It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants telephone and private conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting local police using drones without warrants to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive (Civil Asset Forfeiture) to use their drones or Federal Drones. Should (no-warrant) drone surveillance evidence be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example drones covertly recording private conversations and electronic communications in Citizens’ homes and businesses, expect federal and local police Civil Asset {Property Forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a mere preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: Any conversation, phone call or other electronic communication captured by a drone inside a home or business, police could take out of context to initiate arrests and civil asset forfeitures to confiscate a home, business and related assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone first be convicted of a crime before police can civilly forfeit their property—by referring their investigation to a Federal Government Agency that may legally rebate to local police up to 80% of assets the Feds forfeit. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to civilly forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to state and federal government asset forfeiture in addition to illegal drug forfeiture laws. Increasingly local police are paid part or all their salary from proceeds realized from civil and criminal asset forfeiture. Police have to confiscate Citizens’ property to keep their job. This is a clear conflict of interest. At the least, Congress should require the Federal Government prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that a property is subject to Civil Asset Forfeiture, not a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay.

The passed Federal “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively eliminated the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government-drone electronic surveillance be admissible in courts, police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ (drone captured emails, Internet data, private conversations and phone communications seized on private property in hopes of discovering crime or civil violation to cause arrests and property forfeitures. It is problematic without public oversight, a corrupt U.S. Government agency or local police, may use drone no-warrant searches of Citizens’ emails, Internet data and phone call communications to extort and blackmail Americans; sell (no-warrant drone acquired physical and electronic surveillance information) seized from Americans and private businesses.

Almost every week the media reports police arrested and convicted for selling drugs, extorting drug dealers, falsifying reports to cause arrests; perjury in court. It is foreseeable this kind of corruption will find its way into government / police drone search and seizure of lawful Citizens’ private property to cause arrests and property forfeiture.

Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a “Catch 22” criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

$10 per person is “staggering?” That’s some pretty stupid hyperbole.

around 40% of children in the county have been removed (although likely released afterwards).

If it averages 37% a year, and 40% of the current children have been at one time or another, that represents an ANNUAL recidivism (for lack of a better term) rate of over 90% (that is, over 90% of all children that have been taken by the state before are taken by the state again).

Every year.

Yeah, that’s still really REALLY hard to believe, even given the other stuff listed above.

Quite a difference between “is” and “ought” I’m afraid.

Hazard pay, huh. I doubt menacing people who have small marijuana farms is that hazardous. But if these bastards keep taking people’s children, then it might get that way. Another fine example of the state profiting off of the misery of poor people. Now if only private correctional companies could get in on this action.

“I learned a thing or two from Charlie, don’t ya know
Better stay away from Copperhead Road”
Steve Earle

Again, I hope I’m wrong in my assumption, but the evidence before my eyes and ears doesn’t seem encouraging.

Alcohol Prohibition died in no small part because we simply could not afford it anymore. Drug prohibition will meet the same end…but only after that question is asked, angrily, in every State.

Oh, wait…..

State law means jack shit if federal law prohibits it.

The ink on paper Constitution does not enumerate federal .gov to determine who gets to ingest what. By the same logic of “laws are the rules”, therefore the 10th Amendment applies — in the absence of federal law, it is left up to the state .gov.

One cannot say laws apply, but then ignore other laws/rules. It is not credible to behave in such a manner. I know what reality is, but the reality is illegal and immoral and hypocritical. Why call for the more laws, when existing laws are ignored by the same entity?

They are NOT legal growers. State law means jack shit if federal law prohibits it. All these medical marijuana state initiatives are a waste of time, money, and resources that would be better spent on full on federal legalization.

The State depends on money to survive; ergo, it will obtain that money by any means necessary. And since the State has a monopoly on violence in its jurisdiction, it should be unsurprising that violence is its method of choice.

As the shit continues to hit the fan, with municipalities all across the US either facing bankruptcy or actively pursuing it, expect these kinds of incidents to increase proportionately.

And, as usual, you Joe Citizen, and I, will continue to take it in the ass. Welcome to the new normal.

Nearly 37% of impoverished children in the county are taken into protective custody in Butte County every year

This is unbelievably unlikely – it is a great example of innumeracy.

Either that has happened, like, ONCE (one year), or the population of the poor children is that country is contracting at Black Death-like rates, and the problem will solve itself very shortly (as there will be no more poor children to take, other than whatever infants are born each year).

Yes, the rest of the article is pretty scary, but that bit is laughable.