People innocent of any crime are having their money and property stolen by law enforcement agencies.
Property seizures a windfall for police
“Massachusetts has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-policy law firm. “Massachusetts can take your property based on probable cause, which is an extremely low standard of proof.”
The commonwealth is one of only seven states to receive an F rating on its civil-forfeiture laws from another conservative advocacy group, FreedomWorks. The grade is based in part on state law that also allows police and district attorneys to split and keep proceeds of all successful forfeitures.
“When law enforcement can keep the money it takes through civil forfeiture, it creates a powerful incentive,” Johnson said.
Police and prosecutors vehemently disagree with that characterization.
Civil forfeiture is a powerful tool in the war on drugs, they say, designed to help law enforcement deprive drug dealers of the proceeds of their crimes.
You can read the Lowell Sun article to see just how these policies are victimizing the innocent. If you’d rather watch video, John Oliver did a fine job on the issue some time ago.
Since January, the Federal government no longer sponsors these thefts by police. Some states have banned them outright.
Massachusetts should be the next state to end this miscarriage of justice.
should have support over a lot of parts of the political spectrum, too. I’m surprised it has received more traction.
A significantly restricted form of this approach could be an effective deterrent to those who enable drunk drivers — the immediate forfeiture, at the scene, of a vehicle whose driver is operating after having his or her license or vehicle registration suspended or revoked for OUI.
Alcohol abusers who drive cars loaned to them by “friends” and family after their own licenses or plates are suspended or revoked because of past convictions are a MAJOR contributor to the drunk-driving carnage of our state. If the owner of a car faced a risk of such forfeiture, that owner would be far less likely to hand over the keys to a convicted drunk driver who Massachusetts has already determined is a threat to public safety when driving.
I agree that the current civil forfeiture laws, especially in the context of the failed “War on Drugs”, should be revoked.
The civil forfeiture provisions appear to exist only to drive fear into the citizenry while filling the coffers of government agency.
The government started the $10,000 transaction reporting rule around 1970. When $10,000 could get you 5 automobiles or the salary of two entry level jobs. At our current real rate of inflation we can expect more and more cash transactions subject to the reporting requirements.
Is anyone really fool enough to think the drug cartels rely on relatively small cash transactions to feed them? Surely they go to where the money is, the banks.
“I saw a bank that said ’24 Hour Banking’, but I don’t have that much time.” –Steven Wright