New Mexico outlaws civil asset forfeiture | Hacker News Reader

New Mexico outlaws civil asset forfeiture

aclu-nm.org

188 pointshackercurious57 comments

Open articleView on HN

Link to the bill: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pd...

Here are the relevant details:

A. A person's property is subject to forfeiture if:

(1) the person was arrested for an offense to which forfeiture applies;

(2) the person is convicted by a criminal court of the offense; and

(3) the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture as provided in Subsection B of this section.

B. Following a person's conviction for an offense to which forfeiture applies, a court may order the person to forfeit:

(1) property the person acquired through commission of the offense;

(2) property directly traceable to property acquired through the commission of the offense; and

(3) any instrumentality the person used in the commission of the offense.

The concern I have with civil asset forfeiture is that the seized property goes directly to the sheriff. This gives the police a financial incentive to seize assets. Law enforcement is not an activity that should be conducted with a profit motive.

Even with limitations on what can be taken and when, I'd be more comfortable if it went into the state's general fund, or better a fund for recompensating victims of crime or accidents.

It's pretty similar to all these tiny city jurisdictions which finance significant portions of their revenue via fines, especially those that cover a couple of miles of major roads.

From the link (which you should check out):

> Hampton[, Florida] has existed, for whatever reason, since about 1925. Home to fewer than 500 people, it is located east of Highway 301 in north-central Florida. Some would say, actually, that it is located on Highway 301, as a result of an amendment to the town's borders in the mid-1990s. See if you can spot the amendment on the map below:

I kind of wonder how this practice squares with the famous ideal of "no taxation without representation". What we have here is a town of <500 people who voted themselves the power to levy taxes on unrelated drivers passing not even through, but nearby. The drivers, obviously, were not consulted. Why is the town supposed to have this power in the first place?

> I kind of wonder how this practice squares with the famous ideal of "no taxation without representation".

Any restriction will be worked around.

In general, these rackets allow municipalities to avoid raising taxes, or even bothering to ask, and it allows politicians to crow about not raising taxes, yet still have the revenue that honestly and openly enacted taxes would bring.

But I'm not trying to focus on the fact that they're raising revenue by calling their new taxes "traffic fines". That's true, and it's bad, but what's really "special" here is that they've legally enacted the holy grail, a tax on foreigners living abroad. Why would the town residents care even if this were actually called a tax? Conversely, why is the town supposed to be allowed to tax non-residents?

> why is the town supposed to be allowed to tax non-residents?

The argument would be the same for all speed trap/tax collection stations. It's not for revenue, it's for public safety. They would be irresponsible to not enforce speed limits.

In the case of the town in the article, it would be dangerous for drivers to not suddenly slow down from 65 mph to 55 mph for the 0.2 miles that the road passes through the town.

In general, it may help to keep in mind that you and I are nothing but resources for corporations, governments, law enforcement, spy agencies and other criminal organizations. The United States is a consumer paradise, in the same way that Argentina is a beef paradise. The land of the free range citizen.

The idea that people (collectively) have all sorts of rights to "their" land is pretty fundamental. If you're going to go after this there are bigger issues e.g. why does a country like Brunei with a tiny number of residents "own" the vast nearby oil reserves?

National borders are a military question. If you looked at the link, or just skimmed the quote I selected from it, you must have noticed that the town didn't decide to tax its own area; it annexed a nearby portion of a freeway and taxed that (seriously, go look at the picture). How do you think Malaysia would respond if Brunei suddenly claimed ownership of nearby Malaysian territory?

It's not a freeway, it's a highway. I went to school in Gainesville, FL and that road is on the way to Jacksonville, FL and it was a huge pain in the ass.

There was only a mile or two of road that the city "owned" and there were ALWAYS cops out. The speed limit went from 65 down to 40 a mile before the one stop light and then a mile after the stop light, back to 65.

Florida actually enacted a law saying that a city may derive no more than 25% of its revenue from fines specifically because of this city. I'm sure they immediately broke the law and just cooked the books for years until recently there was a big scandal and the city nearly had its charter revoked. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/us/hampton-florida-corruption-...

My apologies; to me there is no difference between a freeway and a highway.

