While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any opportunity to be released; that includes a plea agreement that includes no more jail time, but, generally also includes more financial obligations (probation, fine, license reinstatement) against the defendant.
We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during his shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion of the 4th amendment, nexus centers, sweeping overreaches of the third party doctrine, stingrays, and mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother would be proud.
The State of New Mexico has just banned asset forfeiture.
HB 560, introduced by New Mexico Rep. Zachary Cook and passed unanimously in the legislature, replaces civil asset forfeiture with criminal forfeiture, which requires a conviction of a person as a prerequisite to losing property tied to a crime. The new law means that New Mexico now has the strongest protections against wrongful asset seizures in the country.
We've moved away from a society where the police were
there to truly protect and serve the community (think
1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during his
shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion
of the 4th amendment, nexus centers, sweeping
overreaches of the third party doctrine, stingrays, and
mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother
would be proud.
Erm... a little bit of revisionist history there.
You do realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was under watch by FBI Plants his entire public life, and warrantlessly spied upon under COINTELPRO?
You do realize that Fred Hampton was drugged by an FBI Plant, before 40+ Police raided his home and shot him dead with automatic weapons as he slept? (also part of COINTELPRO program)
The problems of policing are the same problems that have occurred for years. There were _always_ good cops who did their business correctly, there have _always_ been bad cops who have abused the system. As for the system... obviously it is constantly under flux, but I do think we're making improvements over the long run.
I argue that today's system is superior to the 1950s. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to offer the first blow in a debate here and now. But mind you, good luck beating out COINTELPRO... which was not only warrantless spying on innocent Americans... but also was involved in direct assassinations in broad daylight.
Its as if people have _completely_ forgotten about 1950s history. Red Scare? COINTELPRO? Civil Rights? Black Panthers getting assassinated by police? Lynching in the streets? McCarthyism? House Un-American Activities Committee? The Office of Censorship?
These American institutions were shut down as the civil rights movement gained steam in the 1960s.
Good gosh people. Life is better today. Not perfect... but better by all measurements. Learn some history, and stop pretending that the 1950s were a peaceful time. In the 1950s, you'd lose your job if
I can't recall the where I heard this before but I once heard that drug dealers purchase and wear expensive gold necklaces because if/when they get busted and booked, cash can [more easily] be confiscated (forfeited) by the police and assumed to be "dirty" drug money while gold necklaces need to be inventoried and kept safe as personal belongings. Then the dealer can get bail money from a friend with them knowing they can go and pawn the necklace to obtain cash.
What's happened to our country is the equivalent of "death by a thousand cuts". I place blame on having devolved into a system where we have professional politicians and voters who are either apathetic, under-informed or both.
Why is this? I mean, are the police forces so (money) broke that they've needed to make up the difference by becoming this way? Or are they truly corrupt (I find this unlikely)?
With some states banning civil forfeiture and many states legalizing marijuana etc, there still seems to be some tiny hope. On the whole though, yeah, it does seem bad.
Fuck that. Even criminals deserve fair legal council. And to not be treated like filthy animals.
Shame on you.
Edit: downvotes deserved. I read it several times and still interpreted the first paragraph to be in support of taking money because it denied full legal access. My brain flipped a word into "good". Despite being a public defender no less! Leaving comment anyways because that seems like the honest thing to do. Sorry.
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime.
What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed.
Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.
Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of these draconian laws around asset forfeiture.
The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p...
We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.
Honestly we're really lucky to have these asset forfeiture programs in place; money has been given a free reign for far too long.
The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol... If the government didn't, who would hold our money accountable for the criminal behavior it's been involved in? Just look at the facts... almost 80% of bills have touched drugs! Appalling!
And they're transparent about the process--they put that filthy money on trial even though it keeps refusing to talk. Enough 'shock and awe' from our DA's and I know we'll get there eventually... We need harsher sentencing guidelines!!
