http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020110620A81.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

This is an interesting theory, but flawed.

Yes prosecutors can charge entire police forces with crimes. Conspiracy, theft, murder, etc., etc. They don’t even have to use special laws to do this. They can just use the ordinary criminal laws of they want to charge all the policemen with crimes.

And, yes, the prosecutor could, in theory, instead of charging a crime, or in addition to charging crime, could seize things owned by the police department. They probably don’t own the police station, but they probably do own SUVs and heli’s and firearms that have actual value.

HOWEVER, it is unlikely that a prosecutor would decide on a forfeiture remedy. For PRACTICAL reasons. The prosecutor is not going to go to war against a police department unless and until it is way clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they committed tonnes of crimes. Even if it is super clear that all the policemen committed tonnes of crimes the prosecutor still might not act, but if she does decide to act then she will do something more decisive than just seizing the vehicles and heli’s. She might have the mayor quietly liquidate that police department and contract the protection of the town to the state or county. She might bring a grand jury and get each and every popo charged with a laudry list of noxious crimes. But what the prosecutor isn’t going to do is take the half measure of civil forfeiture against the bad popos.

Civil forfeiture works great for the government when they aren’t sure that the forfeitees are really guilty and when the forfeitees property is not owned by a part of the government itself. When the police are criminals, then neither of these forfeiture-favorable conditions hold. The policemen will get the benefit of the prosecutor’s doubt if there is any doubt about their guilt of crimes, plus all the popo’s good stuff is already owned by the same gov’t that would be trying seize it — it would be like a snake eating its own tail.

So I’m wondering, given all of the above, has anyone sued a courthouse or police station, or the home of a politician who voted in favor of asset forfeiture laws? In many police departments, police officers violate civil and constitutional rights every day. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and such violations by public officials are federal crimes. So, given the laws, shouldn’t you be able to forfeit a police station?

Given sufficiently brazen abuses of authority, anything is possible. Start with seizing all nice minority-owned vehicles on the grounds that it is “axiomatic” that no black man could own a decent car.

Interesting solution, but they might not be eligible if it gets discovered they have an IQ over 90. Or a conscience.

Not true of the DA’s office. An IQ under 100 is a liability there. It might cause them to not be able to compartmentalize their morality sufficiently that civil asset forfeiture feels like something other than armed robbery with the blessing of the state. Ideally, they want someone in the 120-140 range, as that’s the ideal range to be maximally evil as a lawyer and develop an entire system for compartmentalizing the morality based on superficial sophistry.

@ 3 I wouldn’t be able to make it as an enforcer – as soon as I came across a defenseless, friendly dog there is no way I could shoot it.

You could always fire your entire magazine into the ground at the dog. Since most cops barely qualify with their weapons, you could justify it on the grounds of the department not training you effectively at hitting moving targets fleeing for their lives.

Interesting solution, but they might not be eligible if it gets discovered they have an IQ over 90. Or a conscience.

This is ain’t Agitator-worthy, at least not yet.

First of all it sounds like she may not even be contesting the seizure.

Second, even if the point is that the affidavits are sealed, her tight-lipped stance (and job to protect) strongly suggests that it is in her best interests to keep them puppies sealed now & forever.

Third, if you are going to cover her story at least put the photo up so we Totski’s get something out of the deal.