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.
Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
I didn’t mean to correct you; I was just riffing on it.
I know that my father’s recollection of growing up in America in the 1920’s is far different from mine. of the late 1960 and early 1970’s.
To me the 1980’s and the advent of MADD is when the slide into stupidity began in earnest.
The way it was if you carried enough cash, they could take it and say it was drub money. You can NEVER get it back.
In a sane world, Mothers Against Drunk Driving would be countered by Fathers For Drunk Driving.
The voters? First it doesn't sit well with the Constitution.
The vast majority of Americans actually have less to fear from common criminals than those claiming to 'protect' us.
I hope the new law does not let the police file charges, seize assets, then dismiss charges without returning seized assets. They should only be allowed to seize assets while the charges are filed or there is a conviction. They should also have to pay 110% back for the inconvenience.
I really despise MADD. They are the originators of the “if it saves just one life it will be worth it” road to the tyranny we are now living under.
Florida never could seize property without going before a judge first.
The majority of Florida law enforcement will ignore this new law and feign ignorance as they continue to perform literal highway robbery.
Is that a comforting thought? So when the state employee (the cop) and the other state employee (the prosecutor) go see the other State employee (the judge), I'm supposed to believe that his bias isn't to the State?
Now they just “charge” you with a bogus charge, say the money was drug money and take it anyways.
They should only be able to take the money if they charge you with a drug offense. They should have to return the money if they don’t get a conviction on the drug offense.
I’m a charter member of DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers < BG >
Go whine somewhere else.
Funny how whenever this subject is reported on they NEVER mention that the state had to first either get permission from the owner to seize the property or convince a judge they had cause to seize it.
Agree with it or not but it’s an important tidbit that should be in the story.
If by permission by the owner, you mean that someone was strong-armed on the side of the highway to either turn over cash or be arrested in the middle of nowhere far from their home. Then I guess you are right and you’re just a walking bastion of freedom.
“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Mk2Uuznu8
Good riff!
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.