I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the currency loitering in my pocket doesn't get a pass on its delinquent past just because it's an inanimate object...
I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs"
Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.
I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same reasons.
The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg NY Times or Washington Post).
When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it's very difficult as a citizen in one state, to be aware of what a national agency (the DEA) is doing across the entire nation, unless the national news outlets are writing about it.
While a typical American is going about their day to day life, living a local life (some town, in some county, in some state), the world's largest, most powerful federal / national government is aggressively attempting to undermine them in hundreds of ways large and small.
The US has a federal government that is financially the size of the entire economy of Germany, doing nothing but passing more laws, economic regulations, taxes, et al. to strangle liberty as much as they can and increase their power. There is very little else they do, or need to do. What does a beast that large do? Protect itself, entrench its own interests, grab more money, write more laws - there is nothing else for it to do most of the time.
Try doing something about that, or even thinking about how you can stop it, if you're an average citizen. It boggles the mind. Oh yeah, while you're at it, deal with the fact that the US military (which the NSA belongs to) is now increasingly taking aim at the US domestic population, you know, the world's most powerful military with a $600 billion budget.
Now compare this situation to the complexity faced by, say, Finland (5.4 million people) in trying to reign in or adjust its government system. The US has something like 200,000 pages of federal regulations; try fixing that, while the vast dedicated law passing machine is busy passing thousands of new regulations.
It isn't going to stop expanding and over-reaching until it crashes, choking itself to death.
This. And while the USA purports to be the leaders in freedom, we see similar erosion of freedom and liberty in other Socialist/Democratic societies like Australia, UK and France.
The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing.
People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back.
"Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."
"The DEA" didn't steal Joseph Rivers' life savings. Some particular DEA agents did. And the theft was OKed by various other federal employees, who knew (or should have known) that he was entirely innocent.
Two things come to mind. We can compensate Joseph for his loss through his gofundme campaign.[0] But we can also start naming the thieves. One of the accomplices is reportedly "Sean [R.] Waite, agent-in-charge of the DEA’s Albuquerque office".[1] Who are the rest?
One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash.
However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.
This is an interesting point. If the only way to avoid submission of information to your bank is to forego banking services, then this is not a meaningful choice, and you're not giving up the information voluntarily.
"The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law. The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful choice."
The law is rather clear, if dismal: privacy is not a right, only surprise violations of privacy are illegal. Once the government starts abusing people enough , it is no longer an expectation of privacy. See also the prohibition against "unusual" punishment.
For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.
I heard a truly tragic story related to the civil forfeiture rule. Heard from a friend who heard from a friend.
The family hired an older lady (immigrant, but lived many years in US) who came to clean their house a few times a week. She shared that she had been divorced from her husband but in the process ended up with the house. Being retired with no income (and probably no pension of any kind other than social security which is not enough), she decided to rent a spare room to someone.
Guess what. The dude renting it turned out to be a drug dealer (or was it just getting caught smoking weed?). When HE was arrested, somehow the law enforcement (not sure if local PD or DEA) made a connection to HER house. The house was seized. This older lady ended up having to stay with friends and going around working as cleaning/care-taker. Because her house was suddenly taken away from her, she had no other means of supporting her later years in life.
When I first heard it, I was like WHAT~~~? This was a few years ago.
And than I started reading about local PD seizing private property on minor charges.
This is why we can never, ever trust the government to "do the right thing". They have a law that should be used against real criminals, and instead they use it against regular innocent citizens. This is disgusting, and guess what: it's going to happen time and time again whenever we give the government too much power over our lives. And yet, it's happening right now.
As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.
I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations.
After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."'
Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects?
I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically, if the officer really wanted to search and was otherwise barred from executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.
No one touched on it but what if "civil forfeiture" style of theft is being ignored all the way at the top since it helps push people from using cash to using credit and hence gives more power to the state and banks.
