Time: Tue Sep 02 06:27:39 1997 by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA01295; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:37:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 02:37:07 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: This gang IS THE POLICE! (fwd) <snip> > >THIS LITTLE PIGGIE WENT TO MARKET: >Policing the 21st Century with Asset Forfeiture > >by Steve O'Keefe > > Since 1984, a new gang has swept across the American landscape. >They started in the big cities -- New York, Chicago and L.A. -- and >have quickly moved into small towns throughout the U.S. Like most >other gangs, they're involved in the manufacture and distribution of >illegal narcotics. They've financed their growth through theft, >blackmail and an organized campaign of terror, plowing profits back >into what is now one of the largest criminal operations ever seen. > > So why aren't the police doing anything to stop the spread of this >brutal gang? Because this gang IS THE POLICE. > > Welcome to the millennium. The United States is going through >wrenching changes caused by enormous national deficit. The state >requires more and more money, yet is able to provide fewer and fewer >services. Law enforcement agencies, hard-pressed to prosecute the >"war on drugs" have found a way around reliance on taxation and, >consequently, a way around the electorate. > > During the Reagan administration, our Drug Czars resurrected an >old law enforcement trick called "asset forfeiture" and gave it new >life through legislation. Basically a suspension of due process, the >idea behind asset forfeiture is to deny criminals access to their >ill-gotten gains during trial and to seize property purchased with >tainted funds. But the power of asset forfeiture has created a beast. >Now the group that profits most from the drug trade is law enforcement >itself. What started as a tool in the war on drugs has transcended >into a whole new way of policing -- a way that threatens the liberties >of every resident, not only of the United States, but wherever the >long arm of U.S. law reaches. > >THE CRIME OF OWNERSHIP > Perhaps the most dramatic example of the perils of asset >forfeiture is the case of Donald and Francis Scott. The Scotts are a >new breed of American criminal. Their crime was owning a 200-acre >rance in Malibu worth an estimated $5 million. > > The Scott ranch abuts U.S. Parks Department property, and the feds >had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase it several times. Aware of >the value of the property and that a willing buyer was available, the >L.A. County Sheriff's Department opened an investigation against the >Scotts WITH THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF FILLING THE DEPARTMENT'S COFFERS >BY SEIZING THE RANCH AND SELLING IT TO THE U.S. PARKS DEPARTMENT. > > Here's how the Sheriff hatched his plan. Aerial surveillance of >the Scott property was ordered, during which 50 marijuana plants were >supposedly spotted (no marijuana -- growing or otherwise -- was ever >found on the Scott property). A paid informant then provided >corroborating evidence of drug dealing at the Scott ranch. The >informant, who had a long criminal background, took his considerable >fee for telling the Sheriff what he wanted to hear, and promptly left >town. The Sheriff used the "evidence" he had assembled to obtain a >search warrant. In a pre-raid briefing, the Sheriff made certain to >distribute the key piece of evidence against the Scotts: an appraisal >of their property. > > This style of policing has become so routine that you probably >wouldn't be reading about this case except for one flaw. Donald Scott >didn't roll over. He resisted what he thought was a robbery and was >shot dead in his own home. In all the commotion, the police must have >forgotten to plant the drugs, because none were ever found. When the >L.A. County Prosecuter's Office looked into the case, what they found >was that the testimony of the informant was probably fabricated, the >Sheriff's Department had knowingly falsified eficence, and the >motivation for the raid was a desire to boost the department's >depleted budget. > >MANUFACTURING PROBABLE CAUSE > If you think what happened to the Scotts is uncommon, you haven't >been reading between the lines in enough newspapers lately. Asset >forfeiture, once a tool used only against large-scale organized crime >figures, is now an element in virtually every drug bust. The >incentives built into the asset forfeiture mechanism have so skewed >the efforts of law enforcement that most of the real criminals are now >on the police department payroll. > > "Asset forfeiture" means asset theft. If the police suspect that >something you bought was paid for, in part, with proceeds from an >illegal drug transaction, they can take it. They don't have to PROVE >it, they just have to SUSPECT it. Then YOU have to prove that you >didn't buy those items (your house, your car, your boat, your spouse's >wedding ring) with drug money. > > If NO PROOF is required to seize your assets, then what's required >for "suspicion"? Usually, the court requires that the cops must find >enough narcotics on your property to qualify as "distribution," not >merely "possession." Of course, police have been found to ADD as much >dope as necessary to obtain a charge