So, when a listing of states comes out regarding civil liberties or quality of life, I generally expect Massachusetts to be near the top. We were kind of ahead of the curve in the 1770s and I’d like to believe we’ve stayed there generally. But it was disappointing to learn that Massachusetts languishes near the basement on one hot civil rights issue — civil forfeiture. If you’re not familiar with the concept, “civil forfeiture” is the fancy term for when police seize objects they believe had been used in commission of a crime. Seemingly innocent, but there are three issues which make civil forfeiture a sticky issue:
- There is a low bar to take this property from citizens. Rather than being required to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that property was used in a crime, police usually need a lower bar. They take the property, and to get it back you need to hire a lawyer to prove a negative. In other words, if police mange to convince a judge or jury that your car was probably used in criminal dealings, you no longer own a car. If someone was using your house as part of a criminal enterprise, you may no longer own a house. An NFL player lost a truck and $200,000 because the man (who is paid in the millions) was sitting there with marijuana and lots of cash. Some states require a preponderance of evidence. In the Bay State, they only need the negligible “probable cause”.
- The threat of impounding property can be used to ensure compliance with other rackets. A family dependent on their car in order to get to work can suddenly be staring at a spiral of debt unless they comply with demands from the police. One town in Texas has perfected this legal extortion.
- Finally, the property is not donated to those who may need it, but sold. And the money made from selling this property often goes right to the police department that seizes it. Some states such as Maine prevent this move to give police a financial incentive to take property, ask questions later. Does it surprise any reader to learn that this is the case in Ferguson, Missouri? Here at home, seized property goes right in to the budget that pays the officers’ salaries.
It is on that final point that I want to dwell, for that is not the case universally. New Mexico is moving to end the practice, with a bill on track to the governor. In Maine, the money goes to the general fund, not the local station. Same in North Dakota. Vermont justice demands “clear and convincing evidence”. Here in Massachusetts, the police have used a handful of cases to muscle family owners out of their motel.
I’m not aware of any bills to correct this in Massachusetts. Hopefully our Legislature or Governor starts to move against this legalized injustice that puts police and law-abiding civilians on different sides of the courtroom.
…or are you suggesting the fourth amendment is not strong enough?
If you read the link to the town in Texas story, you will learn that warrants are not required. In fact there are numerous reports of police seizing quantities of money from drivers, claiming that the money is evidence of drug dealing, when there is no other evidence at all, let alone a warrant. The bar is actually much lower than Sabutai implies. As in the Texas case, police use the threat of arrest for alleged drug dealing (or whatever) to coerce their victims to sign papers relinquishing their property. The mere fact that you have a large sum of money is used as an excuse to seize that money. One man was driving from Michigan to California with cash to buy a car he’d found on Craigslist, when police in a third state stopped him. They seized his money. He was faced with a choice: give up his honestly-obtained money, or be arrested and prosecuted far from home. What would you do?
A little-discussed aspect of civil forfeiture is what the police do with the money. Beyond outlays for ever-more-frightening military gear, you get idiocy like the local police department that spent thousands of dollars rebuilding a 1970s car as a vintage police car so they could drive it in parades.
Civil forfeiture is theft by the police. Whether the Fourth Amendment applies or not, it isn’t stopping the thefts.
for a community department in Texas.
You cannot make this stuff up.
This the link to the John Oliver You tube story on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
Oliver is the best!
In reference to CMD’s comment below there is no qualifying line in the fourth amendment that says “in criminal cases only”. Besides if the claim is that the asset was used to commit a crime, doesn’t that make it by definition a criminal issue?
The Supreme Court of the United States has said it’s all OK:
Plessy v. Ferguson was long-settled too. Plus, I’m looking for a fourth amendment case rather than a fifth amendment one.
As this is not a criminal proceeding, but a civil one.
did a stellar examination of this policy last summer on his HBO series. It would be great if someone would post a link to it from here.
nm
The link is here.
The Lowell example was by the feds and the other two examples were in Fl and Texas (no surprise). Clearly civil seizures and fines are used as cash cows around the country and the low bar in troubling (you can get acquitted for the crime, but still lose your car), but any examples of abuse on the MA state level?
Linked here:
Is it overreach for police to mete out punishment not ordered by a court?
office bought a zamboni machine. The only plausible explanation for that is if they have reason to believe that one of The Incredibles, Mr Freeze, is coming out of retirement and he needs help keeping his trail of ice smooth as he battles real crime. LOL
You never know who might prey on honest citizens.
I meant Frozone from The Incredibles, one of the fighters for justice with voice by Samuel Jackson. I love the fact that the movie producers chose a black guy to play the skating ice hero.