Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The officer tricked you Sluissa very likely (and made you accidentally agree to being detained)

He wasn't allowed to keep you because he lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Had you sued, you would have won that case.

Assuming, of course, that they had Police Cameras that were switched on... so he couldn't say "Ohh what? no we kept them there for 5 minutes and he was making threatening Gestures"

[sluissa]

The officer tricked you Sluissa very likely (and made you accidentally agree to being detained)

He wasn't allowed to keep you because he lacked probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Had you sued, you would have won that case.

Last I checked police can detain you for up to 24 hours for basically any reason. If I fought it they could have hauled me to jail for the night, had my car impounded (cause it was now parked illegally), and there wouldn't have been a damn thing I could have done about it. Luckily they just seemed to be bored country cops. Didn't seem to be anything particularly malicious about it all. They just saw a college age kid in an old beater car driving down a quiet road at midnight and decided that needed a look.

There was some coercion going on, obviously. They knew I was cold and knew what they were doing. But I don't think they did anything legally wrong. They just knew how to deal with kids who refuse to allow a search.

It pissed me off, but I'm not at all going to go as far as to say they did anything illegal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Civil forfeiture should just be banned flat out. I'd rather drug kingpins get to keep their ill-gotten gains than be robbed by badged highwaymen, and anything less than a ban will be easily subverted. According to that wiki article, even in places where it isn't allowed they sometimes get around it by keeping things as "evidence", refuse to give them back, and sell them after 120 days as unclaimed property.

[Neonivek]

They can detain you for 24 hours if they HAVE a reason and that detention has rules in it of itself.

Or rather... They can detain you for up to 24 hours in order to question you or perform an investigation... and no more. If they aren't questioning you and they are not performing an investigation (which they aren't because you refused a search) then they are detaining you for the sake of detaining you... or in this case to torture you until you agree to a search under duress.

What they did was actually illegal (for so many good reasons)... assuming, of course, they didn't weasel themselves into the legal zone... and you fell into it.

Civil forfeiture should just be banned flat out. I'd rather drug kingpins get to keep their ill-gotten gains than be robbed by badged highwaymen, and anything less than a ban will be easily subverted. According to that wiki article, even in places where it isn't allowed they sometimes get around it by keeping things as "evidence", refuse to give them back, and sell them after 120 days as unclaimed property.

I am fine with it. It just NEEDS to be... well... policed... It shouldn't be taken under suspicion "Ohh well... he is a drug lord, there is no way he could afford a mansion otherwise".

[sluissa]

As far as I know there's absolutely no recourse for a wrongful 24 hour hold though. The punishment for them is if after 24 hours they don't have evidence, the person has to be set free. So 24 hours for basically any reason.

Only down side for them is the paperwork.

[nenjin]

*cop story*

I had pretty much the same experience around 23. Pretext was failure to stop at a stop sign (for a full two seconds.) Reason: car looked edgy. The cop wanted to search and I said all the wrong things, and he point blank threatened to ruin my whole day if I didn't consent to a search. No real pussy footing around it, he just said it. And proceeded to find something citeable.

Now that I'm older I'm like "Oh hell yeah, let's do this officer, I'll take a day off of work and when you finally see I'm just as serious as you, you can start sweating a little about a lawsuit."

[EnigmaticHat]

Civil forfeiture should just be banned flat out. I'd rather drug kingpins get to keep their ill-gotten gains than be robbed by badged highwaymen, and anything less than a ban will be easily subverted. According to that wiki article, even in places where it isn't allowed they sometimes get around it by keeping things as "evidence", refuse to give them back, and sell them after 120 days as unclaimed property.

I am fine with it. It just NEEDS to be... well... policed... It shouldn't be taken under suspicion "Ohh well... he is a drug lord, there is no way he could afford a mansion otherwise".

What does civil forfeiture even add tho?  Taking someone's stuff is punitive.  Fines are normally justified because the person was proven in court to have broken the law, and thus they need to pay off their debt to society.  People in the US are innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the legal system no conviction = no criminal.  So what does it add to have a punishment without a crime?

