it that way.

I don't quite understand why ALS is of such a priority that it would be given the funds from forfeiture; I think all cash should be returned to the federal reserve and all other goods put up for auction. But only if a crime has been proven to have occurred and a conviction to stand right beside it.

And the DA's shouldn't be able to do this: "We've got you as the suspect for 7 different crimes, if you give us your house, we won't take you to trial" Person: "But I'm innocent!" DA: "Take your chance in court, or give us your house and we'll let you go on your merry way"

That statement was made tongue in cheek, mostly to illustrate that 1) police are only protecting and and serving themselves when seizing our stuff and 2) removing the incentive would help reduce the problem (along with other points made by you and AnthonyMouse).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com