Law enforcement in this country is a damn joke.
Getting actual Law and Order actors was a nice touch.
Getting actual Law and Order actors was a nice touch.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jon Oliver talks about Civil Forfeiture
- Thread starter TheAbsolution
- Start date
- Status
Onion_Relish
Member
This really struck me as well. I thought the piece was poorly done because he wasn't getting the laughs he normally does and he wasn't exuding the confidence he normally does, but upon reexamination it was mostly the audience who was rapt with attention that didn't give him much to work with.
Although people clearly have an issue with TheChocolateWar's opinion, I would like to point out that his insistence on the legislative aspect of civil forfeiture is important for two key reasons.
First: Civil Forfeiture is actually a relatively new process. Based on your jurisdiction, your state or province may not even have civil forfeiture proceedings. In Canada, only 7 of the provinces have civil forfeiture and the two provinces with the oldest implementation are only about a decade old. Civil Forfeiture law was designed as another way for the cops to get what are "reasonably believed" to be items or quantities of cash that are the proceeds of crime or were used in the perpetuation of a crime. Civil forfeiture was created because police were having too hard of a time prosecuting people in certain cases when all signs pointed to an item being stolen, part of the proceeds of crime, etc. Arguably, as John points out, the bar has now swung too far the other way and the police have it too easy. That being said, with any legislative addition there is always a balancing act and it often takes a long time for everyone to suss out where the abuses are and how best to fix them.
Secondly: Understanding the contours of an administrative process is key to understanding how justice is affected. Everything depends on context, but as an administrative process, there are different standards involved with the review of your matter. It may sound shocking to people, but it makes sense for ex police chiefs and ex police commissioners to be the heads of administrative tribunals as they have the most experience with these matters. In Canada, the standard of review for an administrative review is correctness or reasonableness. If you are unhappy with the decision, you can pursue a judicial review (review by a judge) of the tribunals decision. Of course, it is a pain in the ass to do such things and they can be cost prohibitive, but if you win you receive your costs back. Clearly no one wants to be inconvenienced, but the fact remains procedurally that there are safeguards in place for people to be able to seek justice, especially if they perceive the police to be abusing their rights.
I have no idea where the idea of "bailment" comes from in what thechocolatewar wrote though. Bailment not only has nothing to do with this but also is not even remotely analagous in a situation where your items are seized from you against your will.
Lastly: If anyone finds themselves in a situation like this, please remember that you are not in any way, shape, or form obliged to answer a police officers questions. I know it is hard given how gregarious and social human beings are, but remember that a police officer can only search your vehicle if they think you have committed a crime. It would serve you well to force them to either get a warrant for your search or have them bring the drug sniffing dog, because if it turns out (just like in the John Oliver case) that the dog smells nothing but they still seize the cash, it will seem less likely that your cash or items are the proceeds of a crime. Please don't get shot though.
NerdEyeBlind
Member
UW Madison shout out!!!
TheChocolateWar
Member
Yes, that is most assuredly permitted. You are allowed to seize money if it is believed to be the assets of a crime. And then these people are given the opportunities for a hearing. Just because they chose expensive lawyers does not mean it is an abuse of process. They did not have to get an attorney.
My purpose in discussing bailments is an attempt to reframe the issue for people who do not have a firm grasp on civil forfeiture principles. The reason, or one of the main reasons, we have the current civil forfeiture law is because it is expensive to house these items. Think of it as if police officers are stewards of evidence for prosecuting attorneys. They do not want to hold onto this evidence indefinitely because it costs them money.
They are, essentially, holding the items in trust for the prosecuting officer awaiting trial. If that trial is never brought on, they want to get rid of it. Civil forfeiture allows them to do that. Without the civil forfeiture law, police would be forced to bear the costs of holding onto items for possible criminals who are either too lazy or unaware of their rights; driving up the costs of the police force.
