General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAsset Forfeiture Reform is a Good Thing. Why do Democrats leave it to Rand Paul?
This is about law enforcement taking your money or property without ever convicting you of a crime. And you have to prove your money or property is innocent to get it back.
Asset forfeiture is an incentive for law enforcement to distort policing priorities to where it can seize the most money, not stop the most crime.
Asset forfeiture abuses are endemic.
Why isn't there a Democrat doing something about this?
Sen. Paul Introduces the FAIR Act
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1204
Jul 24, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment's role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.
The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General's Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury's General Fund.
"The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime," Sen. Paul said
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)Thanks for the thread, Comrade Grumpy.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And it's because we are idiots to not push back hard on the corporate apologists in our party that are invested also in private prisons, rehab facilities, NSA contracts, BigPharma and BigChemAgro. The Diane Feinsteins, Joe Bidens and Hillary Clinton's are too entrenched in the old guard establishment...so much so they resemble NeoCons when it comes to war...any war and that includes the domestic Drug War. I predicted a year ago arguing on DU that a republican who appeals to a younger crowd will scoop us on marijuana reform if we are not careful. I predicted it would be Rand Paul and it could flip him a presidential win. Of course, all Democrats have to do is pre-empt him but are we too brainwashed because we listened to Obama's failed and compromised view of the truth on this matter? He and Drug Warrior Biden are holding us back and committing a major F up.
djean111
(14,255 posts)They belong to the Rand Paul Fan Club.
If anyone disagrees with anything Obama does, they have ODS, they are racist, they hate Obama.
Soon, people who disagree with Hillary will have HDS, hate women, hate Hillary.
Plus, those who slap these tags on people, are quick to say Purist, when the are the purists.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Are 100% unreasonable, myopic and politically stunted idiots. I agree with you but it's also true a significant portion of Paul haters who waste time focusing on the guy are sock-puppet profiles from military and NSA contractors who feel threatened by Paul way more than anyone who fears we could actually eliminate the Dept Of Education or get rid of food stamps which ain't happening.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)I agree that drug foreiture laws need to be reformed. I just disagree with turning to him for help. The fact he happens to agree on this issue means nothing to me. The solution is to push for more Democrats to support this, because whatever gains may come with giving Paul support because of one issue will be more than lost by Paul having power.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)no wonder you think his ideas are great. the rest of the time you're poo-poo-ing anybody who brings up civil rights for minorities.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That's kind of a jerk thing to do. And stalkerish. But I expect no less from you.
Oh, and gratuitously antagonistic. I think there's a word for people like that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Get a life, dude.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Rand Paul is absolutely right about these forfeiture laws.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but the key to that isn't just bashing Dems and supporting Rand Paul, which is more what the OP is about.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)shouldn't leave the field wide open for people like Rand Paul to take this issue and run with it. We should be championing it, too. In fact, we should have been championing it FIRST. And if supporting this now puts us on the same side as Rand Paul for a change, then so be it.
The same thing happened with the Justina Pellietier case. Her family tried unsuccessfully to get help for months, and finally Fox news covered the story and some right wingers got involved. And then too many Dems took a knee-jerk response against the Pelletiers, without really looking at the circumstances, just because she was getting support from the right. As it turned out, the right-wingers helping her made the correct call and too many Dems did not.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Do you support it or not
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Especially when the proposed legislation is a meager change at best.
Asset forfeiture reform is a bipartison concept.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Nice to see you around, throwing out petty insults!
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I must have missed it. I would be very happy if that were the case.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/03/congresswoman-barbara-lee-sponsors-legislation-to-end-federal-crackdown-on-medical-marijuana
http://openstates.org/hi/bills/2013%20Regular%20Session/SB1342/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104065589
This is not an exclusively Republican issue.
If you are asking at the federal level, I can't tell you why it's not being introduced by a Democrat, perhaps they have other priorities since the changes are meager at best. But if it comes to a vote it will come from both sides of the isle. It will not be a one party thing.
It looks like there are a bunch of silly little legislative bones being tossed out there. The whole "well close taxloopholes on $17 billion over 10 years" thing comes to mind. Oh big deal, $1.7 billion saved a year. Big effin' deal. Same with this bill. It only notches up the standard of evidence a tiny bit.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I guess they can always cosponsor the Paul bill.
Cory Booker has cosponsored a sentencing reform bill with Paul.
And I think Leahy has consponsored something with him, too.
