Posted on 04/04/2016 10:56:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Some great news in asset forfeiture reform is coming out of Florida. S.B. 1044, approved by the legislature earlier in the month, was signed into law today by Gov. Rick Scott.
The big deal with this particular reform is that, in most cases, Florida police will actually have to arrest and charge a person with a crime before attempting to seize and keep their money and property under the state's asset forfeiture laws. One of the major ways asset forfeiture gets abused is that it is frequently a "civil", not criminal, process where police and prosecutors are able to take property without even charging somebody with a crime, let alone convicting them. This is how police are, for example, able to snatch cash from cars they've pulled over and claim they suspect the money was going to be used for drug trafficking without actually finding any drugs.
Florida's new law will make this a bit harder. From Florida Politics:
State Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican, sponsored the measure, which was supported from both sides of the political spectrum….
"Florida is once again taking a leadership role in the defense of private property rights, and other states should look to our work and enact similar reforms to protect the rights of their residents," Brandes said.
Bill Piper, senior director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, also celebrated Friday's signing.
"The notion that police officers can take cash or other property from people never charged with any criminal wrongdoing and keeping any profits from the sale of seized property doesn't sit well with the public," he said. "Voters want action on civil asset forfeiture and it was smart politics for Gov. Scott to sign off on this."
That's good news for civil asset forfeiture reformers in the wake of the bad news earlier in the week that the Department of Justice has restarted its federal "equitable sharing" asset forfeiture program that allows law enforcement agencies to partner with the federal government and then keep a huge chunk of what they seize. Police departments often use this program to attempt to bypass restrictions their states put in place that either establish tougher rules for seizures or reduce how much money or property police are allowed to keep.
In Florida's case, the law is written so that a property seizure may only take place if the owner of the property is arrested for a crime for which said property would be described as "contraband." That appears to put in place restrictions that would avoid a federal bypass.
Read more about the law from the Institute of Justice here.
There should have to be a conviction first for crying out loud.
...
Yes, but it’s a step in right direction.
I kid with ya about the Trump Cruz thing (I am happy you ratcheted it down a notch) but I think we can agree on this and a lot of other stuff.
We aren’t done yet.
They are muddying the water for seizure and forfeiture. Forfeiture (change of ownership) should require a conviction. Seizure (lock it up to prevent it from disappearing) should require a charge.
Unfortunately, when they say “seizure” when they mean “forfeiture”, so I agree with you.
The most likely result of this law will be for police departments to start throwing out silly charges to justify property grabs. If you don’t have to get a conviction, then... what stops them?
Well, until they are looking backward up the darned thing, anyway.
Precisely. This is just a first step.
You are innocent. Apparently, your stuff is presumed guilty.
How sad.....we need to make it illegal for the police to steal our property.
“Cannot believe this bill needed to be passed. Does anyone remotely care about the constitution anymore?”
No, it’s devolved into EVERYTHING IS FOR THE MONEY INVOLVED! And not just these seizures! This country should have it’s motto changed to: EVERYTHING (AND ANYTHING) FOR A BUCK!
You’re right....
The proper thing is to seize, and place into interest bearing escrow for cash and some sort of guardianship for real property.
Upon conviction, they then forfeit. If they are deemed no guilty, then their property shall be returned to them.
That would be the 2nd Amendment. Which is fading fast.
Heck, we have re-instituted debtor’s prisons for Bradley Debt.
Civil forfeiture for the mere allegation should be enough for you to lose everything according to those who support this sort of thing.
I would say America is a distant memory, but perhaps it always has been.
How about a CONVICTION before seizure. The guy might need to sell some of his property to defend himself.
Sugar, splash of water, dash or two of Angostura Bitters, slice of orange and a cherry, in an on-the-rocks glass. Muddle thoroughly, then add ice and your favorite rye, bourbon or scotch. Stir and enjoy, sipping slowly. A fine compliment to dinner, before or after.
;)
Well, that’s a complement to fine dining, but I don’t know if it’s a compliment.
They learned that the hard way when millionaire drug dealers after conviction had no assets to seize, having sold them and offshored the funds. A lien should be sufficient in most cases, a physical seizure in others.
To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to...
You are correct to correct me. Thank you!
Anything for a buck-ten. Inflation, you know.
From Larry, Darryl and Darryl on the old "Newhart" show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.