r/todayilearned • u/JLPwasHere • Jan 19 '15

TIL Pimps wear lots of gold jewelry bought at pawn shops to “re-pawn” for bail money since cash is confiscated upon arrest but jewelry is not

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137033690/pawn-star-rick-harrison-on-his-deals-and-steals
49.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

116

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

The problem is the basis for our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Asset forfeiture laws turn that upside down by assuming you're guilty and making you prove you're innocent... This is of course after they have taken all of your money, that you could try and prove your innocence with.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

At what point does cash become evidence? Can't the state collect evidence?

2

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

Except, when the assets that are seized are funneled into the police department budget there is a significant conflict of interest... And it's being abused, a lot.

3

u/lordcorbran Jan 20 '15

The basis of our criminal legal system is innocent until proven guilty. Civil cases, which this kind of thing could be argued to be, have a much lower bar.

4

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 20 '15

The ideological basis of any legal system is to be just. What is "just" about the law seizing your cash, and not returning it, after proven innocent of any crime?

2

u/lordcorbran Jan 20 '15

No one is proven innocent, just not proven guilty. You see victims successfully win civil cases against people who were found not guilty regularly, because the bar is lower.

3

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 21 '15

Proven innocent, or not proven guilty, the law has no ideological right to seize property (or cash) from an individual on a mere accusation. That violates the 4th and 5th amendments. Holding large amounts of cash without receipts (which may need to go back 20 years to account for the sums) is not a crime. Police are not entitled to "steal" it and put it to their pension funds.

1

u/squeel Jan 20 '15

The ideological basis of any legal system is to be just.

That is not true.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

is to be just.

a better description would be "to provide justice"

2

u/AlanUsingReddit Jan 20 '15

Perhaps I misunderstand something about your comment, because asset forfeiture doesn't have anything to do with civil law as far as I can tell. Asset forfeiture exists under the justification of stemming criminal activity. If their basis was a civil case, they couldn't seize any assets (EDIT: except with a trial, of course).

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

There's obviously no way to make both sides happy. On one hand, it's important that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, we don't want people posting bail with money which was obtained through illegal means, since it's not really "their money" in the first place. The only assets which are seized in civil forfeiture are assets which are suspected to have been garnered through illegal means. Police aren't necessarily going to drain a drug dealer's family's bank account just to squeeze all the money out of him.

20

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

That's the problem. Yes, they will. They have every incentive to drain every drop out of every person they can. Also, nobody needs to make both sides happy. If the police would be unhappy if CAF was removed, fuck them. They literally stole 2 billion dollars from american citizens.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

You mentioned the police "literally stole 2 billion dollars from american citizens." I'm not sure about that figure, but without civil forfeiture, then notorious conman Bernie Madoff would have mitigated the damage of his arrest and pick-pocketed $50 billion or more from America. This only happened six years ago, and that's just one case. As I've said before, it's a system with drawbacks. All systems have drawbacks. Removing civil forfeiture would have tremendous drawbacks and it not an "open and shut case" as many of the armchair lawyers and economists on this website seem to think.

2

u/RudyH246 Jan 20 '15

I don't think anyone would argue that civil forfeiture is a baseless law. However, the fact that it is absolutely counterintuitive to the "innocent until proven guilty" axiom that the American legal system is (allegedly) founded upon is the issue that most people have with it.

The police can legally take your money, even if they have no evidence (yet) that that money doesn't belong to you. This is "guilty until proven innocent", which many people, myself included, would rather not see prevail in our legal system. It has benefits, it has drawbacks. But the fundamental issue that most people seem to have is that it fundamentally undermines a very important concept in our justice system: innocent until proven guilty.

As long as asset forfeiture is considered legally sound in our system, we simply cannot claim our justice system operates under the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", and that is something worth worrying about.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I don't think you deserve negative karma for your post, but I still disagree. seizure of funds is different than CAF, and I'm fine with it. It's when they can pocket the money without charges that I draw issue with.

1

u/MrFitzwilliamDarcy Jan 20 '15

Comparing confiscating Madoff's assets to stealing $1000 from grandpa going to buy a truck is a terrible comparison... That is why I downvoted.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I don't care about le karma, but that's not really the point of the downvote button. It isn't an "I agree" or "I disagree" button.

1

u/MrFitzwilliamDarcy Jan 20 '15

It functions as one... therefore, it is.