Yesterday, Paul introduced a medical marijuana protection bill. He seems to be serious about going after the drug war.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So reform could only benefit them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the purpose of the OP is to tout Paul and bash Democrats and pretend that Rand Paul is the first politician to advocate for reform of asset forfeiture. there are many Democrats that have attempted this before him. does the OP tell you that? no.
the OP is false in that respect.
i support reform of these laws, but i refuse to join whatever games the OP is playing to garner support for you know who.
and it's not the first time. not the first time to defend Paul.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I don't "tout" Rand Paul. I point out that he has filed an asset forfeiture reform bill.
I don't "bash" Democrats. I ask where are they.
I don't "pretend" nobody ever advocated for asset forfeiture reform before.
I'm not trying to "garner support" for Rand Paul. I think he is dangerous on most issues. But when he's right on an issue, I'm not going to run away from it because it's Rand Paul.
Please take your stalking and your antagonistic bullshit elsewhere.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Both the CAFRA had broad bipartisan support and this bill would, too, if it gets out of committee. I don't see what the problem is.
The question is, will it even get out of the Committee on the Judiciary? Bob Goodlatte has an extremely low rating with NORML. I have my doubts this is little more than theater. But if it comes to a vote you can expect both sides of the isle to vote for it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)How else do you measure whether "Democrats are interested"?
Okay, it's only been one day, but I imagine Paul shopped around for cosponsors. That's usually how it works.
I asked earlier for Democratic asset forfeiture bills in the Congress. You didn't come up with any.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)And it will likely die there.
You don't co-sponsor legislation that is in Committee unless you paying back political favors or are die hard about something. Rand Paul isn't going to get Democrats to take his scraps.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The OP is calling for Democratic action on this issue, and lamenting the fact that Rand Paul is the one leading the charge.
Time for you to go on the ignore list.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)the state's taking property without due process.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)It's about how police in some cities have used forfeiture laws to extort money and property from law-abiding citizens.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
On a bright Thursday afternoon in 2007, Jennifer Boatright, a waitress at a Houston bar-and-grill, drove with her two young sons and her boyfriend, Ron Henderson, on U.S. 59 toward Linden, Henderson’s home town, near the Texas-Louisiana border. They made the trip every April, at the first signs of spring, to walk the local wildflower trails and spend time with Henderson’s father. This year, they’d decided to buy a used car in Linden, which had plenty for sale, and so they bundled their cash savings in their car’s center console. Just after dusk, they passed a sign that read “Welcome to Tenaha: A little town with Big Potential."
SNIP
The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two tables were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcotics.” The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)
The county’s district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie’s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.
“Where are we?” Boatright remembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.
Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of contraband.
SNIP
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and thanks to CG for the OP, completely agree.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The "clear and convincing evidence" standard is a welcome and easy change. If it comes to a vote it will pass with much bipartisan support.
So I don't know what the problem is.
And, btw, "clear and convincing evidence" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," so you can still be acquitted for something and yet lose your assets. So this change is meager at best. Colorado is a "clear and convincing evidence" state for asset forfeiture since 2002, and yet these kinds of forfeitures still happen.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I don't like Rand Paul but this is a good idea. Why would our side allow Rand Paul to get the credit for this proposal?
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Changing the standard is good.
But there needs to be a two-pronged approach here- change where the money goes too.
Right now in most cases the department that makes the seizure gets all or part of the money to put into it's budget. That is a clear cut recipe for potential abuse.
So one simple change- all proceeds go to the states general fund, of to the states education fund, or all to find drug rehab- anything but to the department.
This eliminates the biggest motivation for abuse. If it is done like this then it will only be done with a motivation to uphold the law and deter crime, not with a profit motive.
NC did the same thing with traffic tickets long ago. Small town and rural county speed traps were becoming a growing problem, so the legislature changed the law that a city or county doesn't get a penny when they write a ticket- now traffic tickets are not profit motivated.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)get around that little detail by pleading moving violations down to parking tickets. A stop-sign or speeding violation with a $100 fine will become a parking or jaywalking violation with a $150 fine. The moving violation fine gets split with the state, the village keeps 100% of the parking or jaywalking fine. If you get pulled over in a village always plead not guilty. You'll pay a higher fine but avoid points and insurance premium increases. Local police are careful to keep speeding violations below the 14 MPH threshold.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Here in NC even if the town police write a ticket you are going in front of a state judge in state court with a state appointed assistant DA prosecuting, so no cute little town run pretend courts to do that kind of nonsense here.
