What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Police seizures/forfeitures getting out of hand? (1 Viewer)

Just read an interesting article in the Detroit News

It certainly sounds as if there are a lot of police departments that are now using seizures to offset budget losses, and in some cases they are doing it very loosely. I would be pissed if something of mine got seized, I was never charged with anything, yet still had to pay a $1000 to get my property back.

Police property seizures ensnare even the innocent

Money raised by Metro Detroit agencies increases 50% in five years

George Hunter and Doug Guthrie / The Detroit News

Local law enforcement agencies are raising millions of dollars by seizing private property suspected in crimes, but often without charges being filed -- and sometimes even when authorities admit no offense was committed.

The money raised by confiscating goods in Metro Detroit soared more than 50 percent to at least $20.62 million from 2003 to 2007, according to a Detroit News analysis of records from 58 law enforcement agencies. In some communities, amounts raised went from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands -- and, in one case, into the millions.

"It's like legalized stealing," said Jacque Sutton, a 21-year-old college student from Mount Clemens whose 1989 Mustang was seized by Detroit police raiding a party. Charges against him and more than 100 others were dropped, but he still paid more than $1,000 to get the car back.

Advertisement

"According to the law, I did nothing wrong -- but they're allowed to take my property anyway. It doesn't make sense."

While courts have maintained the government's right to take property involved in crimes, police seizures -- also known as forfeitures -- are a growing source of friction in Michigan, especially as law enforcement agencies struggle to balance budgets.

"Police departments right now are looking for ways to generate revenue, and forfeiture is a way to offset the costs of doing business," said Sgt. Dave Schreiner, who runs Canton Township's forfeiture unit, which raised $343,699 in 2008. "You'll find that departments are doing more forfeitures than they used to because they've got to -- they're running out of money and they've got to find it somewhere."

The increase in property seizures merely is a byproduct of diligent law enforcement, some law enforcement officials say.

"We're trying to fight crime," said Police Chief Mike Pachla of Roseville, where the money raised from forfeitures jumped more than tenfold, from $33,890 to $393,014.

"We would be just as aggressive even if there wasn't any money involved."

Roseville had among the most dramatic increases over the five-year period examined by The News. But several other agencies also more than doubled their takes, including Novi, Trenton, Farmington Hills, Southfield, the Michigan State Police, Shelby Township, Livonia, Warren and Romulus.

The increase in money coming in leads to a higher percentage of the police budget being covered by seizures. In Roseville, the share of the police budget raised from forfeitures went from 0.3 percent to 4.2 percent. In Romulus, it jumped from 4.5 percent to 11.2 percent from 2003-2007, the most recent years for which comparable records were available. Some agencies said records weren't available.

Police and prosecutors profit because citizens must either pay to get their confiscated property back or lose their cars, homes and other seized assets to the arresting agencies, which auction them off.

The increased reliance on seized property to fund police operations amounts to a trade-off for law enforcement. The tough economy may be prompting law enforcement agencies to use an "entrepreneurial spirit," but that makes for bad public relations, said Tom Hendrickson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.

Courts support seizures

The friction over seizures is a result of two competing legacies in U.S. law. While the Fourth Amendment, adopted in 1791, protects the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that a Spanish-owned ship could be seized after it fired on a U.S. vessel. Whether or not the crew was convicted, the brig was the principal offender, it ruled.

And 169 years later, the nation's high court reaffirmed the notion when it ruled that a Royal Oak woman couldn't challenge the seizure of the family sedan after her husband was caught having sex with a prostitute inside, even though she didn't know the car was being used for that purpose.

Just last month, the high court heard the case of six people from Chicago who sought prompt hearings on the seizure of their cars and money. When a federal attorney told the court the government needs time to determine who owns a car and to investigate that person's connection to the criminal activity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: "I'm sorry. You take the car and then you investigate?"

A ruling, expected to come on procedural grounds, is due by the end of the Supreme Court's term in June and isn't expected to change law on property forfeiture.

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court so far has ruled that they're not unconstitutional," said Kary Moss, director of the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union.

Modern civil forfeiture laws originally were passed in the 1970s and 1980s to allow police to seize the means of committing crimes. For instance, if a drug dealer was using a boat to transport drugs, the law enabled officers to confiscate the vessel before the case went to trial.

But the laws expanded over the years to allow the seizure of property that had only a loose connection to the alleged crime, and police now are taking property for infractions that would not have resulted in forfeitures in the past, including minor drug possession, gambling, drag racing, drunken driving and even loitering near illegal activity.

While laws governing seizures by federal authorities have been reformed to make it more difficult for them to seize property, state legislatures, including Michigan's, have not followed suit.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office often makes people pay to get their seized property back without filing any charges -- and in some cases citizens such as Sutton must pay even though police and prosecutors admit they can't prove any law was broken. In his case, police raided a dance party they thought was a blind pig and issued tickets to more than 100 people, all of which were later dropped.