Onion_Relish
Member
That makes a bit more sense, but I still don't think it is appropriate to use bailment as the conceptual framework for this discussion, especially as most people don't know the contours of what bailment actually is. If anything this is like a forced conversion on behalf of the police lol
It just makes logistical sense that the current procedures are enacted in such a way as to allow for people to get back their stuff but also for the police to dispose of it should they decide to take forever to try and assert their rights, especially for the relatively small amounts most of the cases will be dealing with.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
Yeah that was amazing
a Master Ninja
Member
I thought the United States Constitution had a Fourth Amendment...
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Might have missed the reference.
Unjust system will eventually fuck with the wrong person/s. The police and their unions have too much power.
ScottSullivan
Member
Not trying to defend civil forfeiture or some of the practices of our police, but if you're getting your whole perception of the USA from News Comedians then it's bound to look really bad
"seems kinda casually" and "at times" are completely unnecessary words in this sentence.
TheChocolateWar
Member
There is due process. It technically isn't property of the police until after a hearing, and you are given sufficient notice of the hearing before hand.
MrCunningham
Member
He does great editorial pieces, I'm glad that HBO picked him up for his own show.
a Master Ninja
Member
But the people running the hearing took your stuff...
he's a corruption apologist (or one of those "4chan trolls" i heard about), i'm not sure how logic will make him understand anything
Onion_Relish
Member
As I pointed out, this is one of the logistical issues regarding administrative tribunals. It seems like a clear conflict of interests that police should be in charge of their own administrative hearings, especially when being obstinate serves their own pecuniary interests. Unfortunately, there really isn't anyone better suited to hear police issues than police officers themselves. Most of the time the people in charge of these tribunals will be ex-police chiefs or people not in active duty to avoid issues of seeming impropriety, but in a lot of ways it is no different than any other industry. The had of the FCC used to work for a national telecom, the heads of labour boards are usually old union bosses, etc etc. That's why due process includes the right to judicial review of the decision, because there is an inherent flaw in the system that really can't be remedied.
One thing I've noticed about Neogaf is that people here are EXTREMELY hostile to anyone who looks at the law in an objective way. This is especially evident in cases with cops behaving badly. Regardless of his past history of which I am unaware, the chocolatewars has not (to me at least) appeared to be any form of an apologist or someone who condones this kind of behaviour. He is simply pointing out the mechanisms for how Civil Forfeiture works. One thing that you people must realise is that the even though Civil Forfeiture is a relatively new procedure, the things governing it in the background are well established both through legislation and case law. Courts have acknowledged that Civil Forfeiture is legal. Whether or not you like it is up to you, but it does not make you an apologist to simply point out how the law works. Issues of corruption in the police force (especially in America) go well beyond things like Civil Forfeiture.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
incredible that it's possible to sue an object.
oh wow, that cop with the damn car.
edit: holy crap that ending.
oh wow, that cop with the damn car.
edit: holy crap that ending.
TheChocolateWar
Member
They didn't take it, so much as they are holding it in trust pursuant to trial. They are not assuming ownership. That is not how the statute works. They do not get ownership until after the hearing. And the statute does still require probable cause, so it is not an unreasonable seizure.
Squirrel Killer
Member
In my defense, I brought up Libertarians because I know they have been advocating against forfeiture for decades. In my third post in this thread, I broadened my scope to include "other ignored political groups" (although no one has bothered to identify them,) but I seem to have touched a nerve. The Sanders/Duke comparison was just to use representatives that are the furthest extremes on the left/right spectrum in US politics, not meant as a criticism of Sanders. So again...
Civil forfeiture is a bunch of bullshit. The fact that it's entirely legal and done entirely by procedure as TheChocolateWar notes makes it all the more bullshit. Thankfully some comic is bringing it to the spotlight so people pay attention. Sometimes the law is just fucking wrong.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
But it's not abuse because it's legal!!!11 >_<
I know right?
People have a right to due process. But people's property, not so much. Tough shit, eh?
NeoGAF is full of people who have had different life experiences than you, including some of us who have almost never had a positive interaction with police once in their lives.
benjipwns
Banned
You're right, had.
But you can't trust the state to enforce its own contracts against itself.
benjipwns
Banned
Can't recommend this article enough!
bodyboarder
Member
That law and order scene was on point. So well done.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Lol thanks for the heads up
- Status