of distribution, thus opening the >asset forfeiture cookie jar. They simply take drugs confiscated from >other busts and use them to pad their case. Sometimes, however, there >just isn't enough dope to go around. No problem! The cops now >manufacture it. > > In Broward County, Florida, the sheriff decided that in order to >continue its sting operations, it needed a greater supply of >narcotics. So the sheriff's department started making crack in the >police lab, which was then distributed by undercover agents. If this >sounds like the cops have gone into the drug business, just wait until >you see who's on their payroll. > > Asset forfeiture money can only be used for prosecuting drug >crimes. And paying informants qualifies. Many informants now make >more money than the officers paying them. If you had a choice between >robbing a bank for, say, $10,000 or whispering a name into a cop's >ear, which would you choose? You can see why becoming a paid >informant is the best game in town. Since you're usually pointing the >finger at ordinary citizens, you don't have the same risks as >informing on a Mafia kingpin. There seems to be little to lose and >much to gain. > > And where do the cops recruit informants who will tell them what >they want to hear? From the ranks of real criminals, of course. If >you get busted for armed robbery or rape or auto theft, and you have >no assets, you're just a big fat burden to the system. You have to be >prosecuted and jailed at considerable taxpayer expense. So the police >will let you off the hook if you cooperate and tell them what they >want to hear, which is that you saw Joe Asset dealing drugs out of his >house. You collect your fee, they have their probably cause, and, >within a few hours, their treasury is getting fatter instead of being >siphoned off. > >THE FINE ART OF FORFEITURE > So let's see if you're paying attention to the vanishing civil >liberties here. The law says the cops can take all your property if >they find drugs. The law says the cops can manufacture these drugs, >and that they can pay informants -- even notorious criminals -- >ESPECIALLY notorious criminals -- huge sums of money to say you might >be a drug dealer. Then the cops can bust into your home with guns >drawn and, if they "find" anything there, can haul you to jail and >seize your bank accounts and all your property so you can't hire a >lawyer. And if a relative tries to pay for your lawyer, the cops can >seize your relative's bank accounts and property, too, if they SUSPECT >that you gave your relative money from your drug dealings. > > Yes, that's the beauty of asset forfeiture: it doesn't have to be >limited to criminals! According to "Newsweek" magazine, in only half >of the forfeitures through 1990 were the forfeiting parties CHARGED >with a crime, much less CONVICTED. The thinnest of connections >between the stolen -- oops, I mean FORFEITED -- property and the crime >is enough. A New Jersey woman lost her Oldsmobile because her son >drove it to Sears where he was arrested for shoplifting a pair of >pants. An Iowa man had his $6,000 boat seized after he was captured >with three illegally-caught fish. > > The reason so much property is forfeited without any criminal >charges is that asset forfeiture maneuvers around the so-called rights >people have under the Constitution. Most asset forfeiture cases are >civil proceedings, not criminal. The party on trial is the property, >not the person. Normal rights that apply to PEOPLE, such as >prohibitions on illegal searches and seizures, the right to a speedy >trial, the right to adequate counsel, due process, and -- most >importantly -- the presumption of innocence, do not apply to PROPERTY. > > If they seize your $3,000 car, are you going to pay an attorney >$5,000 to get it back? Most people roll over. Remember, even if your >property is found innocent, you can't sue for damages. And you have >to come up with money in a hurry if you want to put up a fight: you >must put down a deposit of 10% of the property value within 10 days of >notification to contest a forfeiture. If you miss the 10-day >deadline, kiss your assets goodbye. Of course, the cops probably >seized all your cash and readily-marketable property, leaving you with >no money for the 10% deposit. > > If you make the 10% deposit, 10-day deadline, you still need to >hire a lawyer. Remember, your property does not have the right to an >attorney if it cannot afford one. What happend if your lawyer wants >$10,000 up front? That's not an unusual amount for these cases. Once >again, with all your assets seized, you've got a problem. And if you >think your bank will lend you -- an accused drug dealer -- money >against your house, which is now in the possession of the police, >think again. So it's back to begging from those relatives and friends >who haven't had all their assets seized. > > Now that you've hired your lawyer, get ready for a long, expensive >trial. After all, the cops and prosecuting attorney have MILLIONS in >seized property with which to wage a legal battle. If they win, they >get to divvy up YOUR loot. > > Let's say you persevere and win and they finally return your money >and property. Well, your money goes to pay back your friends for >fronting the attorney's fees. And your property? Oh, that was >destroyed in the search