No worries! The reason I make the distinction is that here in the US typically a freeway is something that has controlled access (on and off ramps) and no traffic controls like stop lights, stop signs, etc. Highways are much more up to interpretation but typically have higher speeds (hence highways) but may well have lights, much less controlled access, etc.

Brunei did suddenly claim ownership of a bunch of sea that had previously been unclaimed, as have many nations in the past. That town didn't claim that piece of highway "off" another town (and I can imagine there would be arguments if they did).

Cities in the United states have no authority not granted to them by the state. If the people of Florida felt strongly about it and organized, they could have the speeding zone removed.

Well, I asked

> Why is the town supposed to have this power in the first place?

not "why does the town have this power in the first place?" The scenario you describe is ludicrous; Hampton received state attention when it ticketed a representative, not because there was a grassroots movement in the other 99.99% of Florida. Some perspective:

- They annexed a 0.2 mile stretch of highway. Imagine trying to keep track of all the roads in your state in 1000-foot increments.

- Hampton appears to be, by eyeball, somewhere between 1 and 4 square miles (eyeballing this isn't totally ludicrous because, with the exception of the since-abolished freeway patch, it's a square). Call it 4 square miles. Florida is 70,000 square miles.

So the level of scrutiny required here does not and cannot exist. Why does a tiny hamlet that happens to be located near a freeway get the right to unilaterally declare that the freeway is now part of town and start hitting up everyone who passes by for cash? There's no sane reason for them to have this power.

I'd argue that the profit motive is fine, private security works without this problem. The issue with asset forfeiture laws is that they create an incentive to violate the fourth amendment. The funny thing about this New Mexico law -- all it does is echo the Constitution. It shouldn't be necessary.

>I'd argue that the profit motive is fine, private security works without this problem.

The payment incentive is very different for private security. They don't get to seize property.

The more relevant analogy would be privateers. Turns out they did have similar problems going off their assigned duties and sometimes dropping their charter altogether and just becoming pirates.

Sure, that's pretty much my point. It's all about the incentives. When the job description and rewards say "take people's stuff," then that's what they'll do.

The evidence suggests this isn't a fix. Some states do have the proceeds of civil forfeiture go directly to the general fund... still abused.

Until recently, there was even the loophole of bringing the feds in, have them seize it, and then they'd give 90% back to the PD.

To some extent, this still works despite Holder's speech to the contrary. The AG has failed to reign in federal law enforcement agencies who refuse to follow the order given.

Civil asset forfeiture can't be reformed. Period. It has to be abolished.

Frankly, I think requiring that the property owner has to be convicted of a crime before the property can be seized qualifies as a real "reform".

And that is functionally the difference between "civil" asset forfeiture and "criminal" asset forfeiture. To be sure even criminal asset forfeiture can be abused, but it is significantly more difficult, and you have to be convicted first.

And at some level criminal asset forfeiture is a just response because without it you create perverse incentives (a white collar crime that nets you 100 million and 5 years in jail, is a very good exchange of time for money if there is no forfeiture to take the "ill gotten gains.")

What I'd like to know is if NM is the first state to ban civil AF? I'm happy to be a NM resident today, but I wonder if we are a aberration?

Not to over simplify, but liberals tend to favor limits on police power, and conservatives tend to be split between the so-called "law and order" conservatives who want power the police and harsh sentences, and the libertarian conservatives who want strong limits on police powers. NM tends to have a lot more libertarian conservatives than a lot of other parts of the country making us a good location for this law.

> The concern I have with civil asset forfeiture is that the seized property goes directly to the sheriff.

It usually doesn't; most state law forfeitures go to general funds, not the seizing law enforcement agency. Local agencies doing forfeitures under federal law were allowed to keep some of the proceeds directly, but these forfeitures have been curtailed (the asset sharing with agencies still exists, but the opportunities for locals to seize assets under federal law or have them "adopted" as federal seizures have been reduced.)

New Mexico has banned civil asset forfeiture and the death penalty and has legalized same-sex marriage.

Good to see at least some US states behave like they're in a first-world country.

Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I'd say most people in the west do.

