Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption.
Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
Civil asset forfeiture already facilitates corruption, but it's worse because that corruption is targeted at innocent random civilians.
> Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
Even better: remove qualified immunity for everything.
No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.
You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers over everyone else.
Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?"
The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
Assuming such a thing exists. . .
> The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go through a court proceeding to establish that the money was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that process.
There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
Or what does „wrap it up in their probate“ mean?
If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was no crime
> Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
The example was a meth lab though and the claim was "This should be nothing to do with the police.". Is operating a meth lab not a crime?
If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it, it's unclaimed property [1].
Allowing specific state actors to actively claim these goods via civil forfeiture (and bypass these systems) has always been improper. Law enforcement is untrustworthy in many locales, so this is unsurprising.
Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car.
It hurts society less to not seize things than to have the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of suspicion of involvement in a crime.
Civil asset forfeiture means a lot more than what you think it does.
Do you remember a story a couple of years ago about a couple who foreclosed on a local Bank of America branch after Bank of America wrongfully started foreclosure proceedings on their home? That's civil asset forfeiture.
The sheriff's deputies who went with them to enforce the foreclosure are not criminals.
If you are a freelancer and your client doesn't pay you and you get a court order to collect what you are owed: civil asset forfeiture.
A clerk filing the paperwork to get you your money is not a criminal.
Even the ACLU is fighting civil asset forfeiture ABUSE because as actual lawyers they understand what it means.
The couple who foreclosed on a BoA branch got a court order to do so, otherwise the deputies would not have enforced it.
Seizing money in your trunk because you had a tail light out because you have a "suspicion" that the money is somehow criminal does not have the same standard.
I don't think many people have a concern with that.
So sure, maybe, "any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture absent a valid court order shall be a felony".
Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.