Prosecutor Kym Worthy declined comment, but issued a written statement explaining that she wants to get criminals off the street, and that the law allows her office to seize property without filing charges.

Canton's Sgt. Schreiner insisted forfeiture laws should be wielded responsibly.

"There's a right way and a wrong way to do forfeitures," he said. "First of all, you should always file charges; if you don't have a case against someone, you shouldn't seize their property.

"But even when there is a crime, the law should be used as it was intended. If we seize a computer that was used to commit identity fraud, that's a good thing. But if Joe Citizen complains that he was arrested for a small amount of drugs, and we took his refrigerator and silverware, then I think he has a valid complaint."

Agencies ramp up efforts

Many of the increases in forfeitures obtained by local police agencies aren't the result of money hunting, officials say, although they also admit their efforts to take property have increased.

When Romulus saw a 118 percent jump in forfeiture revenues from 2003-07, the increase was not the result of more criminal activity, Chief Michael St. Andre said.

"It's because our forfeiture efforts have ramped up in the past few years," he said.

Revenue was not a primary concern, he said, "but it is nice when we're able to purchase things we need from arrests.

"I don't have to go to the city and ask for things like bulletproof vests or computers."

In Trenton, forfeitures hit a high of $874,499 in 2006. Police Chief William Lilienthal said his department joined a federal drug task force in 2005 that focused on asset seizures, which partially accounts for the increase.

Novi saw the biggest revenue increase in forfeiture revenues, going from $12,278 in 2003 to $2.7 million in 2007. But police officials said that spike is largely attributed to a 2005 arrest of a nationwide drug cartel that netted millions of dollars over a three-year period.

Yet adding to the dissent over seizures is that police agencies are able and even required to return the proceeds from forfeitures into more law enforcement activities, which can make a seizure look like a money-grab even if it isn't.

That's risky business, said Hendrickson, who represents the state's chiefs of police.

"Police departments should never make revenue a prime concern," he said. "That undermines people's confidence in their police officers."

Under state law, police departments may use the funds raised from most seizures indiscriminately within their own departments, although drug forfeiture money must be put back into fighting drugs.

But even that rule is being relaxed because of the tough economy. Earlier this year, Romulus police were able to purchase 16 new Dodge Chargers from drug forfeiture funds, which usually isn't allowed.

"They allowed it this year because the economy is so bad, it's an emergency situation," St. Andre said. "We contacted the DEA and asked permission to use that money to purchase vehicles."

In Trenton, forfeiture revenues paid for a new firing range.

"Forfeitures are a way to help supplement your budgetary issues," Trenton Chief William Lilienthal said.

"You can't supplant your budget with them, but you can supplement it. If you need something, you can utilize those funds to purchase it."

ghunter@detnews.com The Detroit News' Bridget Baulch and Mike Wilkinson contributed.
 
I've been saying this for years.

It's basically at the point when just having cash on you is enough to be considered suspicious and they can seize your cash with no other evidence of wrongdoing.

I asked a question a little while ago about the cost of the War on Drugs vs the amount of revenue they are bring in via forfeitures and fines but never got an answer.

 
Red light tickets are up to almost $500 around here even though there is no evidence they make anyone safer. It isn't on the same level as wrongfully seizing assets, but in places that aren't as ####ed up as Detroit there is still evidence of cities using the police as a means of gouging people for revenue.

 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).

 
Now, when you have a guy purchase a small amount of pot and a cops sees it, he has incentive to run from the cops if he knows his car will be seized. I don't see how this makes anything safer for anyone.

 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
Yeah, I was a bit confused at that as well.
 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
Yeah, I was a bit confused at that as well.
I don't understand the old Supreme Court case that the article says set the precendent: "Whether or not the crew was convicted, the brig was the principal offender, it ruled."??
 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
They claim that the property was involved in the crime the same way an individual is. Then they claim that property doesn't have any rights so it is guilty until proven innocent. Then you jump through hoops proving the property was innocent. Or more likely you can't or won't.How this nonsense passes as constitutional is beyond me, but it has to various degrees.

 
In my jursidiction there is no fee to get back property which is stipulated by both counsel to have had nothing to do with the crime or stuff which isn't contraband and the case has been resolved, but it's tedious as hell. Where I've seen this hurt people is where you have an overzealous officer who finds weed on someone, thinks they are some big time dealer, and confiscates everything (esp. licensed weapons, computers, phones, etc). Out here a client probably waits 4-5 months to get their stuff back.

