D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-police-plan-for-future-seizure-proceeds-years-in-advance-in-city-budget-documents/2014/11/15/7025edd2-6b76-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?hpid=z4

by tomohawk • 12 years ago

70 22 12 years ago

washingtonpost.com

spiritplumber3• 12 years ago

To everyone who wants to answer "Fuck the police": No, don't.

If your hometown has a police department that acts like a gang:

Don't fuck the police. Don't date, them, either.

Don't sell to police. If they want groceries or gas, let them have to explicitly confiscate the stuff.

Don't talk to police officers unless they force you. Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty.

There are two ways a community can fight against a mafia -- a shooting war, or comprehensive shunning. Guess which works better in the long term?

4ad• 12 years ago

I don't know, which one? Because I have never seen shunning work, ever. Aggression seldom helps, but at least there are documented cases where it worked. I have never seen any documented case of shunning producing any effect.

spiritplumber3• 12 years ago

All I got for you is that it worked in my hometown to send away a prefetto (unelected bureaucrat with some executive and police powers). The guy basically ended up placing himself under house arrest because he had to get gas at night at self-services when there was nobody to tell him "i am not selling you any gas", couldn't buy fresh food because he had to use the self-checkout at the supermarket or not eat, etc. This lasted around six months, after which he quit.

melling• 12 years ago

Neither one? Can you provide evidence that shunning works?

For example, if a police officer is checking out in your store and you say "sorry, I'm not selling to you", I think you've just created a very ugly situation.

mcdoh• 12 years ago

Often, especially in the DC metro area, police do not live in the same jurisdictions that they work in.

brianfitz• 12 years ago

Bad behavior thrives under misaligned incentives -- especially when it goes unnoticed. In such cases, the best remedy is to shine a light on the problem. Accountability, rather than aggression, will garner far better results.

dalke6• 12 years ago

In some places, not selling to police is illegal discrimination.

For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Long v. Valentino (1989). http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 . A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh.

And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer, bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].) Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a proposition we consider in the following section.

...

At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746 [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137].)
A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not like police. ...

BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".

spiritplumber3• 12 years ago

You can say "I do not feel safe interacting with someone who has a firearm, please come back without". That means you have to be consistent about it, of course, and also kick out other members of the public who have a weapon.

That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just have to add "absolutely no exceptions".

It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I guess.

If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.

crimsoneer• 12 years ago

Alternatively, lobby your democratic representatives to change the damn law? The UK has similar laws, but they don't create perverse incentives.

squozzer• 12 years ago

All, or maybe most, well and good. Not sure if re-directing the proceeds from police to general funds will eliminate conflicts of interest.

Instead, the incentives to seize assets might well expand now that the legislative power will be tasting the goodies.

I know at least one cop who will vouch that at least one place he worked enforced a quota system for traffic tickets.

If you believe such pressure would not extend to asset seizure, you might want to cut back on your drug consumption.

tmuir• 12 years ago

If cities arent allowed to include projected seizure revenue in future budgets, but D.C. has budgeted for their seizure revenue through 2019, whats going to give this new reform any teeth? Whats the difference in flouting one law or two?

venomsnake• 12 years ago

Even in city general fund creates the same conflict of interest. Forfeited property should be destroyed.

dalke6• 12 years ago

Okay, so the forfeited car is smashed into a cube. It's destroyed as a car, but not destroyed as a collection of potentially useful atoms.

What then? Do they sell the metal? Or does the metal recycling center get to profit from the free lump of metal on their doorstep?

Individually, the same applies for the parts. The battery is easily recycled for the lead, and under environmental laws can't simply be tossed into the trash heap. Who gets the profit from that?

It's a reduction of value, certainly, but I don't see how the value in a destroyed car goes to 0, so there will still be some conflict of interest.

jrs235• 12 years ago

How about funds raised from the confiscated property go towards paying down the national debt for federal confiscations, and offset appropriated federal taxes for state confiscations?

glneo• 12 years ago

How about we just stop letting them steal from us?

vaadu• 12 years ago

If this isn't stopped soon next they will go after your 401ks like in eastern Europe and then your bank accounts like Cyprus.

The Constitution means nothing to these thieves.

justifier2• 12 years ago

every six months have a citizen ballot voting whether to return funds seized or allow the department to use the funds for specified purposes

keep - 2 million in cash from a child pornography ring

return - 2500$ taken from an individual pulled over for a traffic violation without a citation or criminal charge

if the funds are voted to be returned then the department has to pay interest to the original owner of the seized assets

set the interest's equivalent to something that remains contemporary over time, alike a 401k investment equivalent, or if the funds were in an IRA, etc.

dalke6• 12 years ago

From the article: "Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures under city and federal laws"

That's 2,000 per year, or 1,000 per six months.

Do you think a citizen ballot with 1,000 items on it will be a meaningful check on police powers?

Also, "from a child pornography ring" is likely incorrect. It should more likely be "from what is claimed to be a child pornography ring".

Otherwise the ballot will say "$15,000 from a drug dealer" even if it's better described as "$15,000 from someone the officer thinks might be a drug dealer but doesn't have any real evidence other than that drug dealer carry a large amount of cash."

justifier2• 12 years ago

i agree the idea is fleshed superficially, child pornography is pretty easy to get people to rally against where as drug issues enter grey areas of ethics and morality..

i am more interested in the idea of punishment for improper use of this and other vague laws as a method of deincentivising abuse

i also think the logic of 'there are too many instances to be able to regulate' is flawed and incentivises the offenders to be more aggressive

a possible solution to volume could be only deal in values less than a certain threshold and raise said threshold with each vote depending on number of instances until all instances are voted on

you could backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with lower number of instances

the goal is to reduce the number of instances so this issue will hopefully solve itself

as for terse yet comprehensive descriptions of the events that led to the forfeiture there is room for a discussion on how best to handle that

the recent vote in my city carried with it a number of numbered and alphabetized bills that carried a sentence or two description on the ballot i figured something similar

imperfect but better than 'well, its out of control so let's hope it just rights itself'

D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance

Related Stories