Thieving cops steal more stuff from people than burglars do

[Wilfire]

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.

Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.

[In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff]

One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.

For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.

Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.

One final caveat is that these are only the federal totals and don't reflect how much property is seized by state and local police each year. Reliable data for all 50 states is unavailable, but the Institute of Justice found that the total asset forfeiture haul for 14 states topped $250 million in 2013. The grand 50-state total would probably be much higher.

Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014. That represents something of a sea change in the way police do business — and it's prompting plenty of scrutiny of the practice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...did-last-year/

[Independent voter]

Not sure why OP has it in for cops.

Seizing assets is basically the same thing as paying a fine, the $50 dollars you pay for a speeding ticket is an asset forfeiture if you think about it.

[Spectral]

Some of this is obviously inappropriate, but I don't think we have a meaningful way to measure how much asset forfeiture is "stealing". While we've all heard tales of people who were just innocently carrying $10K in cash that had it stolen, I don't think people should actually feel bad about the more typical case, which is seizing drugs and cash during a raid. Also, as your link notes, this doesn't really include all private stealing:

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.

So yeah, understood, you hate cops and authority, but no, they're not actually robbing people blind left and right. For the average person that isn't moving bricks and holding illegal cash, burglars are more of a concern than cops.

[JohnBrown1917]

This is why you dont give cops too much power.

Bullshit. Please, do some reading into this shit.

Don't bother with Hubcap on this.

[Seranthor]

Do we need to point out that asset forfeiture isn't the cops 'stealing' because its the courts/judicial system that decides it... not the cops.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good old cop bashing thread, right?

[JohnBrown1917]

Do we need to point out that asset forfeiture isn't the cops 'stealing' because its the courts/judicial system that decides it... not the cops.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good old cop bashing thread, right?

Its the cops who bring it to the courts.

So you're just saying that both are part of the problem?

[Seranthor]

Its the cops who bring it to the courts.

So you're just saying that both are part of the problem?

Cops dont decide, the courts do, and here's the real difficult part for most to grasp, the legislatures (the folks you elect to represent you) are the ones that pass the laws. So, if someone has a problem with the laws, you probably want to take it up with your elected representatives, since they are the ones that can change it. Cops cant change the laws, they only enforce them.

[PACOX]

Only on MMO-Champ will people seriously defend civil forfeiture.


You guys are fascinating.

[Spectral]

Only on MMO-Champ will people seriously defend civil forfeiture.


You guys are fascinating.

What do you think should happen to assets acquired via criminal gang activity?

[PACOX]

What do you think should happen to assets acquired via criminal gang activity?

Assets can be taken without convictions or even charges. Nothing to do with taking assets from convicted criminals. Think someone has drug money? Charge and convict.

[unbound]

Do we need to point out that asset forfeiture isn't the cops 'stealing' because its the courts/judicial system that decides it... not the cops.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good old cop bashing thread, right?

Sorry, but you are wrong. Civil Asset Forfeiture is performed by the police, not the courts. The primary controversy with the practice is that the police can seize (then keep or sell) any property they allege is involved in a crime. The owners of the property don't need to be arrested, much less convicted, of a crime for those things to be taken away permanently.

Now, please take the time to understand what is going on instead of jumping on the black and white bandwagon (i.e. you are either for or against all police). The problem is more nuanced than that, and not all police departments engage in doing this unethically, but some do. The same with police officers in generally...most are good, but some are bad. You can want those good cops to succeed while wanting the bad cops punished appropriately.

[Spectral]

Assets can be taken without convictions or even charges. Nothing to do with taking assets from convicted criminals. Think someone has drug money? Charge and convict.

Can you think of any potential problems with that strategy?

[Drungan]

First off that title .... really

to the point .. from reading the article it seems that this is not police patrolling the streets taking 5-20 bucks from whoever they see as the title want us to think, but is money and *stuff* confiscated from crimes, what do people against this suggest that happends to this money and things ?

where i live that kind of money ( things are sold on auctions ) is gathered and used to support local sport clubs, youth centers etc. and you can apply to get it. it has to be used for *common* good. it is also used shelters for homeless and people on the run from abusive relationships etc. i do not know how USA are using it but our way seems pretty fair.

[PACOX]

Can you think of any potential problems with that strategy?

You mean being allowed to take money from innocent people without charges and convictions? A ton.

[Seranthor]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Civil Asset Forfeiture is performed by the police, not the courts. The primary controversy with the practice is that the police can seize (then keep or sell) any property they allege is involved in a crime. The owners of the property don't need to be arrested, much less convicted, of a crime for those things to be taken away permanently.

Now, please take the time to understand what is going on instead of jumping on the black and white bandwagon (i.e. you are either for or against all police). The problem is more nuanced than that, and not all police departments engage in doing this unethically, but some do. The same with police officers in generally...most are good, but some are bad. You can want those good cops to succeed while wanting the bad cops punished appropriately.

It is still a cop bashing thread, look at the topic. it would be just as incendiary if I created a thread and said 'Hillary is a murderer' and proceeded to point out the people that died after having been mentioned one of her emails.

[Adam Jensen]

Assets can be taken without convictions or even charges. Nothing to do with taking assets from convicted criminals. Think someone has drug money? Charge and convict.

Isn't that unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...amendment.html

[Spectral]

You mean being allowed to take money from innocent people without charges and convictions? A ton.

No, I mean executing a raid, finding a few kilos of cocaine and a pile of cash, and saying, "well, I guess we have to let them keep the cash for now since we don't have a conviction". Can you think of anything that might go wrong with that plan?

[Adam Jensen]

No, I mean executing a raid, finding a few kilos of cocaine and a pile of cash, and saying, "well, I guess we have to let them keep the cash for now since we don't have a conviction". Can you think of anything that might go wrong with that plan?

Cocaine is instant probable cause, IIRC. The money however is not. You should have to prove that the money and the cocaine are related.

[WskyDK]

Isn't that unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment:


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...amendment.html

You'd think so, but it is happening everywhere in the US.
The problem is that it's so difficult to challenge, that many people don't even bother

[Destump]

John Oliver has a very good episode on this. Many innocent people lose money etc because of civil forfeiture