In the past in US gold was seized, now cash is being seized, seems to me like a trend to herd people into the system where banks and credit card companies can take a cut of everything + make things easier for IRS + make things easier for NSA as you be leaving a digital trail.
Snap Judgment did a story this week about how the DEA will pressure child slave drug mules into becoming unpaid informants, and send them into large drug deals with armed cartel heavies, under threat of deportation, in exchange for fake promises of US citizenship.
If the police continue to allow asset seizure eventually an enterprising politician and banker will find a way to seize police pensions. There will be no public outcry. Once you institutionalize theft at this level it doesn't stay put--it grows.
I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..."
I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then.
This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim government is legitimate and in the best interest if the people when you have its agents engaging in (literal) highway robbery.
The argument at the time was that this was supposed to be for drugs. The whole basis of the drug war was that addiction is bad and thus to protect people, we need to get rid of drugs. OF course as the past century has shown this doesn't work (I'm including the prohibition era.)
But worse, it has twisted around and is now being used to cause suffering in people. Let me give you an example:
I went to the same high school as a guy who became an oncologist. Most of his patients were terminal. The DEA has decided that doctors giving terminally ill people drugs to relieve them of their pain is some sort of scourge on society... so they track how often they are prescribed... and then they average that and go after doctors who "over prescribe".
When they went after him-- he had a small practice-- they came in guns blazing, arrested everyone, stole all of his valuables, and his computers, stole the money from his bank and brokerage accounts. Stole the money his wife had. Stole the money his employees (most of whom were not wealthy.)
He was unable to afford a lawyer because they stole his money. Pre-trial they made many assertions and presented many documents he believe were dishonest or forgeries, but he could not prove it because they stole his computers and they were "accidentally damaged". They certainly weren't returning them.
They charged him and his wife, and told him that if they had to arrest his wife that she would be in jail as would he at lest a year before it came tot trial-- and so they'd place his kids with a permanent foster home.
But if he took their plea, he would get a reduced sentence (possibly it was probation, but It think it was 6 months in jail, plus probation) and they wouldn't charge his wife and employees.
Yes, they literally held his wife, kids and employees hostage (literally threatened if you want to be pedantic) unless he would admit to doing something illegal, even though he was just giving terminally ill people pain medication.
I think this whole affair is criminal, denying him adequate counsel by stealing his money, piling absurd charges on top of absurd charges to put others in jeopardy to manipulate him, it's all criminal.
He took the deal. His family was wiped out-- as part of the "deal" he gave up that money, and now the DEA is using it to buy toys for themselves... literally profiting from the crime. His family is in shambles because he can't practice medicine anymore.
Here's what's really absurd. The idea that terminally ill patients shouldn't be able to get take any drugs they want. Even if they risk overdose, it's a quality of life issue and effectively denying them is nothing short of torture. They shouldn't even need a doctors prescription. This is a fake crime created to exert control over the populace.
And you know what's worse?
Too many of the other people who went to this high school and knew him thought he deserved it... because obviously they wouldn't charge him if he weren't guilty.
How can I respect a government that practices this?
How can I respect Reagan who signed this into law? Or clinton who didn't try and repeal it? Or Bush who didn't either? Or Obama who not only did nothing, but had Joe Biden as his running mate?
How is this going to turn around? It's not until it starts getting painful. There are only a few ways to make things painful-- the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance.
Another is the bullet box and revolutions rarely turn out well... but they were the only method our founders could see to prevent exactly this situation. ("It's a republic... if you can keep it"... we've lost it.)
> the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance.
Vote 3rd party, it's essentially "none of the above."
"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year."
Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative.
This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one, not even greedy shareholders or executives with tons of stock options. Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".
The basic problem is, as people have pointed out, euphemistic political language and moral relativism.
Asset forfeiture is theft.
Taxation is theft.
Imprisonment is kidnapping.
War is killing.
And so on.