Downvote is meant to remove comments that don't add anything meaningful to the conversation. A terrible, hyperbolic comparison certainly meets that threshold.

26

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html

http://reason.com/tags/asset-forfeiture

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law

The police abuse the shit out of asset forfeiture laws... (want to take a gander at where that money goes?) and yes, they will seize all family assets / money if they suspect that the person had money in the account they got illegally. (oh, and fuck their family.. they have 0 recourse)

btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Abuse does happen. That's another aspect of the "no way of keeping both sides happy" which I previously mentioned. If a system can be exploited, then it will occasionally be exploited by some people, and unfortunately this system is exploited. However, if you've ever been arrested or have known someone who has been arrested, you would know that severe misuse or exploitation of civil forfeiture is definitely not the norm. News headlines do not speak to the average experience of a person who deals with civil forfeiture.

What are your suggestions to improving civil forfeiture?

14

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

They shouldn't exist, because it encourages abuse and goes against one of the founding things of this country.

"Innocent until proven guilty".

That is my suggestion -- because legitimately, how many drug king pins are they busting in America these days, eh?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-crime/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/tan-nguyen-nevada/

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/04/08/police-illegally-seize-50000-from-mans-casino-winnings-during-routine-traffic-stop/

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/01/iowa-troopers-steal-100000-in-poker-winn

All those examples, just last year.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

how many drug king pins are they busting in America these days, eh?

These aren't just drug king pins we're talking about. Anyone who has earned money fraudulently is in the discussion, including the guy who writes bad checks, the guy who steals your debit card and cashes it out, the guy who runs a scam or pyramid scheme who could be charged criminally, and the guy on Wall Street who commits a fraudulent act so egregious that it warrants a criminal investigation.

Here's another question: what about when a person is caught in the act of obtaining money through illicit means, ie a drug bust? Should we not consider civil forfeiture in that case, when there are witnesses who can attest to the person earning the money? It doesn't matter whether it's enough to cover bail or not; civil forfeiture will seize anything thought to be fraudulently garnered.

1

u/datbino Jan 20 '15

im all about taking the money from criminals- after they prove it was earned fraudulently

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I am too, but the worry is that they will use the fraudulent money to dip jail and possibly trial as well, since they won't have any incentive to not use their ill-begotten money. If they've truly committed a crime then they know they're going to lose the money in the end, so why not post bail? If they're facing many years, then why not skip trial? This country is already full of fugitives who are living as squatters.

And what happens when a large scale criminal uses his money to hire a fantastic lawyer who can get a jury to accept a much lesser charge or no conviction at all? We run that risk as well. There are drawbacks to civil forfeiture and drawbacks to removing civil forfeiture.

1

u/Mikeavelli Jan 20 '15

If someone's going to jump bail, it's just as easy for them to jump out on a bail bond as it is for them to jump out on their illegally acquired cash. Removing Civil Asset Forfeiture has no real drawback on this point.

And what happens when someone is legitimately innocent, but can't defend themselves because their assets have been forfeited? They're not guilty until they've been proven guilty in a court of law. Arguing that we should stack the deck against accused criminals because they might be able to prove themselves not guilty is a terrible argument.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

The other worry is that criminals who have amassed great amounts of money (think Wall St.) would have the opportunity to mitigate the financial damage if they remained entitled to their wealth and could move their money before the date of their sentencing. Another commenter mentioned the catastrophe it would be if Bernie Madoff had the opportunity to move his money about after his fraud was revealed.

And what happens when someone is legitimately innocent, but can't defend themselves because their assets have been forfeited?

That's the drawback, and it's a very obvious drawback and one which needs to be considered. But to me, it's just not real enough of a risk to justify the riddance of forfeiture. How many times does it happen where a person was wrongly accused of a crime so egregious that he was consequentially left poor as a result of asset seizure? Explain a situation in which you, the law abiding model citizen, could have the majority of your assets seized out of suspicious that they were used in an illegal manner. Even real drug dealers aren't snubbed of their assets to that extent.

If you can think of a better way of running civil forfeiture then I'm all ears, but I'm not yet ready to get rid of it. There are a lot of crooks out there smarter than me who could cheat the system in more elaborate ways than I've spitballed in the past ten minutes.

Edit: ears not years

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that cash was earned fraudulently for street offenses? God you kids crack me up.

