1. #1
    College Student
    Jacob2899's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,224

    Question The Forfeiture Corridor - Seize Property SUSPECTED of Being Tied to Iillegal Activity

    First, it’s worth noting that this guy narrating the video probably has an agenda (end the war on drugs) and the officer in the video has a history of questionable decisions.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

    While most of the article seemed biased, this really jumped out at me.

    The “FORFEITURE CORRIDOR.”

    Asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement agencies can take possession of property suspected of being tied to illegal activity. Under these laws, the property itself is presumed to be guilty of criminal activity. Once the property has been seized, it's up to the owner to prove he obtained the property legitimately.

    In about 80 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases, the property owner is never charged with a crime. And in Illinois -- like many states -- the law enforcement agency that makes the seizure gets to keep the cash or the proceeds of the forfeiture auction (in Illinois, the prosecutor's office gets 10-12 percent).
    [ . . .]
    Critics say police can target out-of-state drivers, who are more likely than local residents to accept a police officer's baseless accusations and turn over their property, rather than refuse and face arrest, multiple returns to the state for court dates and thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Sometimes winning the property back can exceed the actual value of the property.

    Complete Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

    I have never heard of this before, and in my uneducated opinion this would seem to violate the constitution. Do all states have this forfeiture corridor? How often do you personally as an LEO take possession of property using this process? Is the forfeiture corridor really an effective or necessary tool for LE to fight drug trafficing?


    Thanks!
    Last edited by Jacob2899; 04-03-2012 at 01:03 AM. Reason: Forgot to Include Link
    "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King, Jr

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,725
    OK, I'll bite, sort of. First, throw out the violating the Constitution crap. The seized assets you reference are not awarded to the concerned LE agencies absent an order of a competent court. That at least is the law in Alabama. My Agency typically seizes "assets" from suspected drug transporters etc. Ownership however does not transfer without the requisite court order. To the very best of my knowledge and belief, my Federal colleagues practice generally the same procedure, and yes, the courts have upheld the legality of the seizure(s). I've no doubt my reply will not satisfy you, as based on the wording of your post, I strongly suspect an 'agenda". Perhaps my colleagues can and will shed more light on the subject for you. Still, I feel you'll be dissatisfied with their replies as well. Not really my problem though.

  3. #3
    An Obvious problem
    mdrdep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    5,455
    Asset forfiture is a civil procedure and therefore the burden of proof is somewhat less than for a criminal case. However there still has to be a preponderance of evidence to show the seized item is from criminal enterprise either as profit or implement.
    Today's Quote:


    "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."


    Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    It's Complicated
    Iowa #1603's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    15,478
    Asset forfeiture is used all over the country AND by the federal government


    As stated the procedure is CIVIL and thus uses the civil burden of proof.

    The appellate courts have CONSISTENTLY upheld asset forfeiture cases in my area (8th Circuit)

    Our State Patrol has an Interdiction Unit ...............(I-80 and I-35 run through the state) and seizes a lot of undocumented cash.................hidden in secret compartments built in to or found in vehicles. Many of the Sheriff's Offices that have an interstate running through them also have interdiction specalists.

    HERE ARE A FEW 8TH CIRCUIT OPINIONs ON THE MATTER----------------They are representative of the opinions I have read.

    http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/05/072175U.pdf

    http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/06/093429U.pdf
    Last edited by Iowa #1603; 04-03-2012 at 09:10 AM.
    "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon - no matter how good you are, the pigeon will still crap all over the board and strut around like it won anyway."



    I don't know it all, I know a little about a lot and a lot about a little---slamdunc


    I have discussed religion and politics over morning coffee with men who have killed people, you don't scare me.

  5. #5
    College Student
    Jacob2899's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipCal View Post
    I've no doubt my reply will not satisfy you, as based on the wording of your post, I strongly suspect an 'agenda". Perhaps my colleagues can and will shed more light on the subject for you. Still, I feel you'll be dissatisfied with their replies as well. Not really my problem though.
    Not really sure where you’re picking up that I have an agenda…I guess it was the wording of my post. I was quick to admit my opinion was “uneducated” and the news article I linked seemed biased (they interviewed critics of this corridor, but no supporters). That’s why I posted on here. I figured I’d get some replies from people who actually have knowledge of this process and, as you and Iowa did, discuss the constitutionality of it.

    Thanks all for your replies so far (and the link Iowa). I was just surprised as this process. As I said before, I had never heard of this, but I’m always interested in learning more about LE and police procedure.
    "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King, Jr

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Monsey, NY
    Posts
    236
    The first sentence thats bolded is a logical fallacy.

    You cant be accused of something and have to prove its not true. That doesn't make sense. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.

    No, I didn't see the video.
    Last edited by Erasthenes; 04-03-2012 at 04:27 PM. Reason: Just saw this is "ask a cop." Mods, delete at will.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob2899 View Post
    Not really sure where you’re picking up that I have an agenda…I guess it was the wording of my post. I was quick to admit my opinion was “uneducated” and the news article I linked seemed biased (they interviewed critics of this corridor, but no supporters). That’s why I posted on here. I figured I’d get some replies from people who actually have knowledge of this process and, as you and Iowa did, discuss the constitutionality of it.

    Thanks all for your replies so far (and the link Iowa). I was just surprised as this process. As I said before, I had never heard of this, but I’m always interested in learning more about LE and police procedure.
    Go back and re-read the first paragraph of your quote from the Huffington Post. It WAS the wording of your post. If it's your desire not to be misunderstood, word your query in such a way as to insure that doesn't happen. Problem solved. Hopefully, the replies you've received will help you understand the process under which these forfeitures take place.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    16,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Erasthenes View Post
    The first sentence thats bolded is a logical fallacy.

    You cant be accused of something and have to prove its not true. That doesn't make sense. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.

    No, I didn't see the video.
    Unless I've totally misunderstood your post, quoted above, the student seems more willing to learn than the teacher. Should you take the time to read the replies rendered to the OP, you'll hopefully walk away with a better understanding of the process............semantics aside.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register