I remember reading about a tiny little town in Ohio that was only a few city blocks, but had dozens of police officers and gained almost 100% of it's revenue from being a speed trap. They ran the PD and their own little circus of a court. Eventually they got so bad the state legislature actually dissolved the town.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I would support this bill regardless of who is proposing it.
JHB
(37,158 posts)...or to genuinely wealthy people (which, while not identical, are closely related).
Portions or the RW -- including the Paulites -- highlight this because it's tailor-made for their "thieving jackbooted thugs"-view of government. Paul is catering to a constituency.
As for why it's not on the radar of most Democratic lawmakers: part of it is the "political PTSD" of the party leadership about being characterized as "soft on crime". Civil forfeiture was sold as a way of taking drug lords' ill-gotten gains, and they see visions of being painted as "pro-drug lord" dancing through their heads. A related part is fear of the "Democrats will raise your taxes!" smear. These seizing a of cash and property have become part of the revenue stream, and if it's cut off it will have to be made up some other way, such as raising taxes.
But in the end, it's because they don't feel any need to do so. There's no organized Democratic constituency (nor donor base) demanding action on this issue.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I mean there must be one; particularly given who the primary supporters of this bill are. On the face of it this seems so abusive that I can't believe there's much of a debate, but if there wasn't a counter argument than why would this law still be around?
Bryant
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Lots of local municipalities get to add hundreds of thousands of dollars to their budgets yearly due to forfeiture.
Make no mistake, municipal governments when banded together are very powerful and yield lots of political influence. That is why here in NC we have laws forbidding collective bargaining for all state and municipal employees, and had it passed by a Democratic majority and had democrats refuse to change it as recently as 4 years ago when they had the governors office and the legislature.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I know the state that I am in (Florida) local governments have seen their resources stripped away from them year after year, so that more money can go to Tallahassee, because we aren't willing to have a sensible revenue plan. If that's the rationale than there are two things that need to be addressed - Local Governments shouldn't have to do this sort of thing to get adequate funding, and of course this practice should stop.
That said, I also read where civil asset forfeiture provided christmas parties and the like for some sheriffs offices. That's not great.
Bryant
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)pre school education? how about if it was used to fund battered women's shelters? We have used that sort of logic to justify over taxing smokers.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't think that counter-argument applies off of DU.
Bryant
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It takes the form of something like this:
B: That's because you don't care about civil rights for minorities.
If you scan various threads on DU, you'll see that argument (such as it is) coming up with consistency. It's an organized talking point, in other words. It was simply "personalized" to that particular poster, but that is not a one-off.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I guess though that is a one size fits all argument that doesn't really speak to the merits or lack of merits of civil asset forfeitures. I am trying to figure out what Reid or Pelosi would say if they had to vote against this measure. How they would defend the practice of civil asset forfeitures?
Bryant
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The laws were "probable cause" before, then they got changed, 14 years ago, to "preponderance of the evidence," now Paul is proposing to change it to "clear and convincing evidence." This means you can be acquitted of a charge and yet still have your money and assets taken away. So Rand Paul isn't really notching it up to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The problem is the law isn't specific to money laundering or tax evasion and it has been used by the drug war to literally steal from people (or at least cause huge headaches; you lose $2,000 out of $50,000 you had on you due to court fees, most people won't fight it if they have that kind of money to lose).
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)was bought with proceeds of criminal activity. The burden of proof should be on law enforcement, not on individuals.
The recent Colbert Report (or was it Daily Show?) segment on police simply seizing cash from people they stop claiming it had to be 'drug money' with no evidence whatsoever was outrageous.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)That's why they aren't keen on reform.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Every day. Literally every day this law is abused.
Or the stripper who had to fight to get her money back. It was a million dollars, and she was buying a night club.
Every State is involved in abusing this policy.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
But nobody is speaking out, well nobody in a position to do anything. Then along comes Rand Paul, who now positions the Rethugs on the moral, common sense side of the issue. Where are the Democrats? They're waiting to see where the Rethug majority comes down on the issue so that the DNC can issue dozens of press releases arguing that the Rethugs are wrong. After all, we appear to define ourselves by being against anything that Rethugs are for.
Civil Forfeiture should be banned in this nation. Not just at the Federal Level, but everywhere and at all levels of the justice system. Take the profit out of the enforcement of our laws.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)See: President Barack Obama
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)starts a bill that looks good on the surface and has a nice sounding title. It could be the real thing, but I'll try to read it first. They have a way of adding things that have the opposite of a desired outcome. If it will hurt people, they are for it.