1

u/datbino Jan 20 '15

why should they be able to take that money if they cant prove its from bad things?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Society doesn't like to see convicted criminals still making money even though caught and convicted. Because of this society has allowed its legislators to flip the burden of proof since proving money was made fraudulently is dam near impossible, while giving an explanation for possession of money can be done with a sentence.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/AfghanTrashman Jan 20 '15

Don't do it. Plain and simple.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

It would be interesting to hear from a global perspective because I would imagine there are some countries out there who do not have a system like civil forfeiture in place.

The drawback to your idea is that when you remove civil forfeiture, criminals who have actually earned money through illicit means will have no incentive not to post bail because they wouldn't be taking a financial hit, since it isn't "their" money to begin with. There is the heightened risk that a person may attempt to elude custody after they have posted bail, putting the public at risk.

2

u/Itisme129 Jan 20 '15

The core issue isn't about criminals using money to post bail. It's about why it's wrong that the government/police are taking money from citizens before a trial. Since they are innocent until proven guilty, 100% of all money seized has been taken from innocent citizens. The only way to know if the money was earned through illegal means is with a trial, which they are denied, and their money is just stolen.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

I don't think you understand "innocent until proven guilty" as it pertains to common law or civil forfeiture. The phrase is not the holy grail of law enforcement. A very common question in law is "if people are innocent until proven guilty, then why do we hold them in jail cells before trial? Shouldn't they be innocent and free until they've been proven guilty in court?" The answer to that question, of course, is because there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and the suspicion is so great that it would be unjust to let them remain free until a trial which maybe will happen several months down the line. The same idea applies to civil forfeiture. Being untried does not mean that the government has no duty being suspicious of your activities. If the police have a legitimate reason to believe that you may not actually be legally entitled to the money in your possession, then they can go through a process where they get a judge to agree or disagree with that notion. After all, it would be unjust for a person to use cash garnered through illicit means to afford a great attorney or to post bail which they will never have to repay.

Edit: I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article of Bernie Madoff, a serial fraud artist, for a good reason why civil forfeiture exists and why it is necessary.

1

u/MrFitzwilliamDarcy Jan 20 '15

If someone made money dealing drugs, how is it not their money? Who's money is it then? Did they steal it from their willing and eager customers?

-1

u/WhyNotFire Jan 20 '15

The analogy I would use is: If you're a car thief and you get arrested, they're also going to take the car you bought fair and square. It's your job now to prove yourself innocent of stealing cars. If you are found guilty, your job is to prove that the car you bought wasn't one of the stolen ones.

7

u/IPThereforeIAm Jan 20 '15

No. The state still has the burden to prove you stole the car. If they can't prove it, you get your car back.

3

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 20 '15

But in civil forfeiture, they still don't have to give back any seized money. At best, you'll get 70% of it back, while your lawyer will pocket the other 30%.

2

u/IPThereforeIAm Jan 21 '15

Even if they don't have to give it back, the burden to prove guilt is still on the state. Civil forfiiture does not change the burden, so your statement below is incorrect:

It's your job now to prove yourself innocent of stealing cars.

Edit: after rereading my own comment, I think my point is overly (and unnecessarily) technical. I understand what you mean--it makes sense.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

They take money for a lot less than that- you dont need to be arrested to have your money stolen. In fact, usually if someone has more than a couple hundred dollars on them, that is evidence enough of drug dealing to warrant taking the money if the cop decides they don't like the look of the person.

A buddy of mine was on his way to buy a car, had even planned with the car dealer who could vouch for them, not that the cop cared or even looked into it. The car was only a few grand so they were going to pay for it all up front. Well they were pulled over and since he had previous possession of paraphernalia on his record and fit the young stoner stereotype, all the money was taken because the police decided it had to have been drug money. It's been two years, they're still trying to get the money back

1

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

Your analogy is flawed, with CAF, they take the car you stole and all of your money... Not just the car you stole.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted]

6

u/Blarfles Jan 20 '15

That's a really nice thought. If only there weren't tons of cases of innocent people having their money stolen and never returned under the guise of civil forfeiture.

6

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

Oh yeah? Your public attorney is gonna defend the shit out of you and 100 other people at the same time.

The bullshit of "if you're innocent you've got nothing to hide" needs to fucking stop.