LightInTheWallet
Newly Enlightened
Thank you for expounding on my "fabrication". BTW, Lighten up it is almost Christmas. :twothumbs
FBI steals crime victim's money
- Thread starter Lightmeup
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
tvodrd
*Flashaholic* ,
gadget_lover
Flashaholic
Aren't editorials, by definition, an expression of opinion not tied to facts and usually devoid of any deep research?
To address several points made in this thread....
If a man and his wife worked for 40 years, Social Security should have a record of the yearly income. They send me a list every few years, and I doubt that they do that only for me. Now if there are no tax records or SS records, that would make things suspicious.
The man is not without the means to obtain a lawyer. Lawyers work on commission all the time. The promise of 10% of $400K will buy a lot of lawyer time.
The ACLU loves cases like this.... if there are any facts that they can work with.
I don't understand why the local PD confiscated the money and why it was later handed to the FBI. The PD must have found something weird.
The man was not arrested on drug charges. It's not hard to imagine that they blew a procedure somewhere in the process of investigating the initial shooting/stabbing, making successful prosecution unlikely. In my area charges are not brought if the DA does not think he can make a case stick.
This is all 100% speculation, but what the heck. It's CHRISTMAS!
Daniel
To address several points made in this thread....
If a man and his wife worked for 40 years, Social Security should have a record of the yearly income. They send me a list every few years, and I doubt that they do that only for me. Now if there are no tax records or SS records, that would make things suspicious.
The man is not without the means to obtain a lawyer. Lawyers work on commission all the time. The promise of 10% of $400K will buy a lot of lawyer time.
The ACLU loves cases like this.... if there are any facts that they can work with.
I don't understand why the local PD confiscated the money and why it was later handed to the FBI. The PD must have found something weird.
The man was not arrested on drug charges. It's not hard to imagine that they blew a procedure somewhere in the process of investigating the initial shooting/stabbing, making successful prosecution unlikely. In my area charges are not brought if the DA does not think he can make a case stick.
This is all 100% speculation, but what the heck. It's CHRISTMAS!
Daniel
Lightraven
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
Anything, including life and freedom, can be taken from a private citizen, if there is enough suspicion of illegal activity.
For seizures, the suspicion level is probable cause ("more likely than not") that the item is illegal or illegally obtained--the same as for arrest with or without a warrant. For life and freedom--i.e. a criminal conviction--it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That was established by the U.S. Constitution and repeatedly fine tuned by the U.S. Supreme Court since the founding of this country.
So, the $400 grand is, basically, "under arrest." It hasn't been spent by the FBI or anybody else. No criminal conviction is required since, legally speaking, the cash has committed the crime--the same as illegal drugs, weapons, vehicles used in major crimes, houses used in major crimes, etc. It sounds odd but that is how it is. The owner of the cash can request the FBI release the money and it could happen. Or he could go to court and it could happen. The ACLU won't touch this, I wonder what they know that we don't?
The FBI must have probable cause to seize this money--that means evidence suggesting more likely than not that the cash is illegally obtained. A wiretap of the guy bragging that robbers didn't get his $400K that he made selling crack could be probable cause. The FBI isn't going to burn their wiretap to the local reporter.
I have first hand knowledge of seizure and seizure abuse. Doing it wrong can result in big trouble--especially where theft is involved. Since officers themselves don't get to keep seized items (though some seized vehicles are used for undercover purposes), there isn't any more incentive to seize items than there is to arrest criminals.
For seizures, the suspicion level is probable cause ("more likely than not") that the item is illegal or illegally obtained--the same as for arrest with or without a warrant. For life and freedom--i.e. a criminal conviction--it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That was established by the U.S. Constitution and repeatedly fine tuned by the U.S. Supreme Court since the founding of this country.
So, the $400 grand is, basically, "under arrest." It hasn't been spent by the FBI or anybody else. No criminal conviction is required since, legally speaking, the cash has committed the crime--the same as illegal drugs, weapons, vehicles used in major crimes, houses used in major crimes, etc. It sounds odd but that is how it is. The owner of the cash can request the FBI release the money and it could happen. Or he could go to court and it could happen. The ACLU won't touch this, I wonder what they know that we don't?
The FBI must have probable cause to seize this money--that means evidence suggesting more likely than not that the cash is illegally obtained. A wiretap of the guy bragging that robbers didn't get his $400K that he made selling crack could be probable cause. The FBI isn't going to burn their wiretap to the local reporter.
I have first hand knowledge of seizure and seizure abuse. Doing it wrong can result in big trouble--especially where theft is involved. Since officers themselves don't get to keep seized items (though some seized vehicles are used for undercover purposes), there isn't any more incentive to seize items than there is to arrest criminals.
Last edited:
Art Vandelay
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,550
Here is a good article.
DRUG CONTROL AND ASSET SEIZURES: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF FORFEITURE IN ENGLAND AND COLONIAL AMERICA
DRUG CONTROL AND ASSET SEIZURES: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF FORFEITURE IN ENGLAND AND COLONIAL AMERICA
These are two quotes from the long article.
"Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution as finally drafted read: "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained" [U.S. Constitutional Convention, 1819:364]. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3) also forbade bills of attainder for felonies, which had been used following capital convictions by legislative action to demand estate forfeitures [Maxeiner, 1977:779]. The Federalist Papers also praised the elimination of bills of attainder [Hamilton, 1971:512]. In 1790, the very first Congress [18 U.S.C., Section 3563 (1982)] took an additional step in eliminating in personam forfeitures for all federal convictions and judgments by abolishing forfeiture of estate and corruption of blood for felony [Hughes and O'Connell, 1984:619; Maxeiner, 1977:779]. Many states immediately copied the federal laws in their constitutions. Kent [1971, Vol. 4:318], writing in 1826, listed Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Kentucky as states that prohibited forfeiture of estate except during the life of the offender. Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, and Missouri prohibited criminal forfeitures entirely. Joseph Story [1970, Vol. 3:750-751], an early nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, argued that the colonists' experience with the English system of forfeiture also led to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines. The terms fine and forfeiture were often used synonymously in common law."
