this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
383 points (99.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7186 readers
1069 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A North Carolina teenager was hoping to get her life back on track after a state judge ordered a man who sexually abused her to pay her $69,000. Instead, she got a nasty surprise.

The local police department had already seized the cash through civil asset forfeiture, and it was already gone. Despite a judge's order, she will get nothing.

The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police—and of how the federal government allows state and local police to evade reforms to stop forfeiture abuse.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 130 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The judge should make the dept pay her. How is this not the automatic result? I know, don’t explain it to me. I’m just mad.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the money's not gone. We know where it went, and there was no actual crime related to the money.

Civil forfeiture is state-sponsored theft.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't worry about silly things like rights. You have no rights and no property if the proper authority arbitrarily decides you don't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

"Rights don't exist if someone can take them away" - Carlin

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Can't most departments seize for feds and get a cut in return, state civil asset forfeiture is getting less common because it's getting easier to fight because it's more known and everyone thinks it's idiotic.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Daily reminder that the police are not here to help

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

My partner works customer service for a big company and had a customer call in to say an employee at some location was threatening his life. Her nee jerk response was for the customer to call the police but he responded with the names of other minorities that were killed by police and said he felt calling the police would be a bigger threat to his life than the problem employee. Sad that this is how far we've fallen, oh wait, this has always been the case. We just now have the means to document and report these abuses of power.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police

The case is a reminder this entire concept is theft.

They steal the money, charge the inanimate object with a crime, and expect you to sue to get it back. They stole it. Stop using big words to make it sound sane. We legalized theft, for cops.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oops replied to wrong post

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago

Police already stole the cash..

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fun fact, civil forfeiture started in maritime law when ships were seized carrying illegal items and the perpetrators were foreign nationals that were never in the country, so the only way to pursue an indictment was to seize the ship and charge the ship itself with the crime.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Boy howdy are cops abusing maritime law then.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sovcit moment right there

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are rules, after all.

Ya just gotta be quicker. /s

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

The civil forfeiture rule is, “gotcha money BIIITCH!” (And your car, house, etc.)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Those who receive stolen property may be required to return it to the person it was stolen from.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Let her take something from the police in return. Maybe some of their cars?