If your property is seized unjustly, you have recourse in the law. Show me a place on earth with stronger protections against illegal search and seizure. If you choose not to avail yourself of those protections so that you can keep a lower profile and continue smuggling heroin in peace in a newer, shinier speedboat, that's not my problem. The instances of cops seizing property from law-abiding citizens and selling it without charging anyone with a crime are (I suspect) astonishingly rare.
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence.
You're anti-police-abuse, I'm anti-police-abuse, the vast majority of our republic is anti-police-abuse (incuding the vast majority of the police), and there are plenty of existing laws providing for pretty harsh punishment of abusive police. Maybe we're not Utopic yet, but it's not for lack of trying.
Actually, asset forfeiture abuse has gotten pretty extreme in places, thanks to laws that allow law enforcement agencies to directly profit from the sale of seized assets. Yes, there is a process for getting assets returned, but in many places the odds are stacked against the person whose assets were seized. Some police departments, especially in South Western States have become dependent on proceeds from the sale of seized assets.
The article has some holes, but makes a fair point.
The American system of it costing $10k to correct the police having improperly seized your $9k Honda is problematic. It sounds like in the 17 years or so since this particular article was written, things have gotten somewhat better, or at least the worst abuses are now getting a lot more publicity.
Note, though, that a lot of these are isomorphic to the guy who unwittingly flew a convicted cocaine smuggler in his plane with $3M in cash on board, and then had the plane seized for being part of a drug crime. It's not like they seized the plane with no cause whatsoever, but you're right that the property should be returned intact if no charges are filed or a "not guilty" verdict withstands appeal -- and they (the seizing entity) should have a duty to maintain the seized property and/or make it whole afterwards if they lose (in fact, they might already have the duty under law, it's just hard/expensive to litigate it).
Anyway, thanks for pointing out a new and dispiriting abuse of power. Are you ever gonna post about fighting the law and the law winning? ;-) The one-liner you posted was too intriguing to hold back! C'mon! Story!
Who says I've never been harassed by a cop? Who said it's not happening all the time? I simply said that people have strong existing recourse, and wonder whether it will really happen that much more often after this law starts being enforced, versus before. I consider the issue of police abuse to be almost entirely orthogonal to SB 1070, rather than being multiplied by its existence.
You're anti-police-abuse, I'm anti-police-abuse, the vast majority of our republic is anti-police-abuse (incuding the vast majority of the police), and there are plenty of existing laws providing for pretty harsh punishment of abusive police. Maybe we're not Utopic yet, but it's not for lack of trying.
Reply
For Starters
Reply
The American system of it costing $10k to correct the police having improperly seized your $9k Honda is problematic. It sounds like in the 17 years or so since this particular article was written, things have gotten somewhat better, or at least the worst abuses are now getting a lot more publicity.
Note, though, that a lot of these are isomorphic to the guy who unwittingly flew a convicted cocaine smuggler in his plane with $3M in cash on board, and then had the plane seized for being part of a drug crime. It's not like they seized the plane with no cause whatsoever, but you're right that the property should be returned intact if no charges are filed or a "not guilty" verdict withstands appeal -- and they (the seizing entity) should have a duty to maintain the seized property and/or make it whole afterwards if they lose (in fact, they might already have the duty under law, it's just hard/expensive to litigate it).
Anyway, thanks for pointing out a new and dispiriting abuse of power. Are you ever gonna post about fighting the law and the law winning? ;-) The one-liner you posted was too intriguing to hold back! C'mon! Story!
Reply
Leave a comment