TexasCHLforum.com

Please move if this is not the right forum.

This is absolutely how it should be done.

the New Mexico bill requires a criminal conviction for forfeiture actions, bolsters the “innocent owner” defense by requiring that the owner know that his/her property was being used illegally, requires that all forfeiture proceeds be deposited into the general fund rather than into the seizing agencies, and limits the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to circumvent state law by utilizing the federal equitable sharing program.

http://www.cato.org/blog/kudos-new-mexi ... forfeiture

Is there anything on the TX legislative radar to clean up the abuse of civil forfeiture?

android wrote:Please move if this is not the right forum.

This is absolutely how it should be done.

the New Mexico bill requires a criminal conviction for forfeiture actions, bolsters the “innocent owner” defense by requiring that the owner know that his/her property was being used illegally, requires that all forfeiture proceeds be deposited into the general fund rather than into the seizing agencies, and limits the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to circumvent state law by utilizing the federal equitable sharing program.

http://www.cato.org/blog/kudos-new-mexi ... forfeiture

Is there anything on the TX legislative radar to clean up the abuse of civil forfeiture?

Now thats an excellent piece of legislation.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

android wrote:Please move if this is not the right forum.

This is absolutely how it should be done.

the New Mexico bill requires a criminal conviction for forfeiture actions, bolsters the “innocent owner” defense by requiring that the owner know that his/her property was being used illegally, requires that all forfeiture proceeds be deposited into the general fund rather than into the seizing agencies, and limits the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to circumvent state law by utilizing the federal equitable sharing program.

http://www.cato.org/blog/kudos-new-mexi ... forfeiture

Is there anything on the TX legislative radar to clean up the abuse of civil forfeiture?

Now thats an excellent piece of legislation.

HB3171 by Simpson.

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.

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.

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 was a great 60 Minutes piece (I believe) on this a few months ago and how common it is. (may have been CNN). People arrested for no reason and all charges dropped, but lost a portion of confiscated money or possessions. All essentially for no reason.

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.

You need to visit with some cops from your local LE agencies. Ours have all sorts of assets that were seized. Some convictions went through, some didn't.

IT's leverage, if nothing else. If I'm on the way to buy a tractor and I'm stopped, I don't want to worry about the cash disappearing... Having it happen once would be enough for me.

I'm just sorry that this legislation is necessary.

Good bill. Lot of stories about people having cash, jewelry, etc. confiscated and not returned despite no conviction. If you have a large sum of cash, they take it. Then you have to sue (with the requisite expense) to have it returned. In a lot of cases the government will offer to "settle" for a percentage of what they took. With the implied threat that the legal proceedings to get the rest back would be costly.

But my big thing is the Constitution has prohibitions against depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property absent due process. The confiscations take place outside the due process bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiGRMD4NXVA

It's a sad day when just the mere presence of a large amount of cash is reason for suspicion or confiscation in these United States.

By the way, a large amount of cash is relative. My wife worked for a guy that was an heir to one of the largest fortunes in America. One day he was buying a coke. He handed her a $20. She ask him if he had any small bills, his response was, "that IS a small bill".

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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/institutefo ... or-profit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last month, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that the District Attorney’s Office in Tarrant County, Texas seized $3.5 million, plus almost 250 cars and 440 computers in fiscal year 2013, roughly equal to about 10 percent of its budget. Of the property seized, almost $845,000 was spent on salaries for 16 employees at the office. By comparison, only $53,000 went to “six nonprofits that benefit victims or prosecution efforts.”

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law- ... naha-texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.texasobserver.org/preying-in ... orfeiture/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could Google on....

Thanks for all the links guys! I have family in LE, it was just a topic that hadn't come up. It was a good conversation starter to say the least! Definitely looks like an issue that needs to be fixed.

When those in authority have a financial incentive to seize property [or levy taxes] you've created a problem.

Good/sad reading here:

http://reason.com/tags/asset-forfeiture" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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?