for drugs which were never found, then it was >left unprotected in the elements for the several years it took to try >the case. Sorry about that. Good luck trying to get your insurance >company to pay for the damages caused by the police. > >THE GRAVY TRAIN > To understand why asset forfeiture has become so popular, you have >to look at it from the pig's eye view. Let's say you're running a sty >(police department) and the citizens are complaining mightily about >crime. But your budget has more holes in it than the Saddam Hussein >target out on the shooting range. Here are the choices you have: > > 1. Tell the citizens to pay more taxes. > 2. Tell the citizens to protect themselves. > 3. Kiss the mayor's ass until he or she cuts someone else's > budget in order to give you a little more money. > 4. Find the most unpopular wealthy person in town, bust them for > drugs, and take all their assets. > > If you chose option 4, you're well on your way to a promising >career in law enforcement. In fact, you're well on your way to the >mayor's job. Because not only do you dramatically increase your >budget without increasing taxes, but you become a media darling as a >crime fighter in the process. > > The very best part about asset forfeiture law, from a pig's eye >view, is you don't have to share the proceeds with anyone. By law, >the money can only be spent on further law enforcement. The mayor >can't take it to fix roads or build a community center; the government >can't take it to improve schools. It can't even be used to fund drug >treatment centers. Just about the only thing it can be used for is a >surveillance helicopter for you and the department, or a fleet of >sports cars with sirens, or "multi-purpose" vehicles for the officers >to drive to work, or bonuses, or training seminars in Maui. > > The asset forfeiture gravy train is so good that the pigs' own >trade journal -- "The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin" -- is >instructing police departments everywhere how to set upi their own >Asset Forfeiture Units (AFUs). According to a 1990 survey conducted >by the Jefferson Institute, "most local jurisdictions do not use >[asset forfeiture] units to the fullest potential. In fact, few of >the units successfully tap the full potential of forfeiture statutes." >The FBI praises the Chicago Police Department's AFU as an example >worth emulating. > > Started as an administrative function, the Chicago AFU quickly >grew and divided into FIVE GROUPS, including special groups for >vehicles and real estate. A special "investigative unit" is there to >back up the street cops who are often "unfamiliar with the intricate >asset forfeiture statutes, and neglect to seize other valuable >assets." I know I'll sleep better at night knowing these guys are >making sure no stone goes untaken. While all seized assets must be >used for law enforcement, how the pie is split is different in >different states. In Illinois, 65% goes to the seizing agency, 10% to >the state police and the balance -- 25% -- to the prosecuting >attorney's office. > > A handy article in the March, 1993, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin >explains what to do if you run into the annoying situation that the >assets you want to seize aren't held in the name of the defendant. >The determined Asset Forfeiture Officer won't let legal ownership >stand between the department and those assets. The well-trained Asset >Forfeiture Officer knows to ask critical questions, such as: Whose >name is on the insurance policy? Who pays for repairs to the >property? Who "controlled" the purchase? The diligent Forfeiture >Officer conducts surveillance to see who usese the property. > > When you have a large Asset Forfeiture Unit -- and, let's face it, >every town SHOULD have one -- then you have the resources for a really >thorough investigation. Here are a few items the FBI thinks you >should look at when checking out a suspect: > > - Motor vehicle registration > - Real property search for deeds > - Search warrants should cover all documents > - Use informants and co-defendants > - Surveillance should include: > - Garbage pickup > - Mail cover > - Wiretap > - Telephone records analysis > - Bank deposit and safety deposit records for searches > - Tax returns > > And a very thorough investigation includes not only the defendant, >but also the defendant's "parents, relatives, wives, children, >girlfriends, etc." The defendant might have shared some of the >proceeds of criminal activity with these other persons, and so all of >THEIR assets might be available for the taking. > >ASSET FORFEITURE AS A BIG STICK > The Drug Enforcement Administration now has more personnel working >on asset forfeiture than any other activity. The Volusia County >(Florida) Sheriff's Department has managed to seize over $8 million >JUST FROM MOTORISTS on I-95. In Washington State, legislation has >been proposed to seize the cars and other assets of drunk drivers. In >New York, they want to seize cars for parking tickets. But current >legislation is already adequate in many places. > > Asset Forfeiture Units are so lucrative that in some places they >are larger than the rest of the police departments. And they're busy, >too. Plice are going through criminal cases that were tried and >disposed of years ago to see if