TheAgitator.com
Hold Onto Your Assets
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009This week, my Reason crime column looks at Alvarez v. Smith, a challenge to the state of Illinois’ particularly nasty asset forfeiture law. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case next month.
While the LEGAL issue may be decided narrowly, such as granting a hearing early on, the court will probably not address the problematic POLICY issue: that asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives that corrupt law enforcement.
The entire “property rights are different” line of thought is way too embedded to expect much hope from current jurisprudence, particularly on cases like this where the left’s hatred of property rights aligns with the right’s hatred of the rights of the accused. Of course, as my handy-dandy Cato pocket constitution clearly states, the 4th Amendment makes no distinction between an individual’s “persons, houses, papers, and effects”. All property, from your body to your real estate, is constitutionally entitled to the protection of independent judge standing between the state and its target, for whatever that’s worth.
I’m much more hopeful that the court will make some progress in the right direction on the McCain-Feingold incumbent-protecting speech ban. From what I’ve read, the justices are somewhat shocked by how far-reaching the implications of their past decisions are.
There is no legal basis for seizure with out a provable harm or crime.Criminal laws are meant to punish and civil suits are for restitution.For any attorney judge or congressman to say otherwise shows how far we have strayed from the clear definitions of the law.Imagine,your driving late at night and get stopped for a tail light,you refuse to answer questions or take a test,you have a few thousand in cash on your person.Your strapped down,blood or urine are taken and the cash is seized as ‘ill-gotten gains,maybe your car too.Your life is ruined all for ‘the children’.
This implies that without asset forfeiture, corrupt law enforcement wouldn’t occur. I’m sure you meant to say “it’s one more way that can corrupt”. I think most here would agree that without asset forfeiture, the level of corruption we see would continue on its growth trajectory — if it’s not one thing, it’s another. What is likely more debatable is if people who become a cop are already corrupt, but have buried it because they couldn’t get away with it as easily, and once a cop they open the flood gates and let the world experience their corruptness. I believe that if one has strong moral character and integrity, they are incorruptible and would prefer to be fired or killed rather than “compromise” or “go along to get along”. The blood is still on your hands even if you keep your mouth shut and support the Blue Wall of Silence.
Not in the eyes of at least four of our USSC Justices. They would have you believe that Professionalism takes precedence over their otherwise corruptible nature and that few, if any, public servants would bow to these pressures.
My step-father – avid Rush Limbaugh listener – brought up during conversation last month how these asset forfeitures are getting out of hand. I had never mentioned this, and I don’t even remember what the conversation was about.
Anyway, folks are starting to catch on, and not just us libertarians.
Nando: which is partly why SCOTUS is unlikely to touch the issue. The other reason is that the Roberts court is, at least in theory, generally against overt policy making from the bench.
BamBam: “law enforcement” is not just the cops, prosecutors, judges etc. It include the entire “process” which involves all of us, and our acquiescence.
#7 SJE
Not disagreeing but unfortunately the “all of us” factor includes all of the badgelickers with 911 on speed dial.
Some of these “seized” (stolen) items actually make it to auction.
Personally, the thought of buying any of this stuff makes me ill. But for some, the mere idea that some of this stuff may have been used in the commission of a “crime” is a thrill.
#7 I disagree. Legislation and people who vote don’t enforce laws, but rather create and support laws. Big difference, but it is part of the entire process which can be broken into pieces. There is such a massive disconnect from legislation, who writes bills, how votes are counted, etc. and what people really want. Although a lot of people are incredibly stupid, so maybe I’ll concede that society is getting what it wants, which is a police state.
And yet intellectual property in the form of songs can cost citizens umpty-ump jiggillions per instance if they are caught ‘sharing’ them… I.E., infringing on the property rights of others.
Why is that true, but citizens themselves have no security?
Oh right, “citizens at large” don’t spend umpty-ump jiggillions of dollars lobbying the corrupt trash masquerading as statesmen we have in the capitol.
jiggillion… anybody know what power of ten that happens to be? :)
As a happy resident of IL, as i am reminded every year i can lose my car to a seizure for transporting fireworks into the state. Fireworks aren’t coming up I-25 from mexico; all i have to do is drive over to wisconsin to buy them (and lower taxed alcohol).
And a jigillion is 100x more than a rational mind can even begin to rationalize. Its ever expanding in its absurdity. As a kid, i used to tape songs off the radio so i could listen to them at my convenience. Sometimes the indie stations would play entire albums too. I still have a cassette copy of green day’s dookie (which also has the first instance i remember of hearing the f-bomb on the radio) from 1994. If i’m into the band, i’ll buy the videos and tshirts and hats and coffee mugs and concert tickets. But i’m not into the grateful dead enough to ever DARE place a sticker of theirs on my bumper. They’d have to displace the NRA and FOP advertisements i use to get out of speeding tickets. Merchandise makes the bands money, not so much mp3/cd sales. Even roadside littering (because it is so hard to catch) doesn’t compare to torrenting 8.99$ cds. At least if i’m lighting off m-80s in the pond, i have the satisfaction of knowing i annoyed my neighbors in the process. Losing my house for illegally storing mortar bomb fireworks i transported there from out of state with my car? I can buy black powder with my FOID so who honestly should care?
A jiggillion is ten to the eleventy, or as Kyle put it so well, one hundred times more than a rational mind can rationalize.
Or put yet another (roundabout) way…
Most of us here are for separation of church and state.
How many are for separation of market and state? Why not?
Forfeiture should be prevented by that pesky 5th Amendment:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Yizmo: you forgot about Kelo.
That article is really depressing.