 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
They claim that the property was involved in the crime the same way an individual is. Then they claim that property doesn't have any rights so it is guilty until proven innocent. Then you jump through hoops proving the property was innocent. Or more likely you can't or won't.How this nonsense passes as constitutional is beyond me, but it has to various degrees.
The idea behind is is very constitutional - you have no right to contraband and the officers have the right to lawfully obtain and investigate items which may have been involved in the commission of a crime. Where it runs aloof is with the application by officers who are stupid.
 
I represented a kid in Wisconsin that was dealing weed out of his car. A lot of weed. In any event, per the Wisconsin statutes (summarized below), the police seized his car. The kid never got it back.

"If you have been charged or accused of a drug crime, it is very important to understand Wisconsin drug laws and their implications. For example, if you are charged with a felony drug offense, and your house or car was allegedly used to manufacture or transport drugs, your assets could be seized."

 
I represented a kid in Wisconsin that was dealing weed out of his car. A lot of weed. In any event, per the Wisconsin statutes (summarized below), the police seized his car. The kid never got it back. "If you have been charged or accused of a drug crime, it is very important to understand Wisconsin drug laws and their implications. For example, if you are charged with a felony drug offense, and your house or car was allegedly used to manufacture or transport drugs, your assets could be seized."
They seize your car for pulling up and buying a $10 dime bag off an undercover cop standing on the corner as well. It doesn't have to be a lot of drugs. The people I know in Wisconsin that have had their homes raided for drugs all had their cars seized as well. Most operations try to specifically get pictures of you carrying the stuff to or from the car, for the sole purpose of seizing the vehicle.
 
I represented a kid in Wisconsin that was dealing weed out of his car. A lot of weed. In any event, per the Wisconsin statutes (summarized below), the police seized his car. The kid never got it back. "If you have been charged or accused of a drug crime, it is very important to understand Wisconsin drug laws and their implications. For example, if you are charged with a felony drug offense, and your house or car was allegedly used to manufacture or transport drugs, your assets could be seized."
####### Cheese Heads!!!!
 
I represented a kid in Wisconsin that was dealing weed out of his car. A lot of weed. In any event, per the Wisconsin statutes (summarized below), the police seized his car. The kid never got it back. "If you have been charged or accused of a drug crime, it is very important to understand Wisconsin drug laws and their implications. For example, if you are charged with a felony drug offense, and your house or car was allegedly used to manufacture or transport drugs, your assets could be seized."
That's fine. Assuming he was found guilty.
 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.

 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.
Um, I think you're missing the point. They keep the stuff even if it turns out you were innocent.
 
I represented a kid in Wisconsin that was dealing weed out of his car. A lot of weed. In any event, per the Wisconsin statutes (summarized below), the police seized his car. The kid never got it back. "If you have been charged or accused of a drug crime, it is very important to understand Wisconsin drug laws and their implications. For example, if you are charged with a felony drug offense, and your house or car was allegedly used to manufacture or transport drugs, your assets could be seized."
That's fine. Assuming he was found guilty.
Right. The problem is when the police just seize stuff to seize stuff."Well son, we arrested you because the eyewitnesses at the bank robbery said the suspect was male. So you fit that description, we arrested you, and since the report said the suspect fled in a car, we seized your vehicle. Now, after looking at the surveillance tape, seems the suspect was a one-armed midget with a club foot, so, we aren't going to charge you with a crime.""OK, but what about my car...?""Oh, dear. Let me look. Yup, we haven't yet cleared your car of any crime, so, you'll have to pay to get it out of impound. Let's see... today we're having a special on impound, looks like you can get your car back for only $15,500. Huh. What a coincidence.... exactly the same as the overtime the department owes for last month."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.

Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).

Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
I really don't get how it's even constitutional to make people pay to get their stuff that was wrongly seized.
They claim that the property was involved in the crime the same way an individual is. Then they claim that property doesn't have any rights so it is guilty until proven innocent. Then you jump through hoops proving the property was innocent. Or more likely you can't or won't.How this nonsense passes as constitutional is beyond me, but it has to various degrees.
The idea behind is is very constitutional - you have no right to contraband and the officers have the right to lawfully obtain and investigate items which may have been involved in the commission of a crime. Where it runs aloof is with the application by officers who are stupid.
Aren't you the lawyer? In any case wrong as usual. What happened to your "Stupid things lay people say" thread again?Link