they missed the opportunity to take >some assets. If assets werent seized, they just take them now through >civil forfeiture. You can't be tried twice for the same crime, but >YOUR PROPERTY isn't protected from "double jeopardy." Soon, anyone >who committed any crime when they were a teenager -- even shoplifting >-- can have their property seized now that they are adults and have >assets worth taking. > > Police don't even need to seize assets to get results. Just the >threat of forfeiture can have a chilling impact on police targets. In >Seattle, the Drug Abatement Unit (yes, they've started softening the >names of Asset Forfeiture Units) has been able to shut down "raves" >before they get started by threatening building owners with civil >forfeiture. > > "Raves" are parties that are not announced in advance and often >take place in warehouses and vacant buildings rather than in >traditional nightclubs. For several years, the Seattle Police >Department has waged a war against these parties. At first they >required a dizzying array of permits. When that didn't work, they >threatened building owners with asset forfeitures. > > In the dozens of raves shut down by Seattle pork, NO ONE HAS EVER >BEEN CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. >There was ONE arrest for LSD possession, which was dropped before >going to trial. Yet the cops have frozen rave promoters out of the >market with threats of asset forfeiture. The promoters themselves >don't have any assets (they are mostly underfinanced kids), so the >police threaten building owners. Following the new wave of law >enforcement, they put their muscle where the money is. > >RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS > Opponents of asset forfeiture have hailed two Supreme Court >decisions which supposedly restrict the use of this powerful tool. >The media may be declaring victory in the battle against asset >forfeiture, but the Justice Department is hardly accepting defeat. >Rather, these cases mark the refinement and EXPANSION of the most >powerful tool in the law enforcement arsenal. > > In the first decision, the Supremes said that asset forfeiture was >a form of punishment and prohibited if "excessive." The failed to >define "excessive," leaving it for lower courts to hash out. In the >second decision, announced in December, 1993, the Court said that the >victims of forfeiture must be notified before their property is >seized. I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to them. > > Lawyers at the Justice Department have read the handwriting on the >wall: a rising number of court cases and bills aimed at curbing >forfeiture. Rather than risk losing their favorite weapon, the >Justice Department has written its own legislation to "reform" asset >forfeiture laws. They would curb the headline-grabbing excesses of >law enforcement yahoos who try to seize someone's home for a parking >ticket. At the same time, this legislation will EXPAND the >application of asset forfeiture beyond drug crimes to all kinds of >offenses, especially "white collar crime." I suppose that "white >collar crime" means those offenses where the perpetrator has some >assets worth taking. > >FREE MARKET FORFEITURE? > Perhaps you find this information on asset forfeiture a little >frightening, a little repubnant? But really, it's very Libertarian. >I mean, why should we have to fund law enforcement through taxes? Why >not make the criminals pay for the police, by seizing their ill-gotten >gains? Used to its fullest potential, asset forfeiture could lead to >totally "privatized" police departments, funded completely with money >seized from "criminals." A great burden would be lifted from the >taxpaying public. > > So let's hear it for the private police departments of the 21st >Century! Let's give a cheer for asset forfeiture! >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- >If you think this is a load of crap, you're dead wrong. The filthy >cops who murdered Donald Scott continue to work to this day, even >though they were found to be negligent. In addition, Scott's home >"mysteriously" burned down in the middle of the night and the property >is now on the verge of being turned over to the US Park Department, >which also had officers on the raid. The fucking PARK Department? In >"USA Today" every Wednesday there is a list of hundreds and thousands >of people who have had property similarly confiscated. According to >the government's own reports, fully EIGHTY per cent of those people >are never even charged with a crime, much less convicted. Yet their >property is never returned. One of these days someone will get >desperate enough to blow up a municipal building or kill some police >officers who were on the raid. Oklahoma City should have been a great >big warning to the repressive United States government. They will >reap a bitter harvest if they continue on this path. I urge them to >think hard about what they are doing, and I urge calm and for people >to NOT use violence, which will only make things worse. Please, >politicians, for the love of God and our country, turn things around! >And you Citizens, please stop voting for those politicians who take >away our freedoms! > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste@aci.net> > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail