TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

android wrote:This is absolutely how it should be done.

Yeah, sorta, I guess... But IMHO that's like saying a law which prohibits the government from getting bored and bulldozing somebody's house is "how it should be done"... It's better than a law stating the opposite, but the simple fact that it's become necessary means we're past the canary in the coal mine WRT government corruption.

True....but it's a lot better to do it that way than for people to put up violent resistance against the government. At that point, the canary is out of the coal mine and into the oven.

....I hope we're still nowhere near that point.

Dave2 wrote: Speaking of which I'm kinda curious about the legal justification for it working any other way... I mean if the government's premise is that they can seize the assets of criminals because <reasons>, they can't continue to use the same justifications once they've failed to prove you're a criminal. Wouldn't laws that state otherwise be a violation of the 4th amendment?

It's a "burden" thing. I'll provide an example:
I own an easement to the lake. My neighbor, who owns the property, gated and locked the easement so I couldn't use it any longer. I consulted an attorney. I was given two pieces of advice:
1) I could fund the lawsuit and the eventual goal would be an injunction of some type against blocking the easement and if I was lucky, maybe cover my legal fees.
2) I could go out there and cut the lock off the gate. If the neighbor wanted to sue me for cutting the lock, he could.

In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.

Essentially, it's the notion that they're charging the -property- with being used in a crime, or being illicit proceeds from a crime.

Look up "deodand." It's an old, old legal "theory," and one that should have been buried centuries ago.

cb1000rider wrote: In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.

And they count on that. Say for example they seize $100,000. You're acquitted and not convicted of anything. Then you have to file suit to recover your own money. Often money for which you have receipts/bank withdrawl records/etc. Your suit is met with an offer to settle for less than half. And the unstated part is that you will easily spend far more than you'd recover in legal fees. The gov't has lawyers on the payroll and it doesn't cost them any money (I know the lawyers bill, but it's not like it's THEIR money being spent) to keep kicking the litigation ball down the road. So most are forced to settle simply due to economic realities.

The Texas version has been filed.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/tex ... forfeiture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One Texas lawmaker, state Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview), is trying to change the law to rein in the abuse of civil asset forfeiture by overzealous law enforcement. Innocent people often have their property seized without any real cause, leading to, as the Mount Pleasant-based Daily Tribune put it, an "extremely difficult and expensive" process for them to get it back. Even if the property owner is never charged or convicted of a crime, law enforcement agencies in Texas are able to keep the proceeds of the items seized.

Earlier this month, Simpson filed HB 3171, which would ban civil asset forfeiture in Texas by requiring that law enforcement obtain a criminal conviction before items used in an illicit act can be forfeited. "No one should forfeit their property without being convicted of a crime," said Simpson, according to the Longview News-Journal. "Our current civil forfeiture provisions, though a well intended tool for law enforcement, have eroded the constitutional rights of individuals. It is time we end the practice."

CJD wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:While I agree that it seems a good bill to pass, I'm curious as to how much of an issue it really is. It's one of those areas that I've never encountered or heard people discuss that much.

There are examples of people being found not guilty and still not receiving property back. One source I saw said 80% of cases where civil forfeiture occurred were found not guilty. Billions of dollars of cash and property being seized and not returned. You don't hear of it because media doesn't cover it much.

http://endforfeiture.com/what-is-forfeiture-more/

XinTX wrote: And they count on that. Say for example they seize $100,000. You're acquitted and not convicted of anything. Then you have to file suit to recover your own money.

Yea, that's the punitive enforcement method of law enforcement. I don't like you so I'm going to make your life difficult. It's why being a LEO is probably one of the most powerful jobs you can get, especially when facing members of the public who are young or not able to afford representation. IE - I know this won't stick, but we'll tow the car, make you bond out at a minimum. And for some people - where the "clean" record is associated with employment, just the record of the arrest has the potential to hurt to the tune of hundreds of thousands over a lifetime - even if "not guilty" via lost opportunities.

