Nelson v Colorado and Civil Assets Forfeiture
April 29, 2017 8:53 AM Subscribe
'Last week, in a case called Nelson v. Colorado, the court laid a foundation for upcoming challenges to roll back law enforcement overreach. As a result of respective 2005 and 2006 convictions, Louis Alonzo Maddon and Shannon Nelson were required to pay a few thousand dollars in court costs, fees, and restitution to Colorado (on top of serving prison time).
But Nelson and Maddon ultimately had those respective convictions invalidated. They both then asked for refunds on those paid costs. But the Colorado Supreme Court held that to obtain refunds, a state law called the Exoneration Act required them first to file separate civil court proceedings—where they would have to pay for their own lawyer or find one to represent them for free—and prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that they were “actually innocent.” The “actual innocence” standard would force them to bear the enormous burden of proving a negative, to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that they had not committed the crimes in question.'
'Ginsburg wrote: “once their convictions were erased, the presumption of innocence was restored. ... Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”'
But Nelson and Maddon ultimately had those respective convictions invalidated. They both then asked for refunds on those paid costs. But the Colorado Supreme Court held that to obtain refunds, a state law called the Exoneration Act required them first to file separate civil court proceedings—where they would have to pay for their own lawyer or find one to represent them for free—and prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that they were “actually innocent.” The “actual innocence” standard would force them to bear the enormous burden of proving a negative, to demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that they had not committed the crimes in question.'
'Ginsburg wrote: “once their convictions were erased, the presumption of innocence was restored. ... Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”'
Another forfeiture case currently before SCOTUS
"The Supreme Court ... heard arguments in Honeycutt v. United States about whether a member of a conspiracy can be required to forfeit money generated by the crime even though he never received most of it.
If you are wondering how someone can be forced to give up something he never had, then welcome to the intersection of conspiracy and asset forfeiture law."
posted by bunderful at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2017 [8 favorites]
"The Supreme Court ... heard arguments in Honeycutt v. United States about whether a member of a conspiracy can be required to forfeit money generated by the crime even though he never received most of it.
If you are wondering how someone can be forced to give up something he never had, then welcome to the intersection of conspiracy and asset forfeiture law."
posted by bunderful at 9:23 AM on April 29, 2017 [8 favorites]
Nice that this is finally being addressed. Can't come soon enough: Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed The Value Of All Burglaries In 2014
posted by vorpal bunny at 10:13 AM on April 29, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by vorpal bunny at 10:13 AM on April 29, 2017 [20 favorites]
If you need another primer on what Civil Asset Forfeiture is, John Oliver's segment from a few years ago is a good place to start.
posted by Catblack at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2017 [4 favorites]
One of the many, many evil things our police departments are allowed to do in the name of "safety" and because most of the victims aren't white.
In a just world, the perpetrators of this theft would be forced to pay back their ill-gotten gains and be sent off to prison themselves. But it's not a just world, so I'll settle for just stopping the madness.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:36 AM on April 29, 2017 [5 favorites]
In a just world, the perpetrators of this theft would be forced to pay back their ill-gotten gains and be sent off to prison themselves. But it's not a just world, so I'll settle for just stopping the madness.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:36 AM on April 29, 2017 [5 favorites]
CAF means that cops actually don't want to shut down criminal enterprises, they want them to be as big and lucrative as the public will tolerate, and then they take their (big) piece of the action on a continuing basis.
posted by jamjam at 12:03 PM on April 29, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 12:03 PM on April 29, 2017 [9 favorites]
i disagree with that specific take, Jamjam. i doubt enough cops intentionally cultivate criminal enterprises so they can be harvested. However I do find it likely that there is an incentive to expand the reach of criminalization of non-crimes, expanding the scope of who can be found "guilty" for what infractions.
posted by rebent at 1:22 PM on April 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by rebent at 1:22 PM on April 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
If you have the time and energy, this New Yorker piece (FPP) is full of appalling abuses. The Justice Department curtailed federal forfeiture in 2015 (FPP) but Jeff Sessions has expressed rather enthusiastic support for asset forfeitures (h/t XMLicious). (I also seem to recall reading another investigation years ago that focused primarily on forfeitures in the South, specifically Alabama, conducted with assistance from the SPLC or ProPublica, but can't seem to track it down.) Also previously.
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 1:46 PM on April 29, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 1:46 PM on April 29, 2017 [11 favorites]
rebent: if that's true, why do cops on a known 'drug highway' know that the drugs are going one direction, the cash another direction, but only stop 'suspicious cars' that might be filled with cash... Can't get the cash unless the drugs get to their destination. I would call that intentionally cultivating criminal enterprises.
posted by el io at 8:41 PM on April 29, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by el io at 8:41 PM on April 29, 2017 [6 favorites]
Yeah, they have an amazing knack for finding things that aren't drugs on the "drug highway."
posted by rhizome at 9:54 PM on April 29, 2017
posted by rhizome at 9:54 PM on April 29, 2017
« Older Nice racks. (And modules and patches.) | Play some games today Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by leotrotsky at 9:10 AM on April 29, 2017 [17 favorites]