This is by no means political, but more about jurisprudence. The law allows broad powers for law enforcement under “Civil Asset Forfeiture” laws. The title is a misnomer, as it’s really a process by which law enforcement can seize assets from an individual if they “believe” said assets were used, or intended to be used, for illegal purposes.

The classification as being a “civil” proceeding shifts the burden to a much more lenient burden than the stringent proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases.

In fact, the cases are filed against the asset, not the one who possessed the asset. For example, in the case linked below, the suit will be filed as “The State of Texas v. $100,000 USD.” It follows the rules of civil procedure, yet a prosecutor is assigned to the civil division to handle such cases.

These “forfeitures,” which is also federal law, have been jackpot for law enforcement. Many cars are used for undercover operations and they cash is always used for whatever and supplements the budget.

No, I’m not a “defund the police” person, but I believe in due process. This policy does fly in the face of the 4th and 5th amendments (unreasonable search and seizure, and protection against government seizure of assets without compensation).

I guess it’s just a rant against oppression, yet I’ve benefitted from some cases by being able to get assets back for clients. Normally, they negotiate a settlement amount that works for all parties to prevent further litigation, but it’s a flawed law.

Another example is when someone may possess a firearm when arrested for a crime unrelated to said firearm. A client may be arrested for DWI and has a firearm in the vehicle. Whether the client is licensed or not, the agency will seize the firearm and file a separate charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon (the allegation of another crime above a class C misdemeanor, especially DWI, violates the terms of lawful possession of a firearm (game law violations can also result in the seizure of your firearm, truck, etc. in certain cases). This ends up in loss of the firearm and suspension or revocation of license, if licensed. Texas is now constitutional carry, but they still take the firearm. In such cases, the attorney can ask the Judge for an assignment of the firearm to the attorney, but not the client regardless of the outcome. I have had a few come my way, because otherwise they would be melted down or end up in the chief LEO’s collection.

This is no way a solicitation of business, nor is it intended to be legal advice. It’s just a frustrating situation.


https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/...ht-board-love-field/

I have been against CAF my whole career as a LEO.

I find it very much a violation of constitutional safe guards.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: thieves with a badge.

CAF is nothing short of communism.

quote:

Civil Asset Forfeiture: thieves with a badge.

+1

Regarding the case you linked, even some of the officers involved think it was the wrong thing to do in this instance. I think this is thievery.

We had an individual who owed us money.

In court he claimed he was bankrupt.

He then goes and buys a BMW 8 Series car.

Each time we approached him, he just laughed.

We employed a tow truck and towed his car to one of our workshops.

Called him, and informed him what we did, and invited him to go to court to get it back.

The car was in his name.

He paid in full within a few days.

He had a really obnoxious lawyer, who thought he could get him out of anything.

I could not help calling him, and telling him what we did.

Last thing I said to him was “try another silly trick, and see where it ends”

End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:

quote:

Civil Asset Forfeiture: thieves with a badge.

+1

Legal Tender for all debts, public and private.

+1

quote:

I could not help calling him, and telling him what we did.

I find that hard to believe

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
We had an individual who owed us money.

In court he claimed he was bankrupt.

He then goes and buys a BMW 8 Series car.

Each time we approached him, he just laughed.

We employed a tow truck and towed his car to one of our workshops.

Called him, and informed him what we did, and invited him to go to court to get it back.

The car was in his name.

He paid in full within a few days.

He had a really obnoxious lawyer, who thought he could get him out of anything.

I could not help calling him, and telling him what we did.

Last thing I said to him was “try another silly trick, and see where it ends”

End of story.

Gold

Remind me to never piss you off Saeed

A friend had his car stolen.

The thief came through the back door, and picked the keys from the kitchen.

They found the car a few days later, with quite a bit of damage.

It turned out the the culprit was the son of someone living across the streets of him.

He called me one morning asking for advice, as he was called to go to the police station for a statement.

He was worried about pushing for a severe punishment, as he said “they know where I live”

I told him to inform the police that he will drop all charges if they give me the kid for a day.

I promise he will never commit another crime.

He went to the police.

And as it happens he met an officer I know very well.

He told him what I said.

He said the officer laughed, saying “I bet the kid would prefer jail time to being punished by Saeed”

Also in Big D, if you have a really nice car or truck that is lien-free, and get stopped for DWI or DUI, there’s a pretty good chance the vehicle will be seized and used as an undercover or covert car. Seen many “abandoned” or seized vehicles being used by DPD.

Don't remember the details but there was one small town along one of the interstates doing some sort of CA scam. Taking all the cash in the folks possession.The last I heard they were still doing it.

I had hopes they would finally tangle with the wrong person and would all be up on some charge.

I recall a college professor in Oregon who had a couple of rentals. In one of them, students were growing quite a bit of pot, about which their landlord the professor was unaware.
Law enforcement raided the grow operation and seized house under the CAF laws.
The professor was at first horrified, then became outraged. I don't know how the case ended, but there was considerable bitterness toward law enforcement as a result of the seizure.
I can't quite explain why I oppose CAF, yet delight in seeing poachers' rifles and trucks confiscated.

The legal term, "JUST CAUSE" does not mean, just cuz!

Sometimes, the law is not on the innocents side.

We have rental properties.

Some tenants Chequers keep bouncing.

We ask for payments and all we get are excuses.

Some are legitimate and we try to work things out with them.

Others become habitual liars.

It is against the law to lock them out.

If we take the bounced Chequers to the court, the police ask us to bring the culprits in.

So it is a sort of catch 22.

I decided to break the law.

By locking them out!

To get in, they either pay, or go to court.

We always get paid.

Fuck the cops/All cops are bastards. If I saw one on fire, I wouldn’t piss on it.