Let me put it this way: absolute best case scenario of the law being applied.  Drug dealer gets caught coming home from a giant drug sale, gets all the money he just earned taken.  No longer has any money to buy drugs, goes out of business, ends up homeless or in a legit job.  This is the absolute best case scenario of the law mind you, this isn't how it actually goes in practice.  But even in this best case... what was gained?  That wasn't justice, since "lose all your money" isn't the sentence for dealing drugs, and its also not justice because justice has to be done the right way.  It prevented the drug dealer from dealing drugs in the short term, but he hasn't been reformed at all or brought off the streets, so he's going to commit more crimes in the future.  And since there was no court proceedings or conviction, the cops have done nothing to further the image that the law is being enforced.  Yeah, you "got the guy", but none of the purposes of the legal system were accomplished.

[Neonivek]

Civil Forfeiture makes it so a criminal cannot go "Well sorry! I already committed the crime! Ha ha ha ha ha!" and then roll in a swimming pool of money.

Crime would actually end up being a VERY legitimate business.

[EnigmaticHat]

That's not what civil forfeiture is.

If the government can prove you stole a lot of money and you don't give the money back, then they can seize assets in place of the money you stole.  They're essentially paying your debts back for you; you have to give back money, you don't have money, so the government turns your assets into money.  Its not a punitive measure in and of itself, its just logistics.  They've been doing this since before civil forfeiture was a thing.

Edit: To be clear, civil forfeiture is "I'm searching you because I'm suspicious, now I'm taking this thing that you own that you can legally own because reasons, have a good day law abiding citizen."

[Sheb]

Hey, if you're going to pay for it, that seems like the best approach.

Better to not have it at all and use that money to fund law enforcement or you know... actual border patrol.  But yea I suppose if the wall is going up like it or not that's a decent place to take the money from.

Well, it's not like the state is not trying to get drug lord money at the moment. If you use that money for the wall, that means some other things have to be paid by taxpayers instead of druglord money. It's just posturing to try to get the wall funded.

[martinuzz]

San Francisco judge William Orrick has blocked Trump's plan to cut finances for 'sanctuary cities'.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has commented, saying "this is yet another example of a ninth district judge gone insane". He fully expects the Justice Department to appeal the verdict.

[Azzuro]

San Francisco judge William Orrick has blocked Trump's plan to cut finances for 'sanctuary cities'.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has commented, saying "this is yet another example of a ninth district judge gone insane". He fully expects the Justice Department to appeal the verdict.

Truly epic. How many times have 'activist judges' stumped the Trump now? This ruling is just a temporary injunction, but it's looking like SF and the other sanctuary cities will definitely win the case.

That's not what civil forfeiture is.

If the government can prove you stole a lot of money and you don't give the money back, then they can seize assets in place of the money you stole.  They're essentially paying your debts back for you; you have to give back money, you don't have money, so the government turns your assets into money.  Its not a punitive measure in and of itself, its just logistics.  They've been doing this since before civil forfeiture was a thing.

Edit: To be clear, civil forfeiture is "I'm searching you because I'm suspicious, now I'm taking this thing that you own that you can legally own because reasons, have a good day law abiding citizen."

I advise you not to argue with Neo, he likes to make up meanings for words to support his points.

[Neonivek]

I advise you not to argue with Neo, he likes to make up meanings for words to support his points.

That was uncalled for... I just never responded because I was like "Ohhh, opps. I thought it was when they take assets and things like that in order to subtract from ill-gotten gains"

[scriver]

I advise you not to argue with Neo, he likes to make up meanings for words to support his points.

You need to cut that shit out right now. I've seen you direct sneers like that at neonivek several times now. It's not okay.

[Reelya]

Neonivek, it's intended to pay back ill-gotten gains. But go watch the John Oliver episode on Civil Forfeiture. Things are never that simple. Cops are rolling random people for cash, without any hint of wrongdoing, then spending it on a bunch crooked perks for the same cops doing the cash-grabbing. All perfectly legally.

Basically there's no due process, except you ask a tribunal made up of (I think) the prosecutors office for an appeal so you can have your stuff back (and the prosecutors are basically an arm of the same people doing the shakedowns), and there are no rules or checks and balances on how the money is used, so it's used to buy "stuff" that wouldn't be accepted as a legitimate purchase if it had to come out of the local police budget. Like kegs of beer or other fun things.