They are not necessarily evil. It would not be evil for me to steal my neighbours' rifle if I knew he had nefarious plans. It is not evil to take money from a billionaire if he willingly allows the poor to starve otherwise.
But it is still theft.
Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms.
I think we should repeal the civil forfeiture laws, but the article plays a little fast and loose with the law.
In a civil forfeiture, the government has the burden to show probable cause for the forfeiture, and in a contested proceeding has the burden to show that the assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.
The burden of proof does rest on the property owner for invoking the "innocent owner" defense, but that is narrower than it sounds. That defense is involved when, e.g. someone buys property with money that was given to them by someone who obtained it through illegal activity. The government still has to establish the money came from illegal activity, but the owner can assert that they did not know about and did not consent to the illegal activity.
[+] [-] imroot|10 years ago|reply
We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during his shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion of the 4th amendment, nexus centers, sweeping overreaches of the third party doctrine, stingrays, and mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother would be proud.
[+] [-] hackercurious|10 years ago|reply
HB 560, introduced by New Mexico Rep. Zachary Cook and passed unanimously in the legislature, replaces civil asset forfeiture with criminal forfeiture, which requires a conviction of a person as a prerequisite to losing property tied to a crime. The new law means that New Mexico now has the strongest protections against wrongful asset seizures in the country.
Link to the bill:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pd...
[+] [-] dragontamer|10 years ago|reply
You do realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was under watch by FBI Plants his entire public life, and warrantlessly spied upon under COINTELPRO?
You do realize that Fred Hampton was drugged by an FBI Plant, before 40+ Police raided his home and shot him dead with automatic weapons as he slept? (also part of COINTELPRO program)
The problems of policing are the same problems that have occurred for years. There were _always_ good cops who did their business correctly, there have _always_ been bad cops who have abused the system. As for the system... obviously it is constantly under flux, but I do think we're making improvements over the long run.
I argue that today's system is superior to the 1950s. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to offer the first blow in a debate here and now. But mind you, good luck beating out COINTELPRO... which was not only warrantless spying on innocent Americans... but also was involved in direct assassinations in broad daylight.
Its as if people have _completely_ forgotten about 1950s history. Red Scare? COINTELPRO? Civil Rights? Black Panthers getting assassinated by police? Lynching in the streets? McCarthyism? House Un-American Activities Committee? The Office of Censorship?
These American institutions were shut down as the civil rights movement gained steam in the 1960s.
Good gosh people. Life is better today. Not perfect... but better by all measurements. Learn some history, and stop pretending that the 1950s were a peaceful time. In the 1950s, you'd lose your job if
[+] [-] jrs235|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyolfen|10 years ago|reply
lol maybe if you're white
welcome to the logic that everyone has had to operate under
[+] [-] rebootthesystem|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|10 years ago|reply
Civil forfeiture is a major problem but the abuse of using administrative law judges (ALJs) is becoming a big one as well.
[+] [-] jrs235|10 years ago|reply
https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur
[+] [-] simoncion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vijayr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vfclists|10 years ago|reply
Is this all jaw-jaw and no action?
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|10 years ago|reply
Shame on you.
Edit: downvotes deserved. I read it several times and still interpreted the first paragraph to be in support of taking money because it denied full legal access. My brain flipped a word into "good". Despite being a public defender no less! Leaving comment anyways because that seems like the honest thing to do. Sorry.
[+] [-] gadders|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itistoday2|10 years ago|reply
What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed.
George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.
[+] [-] DigitalSea|10 years ago|reply
The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p...
We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.
[+] [-] j42|10 years ago|reply
The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned protocol... If the government didn't, who would hold our money accountable for the criminal behavior it's been involved in? Just look at the facts... almost 80% of bills have touched drugs! Appalling!
And they're transparent about the process--they put that filthy money on trial even though it keeps refusing to talk. Enough 'shock and awe' from our DA's and I know we'll get there eventually... We need harsher sentencing guidelines!!