Politically correct thoughtcrime / dissent = Downvote, I like it.

Disagree about what?

Civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with the definition of "state of law" (it's what you'd expect in some totalitarian banana republic, really).

Not allowing for same-sex marriage can not really be justified except for religious reasons. And if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.

The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. The way it is practised in the US (in effect, the way it has to be practised to maintain any claim of being a civilised society) is extremely costly to the tax payer.

Assuming that killing innocent citizens is the amongst the worst things a government can do, the death penalty also can't be morally justified in anything other than a nearly perfect justice system (which the American justice system evidently is not).

Which point exactly are you disagreeing with?

> if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.

But religious people can exercise their right to give input in the formulation of law---the same right all citizens share regardless of the philosophy that guides them to favor one position over another. After all, arbitrarily excluding religious viewpoints from public discourse would be discriminatory, would it not?

Thank you, New Mexico!

And now I know where to store my assets. Thanks, HN!

Relevant John Oliver segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Just entered to comment how much impact a spotlight from a single comedian could have. We should call it the cosby effect.

I don't think Bill Cosby ever convinced anyone to pull their sagging pants up and besides, he might be a rapist.

It was needed one comic to not shut up about Cosby being rapist for the whole issue to cause his downfall. That is why it is the Cosby effect. The same as Streisand effect is named after Barbara.

Do you have any evidence that he's a rapist? I know he hasn't been convicted, so I would hope you at least have something more than an unfounded accusation.

There's been an update since the joke: Over a dozen women have openly accused Bill Cosby of being a rapist. I know it has been widely reported, so I would hope that you aren't reducing the statements of those women to "an unfounded accusation."

It is a classical case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said ... don't we hate when it happens like that.

Actually, that's the technical definition of "unfounded accusation". I don't have to reduce, that's what it is.

Sorry, I only have dozens of unfounded accusations that say he might be a rapist. Do I need something more substantial to say that he might be?

20+ women, all telling eerily similar stories spanning across 4 decades ... it is enough to extinguish reasonable doubt for me.

Then a better name would be the Hannibal Buress effect.

It has happened with major pieces of legislation a few times at least; another high-profile comedian well-acknowledged to have turned the tide of public discourse is Jon Stewart. His work on the daily show single-handedly ensured that the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was passed a few years back.

Single-handedly is a bit much (and kind of an insult to every one else involved in passing the Zadroga Act). Stewart would be among the first people to tell you that, i think.

It's more true in this case than anything Jon Oliver may have done (who indeed tapped into a wider, already-existing movement to end civil as was mentioned elsewhere on this thread). The Zadroga Act was severely at risk of not getting passed; it was dangerously close to the end of the congressional session and the Republicans had filibustered it.

Following Stewart's focus on the bill several notable republicans came out in harsh criticism of the filibuster. To quote Robert Gibbs after the fact: "[he was] still holding out hope for passage with Stewart's help." Add to that the general acknowledgement that he was instrumental, I don't think it's a stretch. Certainly not an insult, I'm only talking about final passage of the bill, when the Republicans had it hopelessly filibustered at the end of a session.

As for what Stewart would say, I guess he would say that his show follows one about muppets because he wants to make sure people don't mistake his comedy for general political activism. But it's a mistake to conclude from that that he doesn't have significant weight when he chooses to get involved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-lauds-jon-stewart-fo...

>his show follows one about muppets because he wants to make sure people don't mistake his comedy for general political activism.

That always bothered the shit out of me. He refused to accept responsibility for the influence of his message as he made fun of Fox News and right wing politicians for doing the same thing every night. He used the "I come on after puppets making crank phone calls" as an excuse to not have journalistic integrity. He was often accused of being one sided and basically a funny talking head for progressive politics and his answer was always "this is a comedy show. We should be mad at shows where people actually get their news"

Which is great, until people start getting most of their news from him...

I think you're attributing cause where none exists. The writers for these shows know what bills are up before the legislature and they time their broadcast accordingly, in order to perpetuate the notion of their participation in the zeitgeist. While I don't doubt that Oliver brought attention to the issue - it was more than likely in the pipeline for months before hand, which is why his writers put it on the 'current issues' stack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com