And you're right. It's very likely that an attorney might quote me $20k to take a seizure case - and he might say "starts at $20k" - may take years versus a settlement offer of the same net amount today. I guess the other way to deal with this stuff is to add punitive damages to an unjustified seizure - say 100-300% of the value of the property that was seized. That might balance the scales a bit...

Here's a recent one:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... top/nmDrH/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As near as I can tell, he had a criminal history, violated traffic laws, and a drug dog alerted to the money... Apparently that's enough. Perhaps he is a bad guy with drug money, but it seems that it's totally up to the PD to determine when they get to take money.

And another one outside of Texas:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4607.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As near as I can see, pretty much this exact case has been ruled as "not allowed" for forfeiture, but it's still happening:
http://www.ndsn.org/dec94/dog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

""If greater than seventy-five percent of all circulated currency in Los Angeles is contaminated with drug residue, it is extremely likely a narcotics detection dog will positively alert when presented with a large sum of currency from that area," the court said."

Scary stuff.. Don't carry cash.

cb1000rider wrote:

Dave2 wrote: Speaking of which I'm kinda curious about the legal justification for it working any other way... I mean if the government's premise is that they can seize the assets of criminals because <reasons>, they can't continue to use the same justifications once they've failed to prove you're a criminal. Wouldn't laws that state otherwise be a violation of the 4th amendment?

It's a "burden" thing. I'll provide an example:
I own an easement to the lake. My neighbor, who owns the property, gated and locked the easement so I couldn't use it any longer. I consulted an attorney. I was given two pieces of advice:
1) I could fund the lawsuit and the eventual goal would be an injunction of some type against blocking the easement and if I was lucky, maybe cover my legal fees.
2) I could go out there and cut the lock off the gate. If the neighbor wanted to sue me for cutting the lock, he could.

In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.

And that's the rub, and how the departments that do it get away with it. You've got a few hundred dollars on you, let's call it $1000, maybe legitimately because you're on vacation and wanted cash (I've been known to do that myself, usually closer to $300-$500 though). You're stopped 500 miles away from home on your vacation. That money is seized, but you're eventually released. They don't give you the money back.

Do you hire a lawyer at $200-$500 an hour, or just write it off to experience. Those departments that do this know what's typically going to happen.

It's a good law.

Likely more laws are needed... Apparently the DEA was paying TSA agents to "tip" them to cash coming through luggage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea ... 5553c266ea

Someone has to help pay for the War on Drugs.

cb1000rider wrote:Likely more laws are needed... Apparently the DEA was paying TSA agents to "tip" them to cash coming through luggage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea ... 5553c266ea

Someone has to help pay for the War on Drugs.

Shortly after the advent of the body scanners, the TSA was calling DEA and/or police whenever someone came through with cash. They were told to stop that, and have pretty much complied.

I travel with cash as part of a business I am involved in. Usually in the range of $25,000 to $50,000 or so. I have been harassed twice at the security checkpoints. The first time, a supervisor quickly corrected the agent, and I was on my way.

The second time was more humorous. I had gone through the regular metal detector, and had a pouch with a little over $25,000 in my pocket. Alarm didn't go off, but the agent asked me what was in my pocket. I responded "just cash", as I pulled out the pouch. He asked to see it, so I unzipped the pouch and thumbed through the bills so he could see there were no explosives. He then asked me how much money I was planning to "declare". Two issues there. First, you don't declare currency to the TSA, and second you don't declare money for a domestic flight. Thinking he was just confused (it was terminal C at IAH and you can get to international departure gates from that terminal), I told him that I was flying domestic. He repeated the same question. I told him that I wasn't planning to declare anything since I am flying domestic. He decided to just droop it at that point. I was kind of hoping he would call his supervisor over.

Traffic stops are much more dangerous than air travel nowadays. Especially if you have out of state plates.