[United States vs. $1,058.00 of U.S. Currency](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-curre...)
I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the currency loitering in my pocket doesn't get a pass on its delinquent past just because it's an inanimate object...
[+] [-] hinkley|10 years ago|reply
Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.
[+] [-] Animats|10 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...
[+] [-] AwesomeGriffin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmstout|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempestn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewchambers|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|10 years ago|reply
When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it's very difficult as a citizen in one state, to be aware of what a national agency (the DEA) is doing across the entire nation, unless the national news outlets are writing about it.
While a typical American is going about their day to day life, living a local life (some town, in some county, in some state), the world's largest, most powerful federal / national government is aggressively attempting to undermine them in hundreds of ways large and small.
The US has a federal government that is financially the size of the entire economy of Germany, doing nothing but passing more laws, economic regulations, taxes, et al. to strangle liberty as much as they can and increase their power. There is very little else they do, or need to do. What does a beast that large do? Protect itself, entrench its own interests, grab more money, write more laws - there is nothing else for it to do most of the time.
Try doing something about that, or even thinking about how you can stop it, if you're an average citizen. It boggles the mind. Oh yeah, while you're at it, deal with the fact that the US military (which the NSA belongs to) is now increasingly taking aim at the US domestic population, you know, the world's most powerful military with a $600 billion budget.
Now compare this situation to the complexity faced by, say, Finland (5.4 million people) in trying to reign in or adjust its government system. The US has something like 200,000 pages of federal regulations; try fixing that, while the vast dedicated law passing machine is busy passing thousands of new regulations.
It isn't going to stop expanding and over-reaching until it crashes, choking itself to death.
[+] [-] socceroos|10 years ago|reply
The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing.
People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back.
"Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."
[+] [-] sukilot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacefight|10 years ago|reply
[Citation needed]
Thanks.
[+] [-] notdiminoten|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mirimir|10 years ago|reply
Two things come to mind. We can compensate Joseph for his loss through his gofundme campaign.[0] But we can also start naming the thieves. One of the accomplices is reportedly "Sean [R.] Waite, agent-in-charge of the DEA’s Albuquerque office".[1] Who are the rest?
[0] http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc
[1] http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791
[+] [-] aftbit|10 years ago|reply
However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|10 years ago|reply
It is analogous to the point a judge made in a case here: http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373
"The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law. The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful choice."
[+] [-] sukilot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dankohn1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|10 years ago|reply
The family hired an older lady (immigrant, but lived many years in US) who came to clean their house a few times a week. She shared that she had been divorced from her husband but in the process ended up with the house. Being retired with no income (and probably no pension of any kind other than social security which is not enough), she decided to rent a spare room to someone.
Guess what. The dude renting it turned out to be a drug dealer (or was it just getting caught smoking weed?). When HE was arrested, somehow the law enforcement (not sure if local PD or DEA) made a connection to HER house. The house was seized. This older lady ended up having to stay with friends and going around working as cleaning/care-taker. Because her house was suddenly taken away from her, she had no other means of supporting her later years in life.
When I first heard it, I was like WHAT~~~? This was a few years ago.
And than I started reading about local PD seizing private property on minor charges.
[+] [-] sukilot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steven2012|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qantourisc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simoncion|10 years ago|reply
After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."'
Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects?
I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically, if the officer really wanted to search and was otherwise barred from executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.
[+] [-] yc1010|10 years ago|reply
In the past in US gold was seized, now cash is being seized, seems to me like a trend to herd people into the system where banks and credit card companies can take a cut of everything + make things easier for IRS + make things easier for NSA as you be leaving a digital trail.
It is Orwellian beyond belief.
[+] [-] sukilot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greendata|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] task_queue|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MCRed|10 years ago|reply
I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then.
This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim government is legitimate and in the best interest if the people when you have its agents engaging in (literal) highway robbery.