"While the colonists made a conscious decision to eliminate criminal forfeitures both before and after the Revolutionary War, they did not do away with in rem civil forfeitures, particularly as a way to stop the importation of contraband goods [Kurisky, 1988:251]. During the Revolutionary War, colonial governments recognized that they needed to continue the use of vice-admiralty type courts in order to bring to trial captured British ships. They did make a serious attempt to avoid the mistakes of the old vice-admiralty courts and insisted on the use of juries in all cases. After only a short period of time, however, it became evident that ordinary citizens did not understand the complexities of maritime law; and by 1780 most colonies had eliminated vice-admiralty juries [Ubbelohde, 1960:195-199]. Under the Articles of Confederation admiralty law was placed in the hands of the states, except for decisions concerning captured ships [Gilmore and Black, 1975:11].
The U. S. Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) established admiralty courts as federal courts largely based on civil law [Gilmore and Black, 1975:18]. The First Congress continued the practice of juryless trials for maritime violations by statutorily subjecting to in rem forfeiture vessels and cargoes that disobeyed customs laws [Reed and Gill, 1987:66]. Contraband, as well as goods imported in violation of the Embargo Acts or by piracy, continued to be automatically guilty and subject to seizure [Weiner, 1981:232]. Once the African slave trade was outlawed foreign ships that carried slaves into American waters were also subject to automatic forfeiture. In some cases the slaves were sold as property; in other cases slaves were set free and allowed to return to Africa [Noonan, 1977]. Slaves could be seized in rem as cargo, but might later be transformed into persons and freed [Jones, 1987:73]. In 1827, in the Palmyra case, Justice Story first legally defined in rem forfeitures:
Merry Christmas
"Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution as finally drafted read: "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained" [U.S. Constitutional Convention, 1819:364]. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3) also forbade bills of attainder for felonies, which had been used following capital convictions by legislative action to demand estate forfeitures [Maxeiner, 1977:779]. The Federalist Papers also praised the elimination of bills of attainder [Hamilton, 1971:512]. In 1790, the very first Congress [18 U.S.C., Section 3563 (1982)] took an additional step in eliminating in personam forfeitures for all federal convictions and judgments by abolishing forfeiture of estate and corruption of blood for felony [Hughes and O'Connell, 1984:619; Maxeiner, 1977:779]. Many states immediately copied the federal laws in their constitutions. Kent [1971, Vol. 4:318], writing in 1826, listed Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Kentucky as states that prohibited forfeiture of estate except during the life of the offender. Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, and Missouri prohibited criminal forfeitures entirely. Joseph Story [1970, Vol. 3:750-751], an early nineteenth century Supreme Court Justice, argued that the colonists' experience with the English system of forfeiture also led to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines. The terms fine and forfeiture were often used synonymously in common law."
"While the colonists made a conscious decision to eliminate criminal forfeitures both before and after the Revolutionary War, they did not do away with in rem civil forfeitures, particularly as a way to stop the importation of contraband goods [Kurisky, 1988:251]. During the Revolutionary War, colonial governments recognized that they needed to continue the use of vice-admiralty type courts in order to bring to trial captured British ships. They did make a serious attempt to avoid the mistakes of the old vice-admiralty courts and insisted on the use of juries in all cases. After only a short period of time, however, it became evident that ordinary citizens did not understand the complexities of maritime law; and by 1780 most colonies had eliminated vice-admiralty juries [Ubbelohde, 1960:195-199]. Under the Articles of Confederation admiralty law was placed in the hands of the states, except for decisions concerning captured ships [Gilmore and Black, 1975:11].
The U. S. Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) established admiralty courts as federal courts largely based on civil law [Gilmore and Black, 1975:18]. The First Congress continued the practice of juryless trials for maritime violations by statutorily subjecting to in rem forfeiture vessels and cargoes that disobeyed customs laws [Reed and Gill, 1987:66]. Contraband, as well as goods imported in violation of the Embargo Acts or by piracy, continued to be automatically guilty and subject to seizure [Weiner, 1981:232]. Once the African slave trade was outlawed foreign ships that carried slaves into American waters were also subject to automatic forfeiture. In some cases the slaves were sold as property; in other cases slaves were set free and allowed to return to Africa [Noonan, 1977]. Slaves could be seized in rem as cargo, but might later be transformed into persons and freed [Jones, 1987:73]. In 1827, in the Palmyra case, Justice Story first legally defined in rem forfeitures:
- It is well known, that at the common law, in many cases of felonies, the party forfeited his goods and chattels to the crown. The forfeiture did not, strictly speaking, attach in rem; but it was a part, or at least a consequence, of the judgment of conviction.... The crown's right to the goods and chattels attached only by the conviction of the offender.... But this doctrine never was applied to seizures and forfeitures, created by the statute, in rem, cognizable on the revenue side of the Exchequer. The thing is here considered as the offender, or rather, the offense is attached primarily to the thing; and this, whether the offense be malum prohibitum or malum in se.... The practice has been... that the proceeding in rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffected by any criminal proceeding in personam [quoted in Reed and Gill, 1987:62].
Merry Christmas
