richardag said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Civil asset forfeiture needs to be stopped permanently.

There is no rational excuse for it.

---

I hate CAF as it now exists, but I would have FAR fewer problems with it, if it were simply applied to the assets of those CONVICTED of the crime.

---

That would make more sense than the current Civil Asset Forfeiture. The current CAF is like an invitation to abuse citizens.

---

That is my point. CAF is not INHERENTLY a "Bad Thing." Used correctly, it can work to compensate victims, etcetera.

If Crook robs me, sending him to jail serves "society," but it does not make ME "whole," by compensating me for the loss of my stuff. Civil Asset Forfeiture (in concept) CAN do that, if used properly.

Its current incarnation? Not so much.

JW said:

---

Law enforcement will not be on the peoples side in the coming decades.

---

Respectfully disagree. We need more localized law enforcement and less federal!

Antoninus said:

---

richardag said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Civil asset forfeiture needs to be stopped permanently.

There is no rational excuse for it.

---

I hate CAF as it now exists, but I would have FAR fewer problems with it, if it were simply applied to the assets of those CONVICTED of the crime.

---

That would make more sense than the current Civil Asset Forfeiture. The current CAF is like an invitation to abuse citizens.

---

That is my point. CAF is not INHERENTLY a "Bad Thing." Used correctly, it can work to compensate victims, etcetera.

If Crook robs me, sending him to jail serves "society," but it does not make ME "whole," by compensating me for the less of my stuff. Civil Asset Forfeiture (in concept) CAN do that, if used properly.

Its current incarnation? Not so much.

---

That's restitution, and it is already available. Petty crooks generally don't have the ability to make you whole. CAF is more about taking the ill-gotten gains from drug kingpins.

Edit to add: I agree with your belief about applying it AFTER a conviction.

sleepybeagle said:

---

JW said:

---

Law enforcement will not be on the peoples side in the coming decades.

---

Respectfully disagree. We need more localized law enforcement and less federal!

---

Plenty of local law enforcement is all-in on CAF.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

That is my point. CAF is not INHERENTLY a "Bad Thing." Used correctly, it can work to compensate victims, etcetera.

If Crook robs me, sending him to jail serves "society," but it does not make ME "whole," by compensating me for the less of my stuff. Civil Asset Forfeiture (in concept) CAN do that, if used properly.

Its current incarnation? Not so much.

---

That's restitution, and it is already available. Petty crooks generally don't have the ability to make you whole. CAF is more about taking the ill-gotten gains from drug kingpins.

Edit to add: I agree with your belief about applying it AFTER a conviction.

---

Are you suggesting that the funding for "restitution" cannot come from CAF? That is all I am saying.

VegasAg86 said:

---

sleepybeagle said:

---

JW said:

---

Law enforcement will not be on the peoples side in the coming decades.

---

Respectfully disagree. We need more localized law enforcement and less federal!

---

Plenty of local law enforcement is all-in on CAF.

---

The county sheriff in Valusia county used it to fund his department. Went to the trouble of posting signs on I95 announcing drug inspections ahead. Any cars illegally making upturns was pulled over.
South bound had hundreds of thousands of dollars seized, never to be claimed.
North bound had hundreds of pounds of cocaine seized and arrests made.

Worked to the point they had high speed ocean boats to do the same thing.

Antoninus said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

That is my point. CAF is not INHERENTLY a "Bad Thing." Used correctly, it can work to compensate victims, etcetera.

If Crook robs me, sending him to jail serves "society," but it does not make ME "whole," by compensating me for the less of my stuff. Civil Asset Forfeiture (in concept) CAN do that, if used properly.

Its current incarnation? Not so much.

---

That's restitution, and it is already available. Petty crooks generally don't have the ability to make you whole. CAF is more about taking the ill-gotten gains from drug kingpins.

Edit to add: I agree with your belief about applying it AFTER a conviction.

---

Are you suggesting that the funding for "restitution" cannot come from CAF? That is all I am saying.

---

I suppose taking all of a drug kingpin's money and using it to pay the victims of petty crimes would be reasonable. I can't see CAF for small time criminals being feasible.

CAF is out of control because the government entities keep the money. I doubt they would be as aggressive if they didn't keep it.

schmellba99 said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Who takes a picture of the contents of a safe deposit box each time you visit?

---

She does!

---

But what does it really prove?. You could take the picture and then pocket the cash/item.and close the box.

---

I'm not arguing whether the picture proves anything was in there or not. However, the fact that she has a picture of stuff that was at one time was in the box whether she took it out or not is better than not having a picture don't you think?

---

. I think it proves nothing, it may have never been in the box at all. Bring the cash in a briefcase. Take out the safe deposit box. Put the money in the box. Take a picture. Take the money from the box and put it back in the briefcase.

I'm not on the FBI side here at all.

---

It proves a hell of a lot more than the FBI's word

---

It proves that at a moment in time there was $2,000 in the box. Was it there when the FBI confiscated the content? Can't tell. But the FBI doesn't have any credibility with me. FBI probably figured these people are crooks and will not say anything about losing their ill gotten gains.

Many years ago a friend of mine said he had a client who owned a small restaurant. His client was skimming some of the proceeds from sales and had 200K in a safe deposit box and was in a quandary on what to do with it.

Tex100 said:

---

Many years ago a friend of mine said he had a client who owned a small restaurant. His client was skimming some of the proceeds from sales and had 200K in a safe deposit box and was in a quandary on what to do with it.

---

NOT telling his lawyer about it would have been a good start.