The other point of objection is of a far more important and difficult nature. It is well known, that at the common law, in many cases of felonies, the party forfeited his goods and chattels to the crown. The forfeiture did not, strictly speaking, attach in rem; but it was a part, or at least a consequence, of the judgment of conviction. It is plain from this statement, that no right to the goods and chattels of the felon could be acquired by the crown by the mere commission of the offence; but the right attached only by the conviction of the offender. The necessary result was, that in every case where the crown sought to recover such goods and chattels, it was indispensable to establish its right by producing the record of the judgment of conviction. In the contemplation of the common law, the offender's right was not devested until the conviction. But this doctrine never was applied to seizures and forfeitures, created by statute, in rem, cognizable on the revenue side of the Exchequer. The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing; and this, whether the offense be malum prohibitum, or malum in se. The same principle applies to proceedings in rem, on seizures in the Admiralty. Many cases exist, where the forfeiture for acts done attaches solely in rem, and there is no accompanying penalty in personam. Many cases exist, where there is both a forfeiture in rem and a personal penalty. But in neither class of cases has it ever been decided that the prosecutions were dependent upon each other. But the practice has been, and so this Court understand the law to be, that the proceeding in rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffected by any criminal proceeding in personam. This doctrine is deduced from a fair interpretation of the legislative intention apparent upon its enactments. Both in England and America, the jurisdiction over proceedings in rem, is usually vested in different Courts from those exercising criminal jurisdiction. If the argument at the bar were well founded, there could never be a judgment of condemnation pronounced against any vessel coming within the prohibitions of the acts on which the present libel is founded; for there is no act of Congress which provides for the personal punishment of offenders, who commit 'any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation or seizure,' within the meaning of those acts. Such a construction of the enactments, which goes wholly to defeat their operation, and violates their plain import, is utterly inadmissible. In the judgment of this Court, no personal conviction of the offender is necessary to enforce a forfeiture in rem in cases of this nature.

 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.
You just forfeited the right to expect any of us to care when the police determine that the junk from "dirtbag criminals and drug addicts" doesn't meet their needs and they instead turn to your stuff.
 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.
You just forfeited the right to expect any of us to care when the police determine that the junk from "dirtbag criminals and drug addicts" doesn't meet their needs and they instead turn to your stuff.
Hey wise guy, they already take my stuff, and everyone's stuff who actually works for a living. So some potheads loose their cars, well good. They finally have to pay their share.
 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.
You just forfeited the right to expect any of us to care when the police determine that the junk from "dirtbag criminals and drug addicts" doesn't meet their needs and they instead turn to your stuff.
Hey wise guy, they already take my stuff, and everyone's stuff who actually works for a living. So some potheads loose their cars, well good. They finally have to pay their share.
When are you going to take the other side with your blue team alias?
 
I don't see the problem here. Police have to get money somehow. Better to steal it from dirtbag criminals and drug addicts than to steal it from hardworking Americans through taxation.
You just forfeited the right to expect any of us to care when the police determine that the junk from "dirtbag criminals and drug addicts" doesn't meet their needs and they instead turn to your stuff.
Hey wise guy, they already take my stuff, and everyone's stuff who actually works for a living. So some potheads loose their cars, well good. They finally have to pay their share.
There are boatloads of other professions where situations occur where you need to carry a large amount of cash on you. If you are pulled over and they find over $500 cash on you for any reason, especially on the interstate, they are taking it from you. If they can't find drugs, you probably won't be charged with anything but they are keeping that money.That is absolutely unacceptable in America.
 
A fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable law and a malapropism, all in the same two line post.

Even by Woz standards, this is pretty impressive.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
A fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable law and a malapropism, all in the same two line post. Even by Woz standards, this is pretty impressive.
:blinkl:
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning".

Yea, sounds fair.

 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
It isn't fair but the county would love to have some income producing properties to offset their lack of raising taxes so too bad for the owners.
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
Jeez. If they'd have followed through on something like that, heads would roll. Literally. Like Mexican Cartel style.
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
Jeez. If they'd have followed through on something like that, heads would roll. Literally. Like Mexican Cartel style.
I'd be shocked if they haven't followed through on somebody else.
 
Outlaw having to pay a fine to get property back.Or better yet, make the police pay a fine to the person who had their property seized (if charges are dropped or the person is found innocent).Bottom line is it is a bad idea for the police to have an economic incentive to seize property. Their only incentive ought to be crime-related reasons to seize property (if seizing property is even a good idea in the first place).
:fro:
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
It isn't fair but the county would love to have some income producing properties to offset their lack of raising taxes so too bad for the owners.
I'd burn it to the ground first.
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
It isn't fair but the county would love to have some income producing properties to offset their lack of raising taxes so too bad for the owners.
I'd burn it to the ground first.
And I would support you in that.
 
I had a tenant last year that got busted selling drugs out of my rental property. I received a phone call from the police notifying me that our county had recently passed an ordinance that stated they could seize the rental property from me. Thankfully they didn't pursue it, but more just "let that be a warning". Yea, sounds fair.
It isn't fair but the county would love to have some income producing properties to offset their lack of raising taxes so too bad for the owners.
I'd burn it to the ground first.
And I would support you in that.
I think we had a thread in here about a guy who bull dozed his under similar circumstances. Maybe it was a divorce. Same difference, though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top