The argument at the time was that this was supposed to be for drugs. The whole basis of the drug war was that addiction is bad and thus to protect people, we need to get rid of drugs. OF course as the past century has shown this doesn't work (I'm including the prohibition era.)
But worse, it has twisted around and is now being used to cause suffering in people. Let me give you an example:
I went to the same high school as a guy who became an oncologist. Most of his patients were terminal. The DEA has decided that doctors giving terminally ill people drugs to relieve them of their pain is some sort of scourge on society... so they track how often they are prescribed... and then they average that and go after doctors who "over prescribe".
When they went after him-- he had a small practice-- they came in guns blazing, arrested everyone, stole all of his valuables, and his computers, stole the money from his bank and brokerage accounts. Stole the money his wife had. Stole the money his employees (most of whom were not wealthy.)
He was unable to afford a lawyer because they stole his money. Pre-trial they made many assertions and presented many documents he believe were dishonest or forgeries, but he could not prove it because they stole his computers and they were "accidentally damaged". They certainly weren't returning them.
They charged him and his wife, and told him that if they had to arrest his wife that she would be in jail as would he at lest a year before it came tot trial-- and so they'd place his kids with a permanent foster home.
But if he took their plea, he would get a reduced sentence (possibly it was probation, but It think it was 6 months in jail, plus probation) and they wouldn't charge his wife and employees.
Yes, they literally held his wife, kids and employees hostage (literally threatened if you want to be pedantic) unless he would admit to doing something illegal, even though he was just giving terminally ill people pain medication.
I think this whole affair is criminal, denying him adequate counsel by stealing his money, piling absurd charges on top of absurd charges to put others in jeopardy to manipulate him, it's all criminal.
He took the deal. His family was wiped out-- as part of the "deal" he gave up that money, and now the DEA is using it to buy toys for themselves... literally profiting from the crime. His family is in shambles because he can't practice medicine anymore.
Here's what's really absurd. The idea that terminally ill patients shouldn't be able to get take any drugs they want. Even if they risk overdose, it's a quality of life issue and effectively denying them is nothing short of torture. They shouldn't even need a doctors prescription. This is a fake crime created to exert control over the populace.
And you know what's worse?
Too many of the other people who went to this high school and knew him thought he deserved it... because obviously they wouldn't charge him if he weren't guilty.
How can I respect a government that practices this?
How can I respect Reagan who signed this into law? Or clinton who didn't try and repeal it? Or Bush who didn't either? Or Obama who not only did nothing, but had Joe Biden as his running mate?
How is this going to turn around? It's not until it starts getting painful. There are only a few ways to make things painful-- the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance.
Another is the bullet box and revolutions rarely turn out well... but they were the only method our founders could see to prevent exactly this situation. ("It's a republic... if you can keep it"... we've lost it.)
Finally is the soap box.
I'm getting off of mine now.
[+] [-] PebblesHD|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|10 years ago|reply
Vote 3rd party, it's essentially "none of the above."
[+] [-] cbsmith|10 years ago|reply
Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative.
This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one, not even greedy shareholders or executives with tons of stock options. Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".
[+] [-] stegosaurus|10 years ago|reply
Asset forfeiture is theft. Taxation is theft. Imprisonment is kidnapping. War is killing. And so on.
They are not necessarily evil. It would not be evil for me to steal my neighbours' rifle if I knew he had nefarious plans. It is not evil to take money from a billionaire if he willingly allows the poor to starve otherwise.
But it is still theft.
Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms.
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
In a civil forfeiture, the government has the burden to show probable cause for the forfeiture, and in a contested proceeding has the burden to show that the assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.
The burden of proof does rest on the property owner for invoking the "innocent owner" defense, but that is narrower than it sounds. That defense is involved when, e.g. someone buys property with money that was given to them by someone who obtained it through illegal activity. The government still has to establish the money came from illegal activity, but the owner can assert that they did not know about and did not consent to the illegal activity.