Slashdot Mirror

On top of all that, apparently some 90% of American currency tests positive for cocaine. (I've read this in articles about forfeiture; I don't know how accurate it is; anyone know any more about this?) I've read some horror stories of people having large amounts of cash confiscated; in one case a woman's life savings, while she was in the process of moving. More information about forfeiture here.

No. They are actually suing the property itself - which makes no sense. It's yet another in a long line of blundering moves by the U.S. government to impose a legal system with no foundation in logic or basis in reality. You can read more about the fallacy of suing objects here.

The situation is hypothetical, of course, but possible under present law, IMHO. We should not accept laws just because we think they won't be enforced.

As for me, I'd rather get arrested fighting oppression, than not help my fellow.

First, tell the asset forfeiture courts to stop ignoring the fourth amendment in the name of the "War on Drugs". Then worry about the rest of it, Mr. Rule of Law.

• You can be stopped, searched, and arrested anytime you're in public if a police officer doesn't like the way you look. If you're lucky, your case will get thrown out or the cop will be nice. Cops have the right to tear your car apart looking for drugs, and not pay for damage if they don't find any.
• Civil forfeiture means that if you break any of the millions of anal, petty laws in the U.S., you can lose your house, your car, or any other property you own. Watch the first 20 minutes of Traffic to see how it works.
• Software and media piracy can land you in prison for five years and subject you to up to $250,000 in fines, per violation. (Naturally this bill was signed by our Democratic friend, Bill Clinton). It's a steep penalty for something so trivial.
• "Disorderly conduct" is a catch-all crime which can be used to arrest people for a reason of the officer's choosing. Ask any minority about it and you're certain to hear a few stories.
• Many forms of sexual activity (such as oral or anal sex) are banned in several states. Most people in the country (besides the Slashdot crowd) are guilty of one or more of these offenses.
• It is widely known that most powerful politicians can trigger an IRS audit on their political enemies.
• The ATA has made it legal for authorities to detain foreign nationals indefinitely, without presenting evidence of a crime or making a formal arrest.

The DMCA is only one of the many laws which make the USA into a police state. AC's intentions are good but he's got a lot more battles in front of him before the U.S. can be considered safe from authority abuse.

-CT

Don't worry, we already have. Take a look at some of the asset forfeiture laws commonly used to get drug dealers. If the law can't pin a case on you, it'll pin one on your property. Forget about the Constitution, forget about the right to a Jury trial.

You're perfectly safe until you actually build a bomb, start your own little chemical war with chlorine or go nuts with your shotgun.

Tell that to Randy Weaver's wife and son. Or Donald Scott.

Fact is that law enforcement goes off half-cocked way too often. I'm generally a big supporter of federal and local cops but they do make mistakes and "cowboys" have often ruined the lives of innocent people. Inviting more police attention to yourself is downright crazy even if you are innocent.

No, they would have to prosecute you and show concrete evidence that you are dealing/using drugs.

Well, they can actually seize quite a lot of your stuff without any kind of trial. Read up on asset seizure laws. It's amazing what they can get away with. (I know that some of these laws have recently been changed or stricken, thankfully, but I don't know the details.)

I can really understand the attraction to thinking "it's OK, it's for my own good and nothing bad could ever come of it." But if you do a little research you'll quickly see that it's a difficult position to defend. Terrible things happen to people all the time at the hands of the state. As citizens it's our right and duty to keep the government on its toes and not budge an inch unless it is 100% reasonable to do so.

The "slippery slope" is one hell of a cliche, but that doesn't make the slope any less slippery. Read my sig. Grok it. It's the truth.

For more information critical of civil forfeiture see www.fear.org. Asset forfeiture is widely used in the United States.

Ed

What's wrong with D.A.R.E.?

Over the last several years, ever-louder questions and criticisms about the merits and wisdom of D.A.R.E. have emerged. This section attempts to share those that have come to the attention of authors of this web page.

1. Efficacy. Despite its huge popularity, and hundreds of millions in tax revenue and private contributions, no evidence exists that D.A.R.E. keeps kids off drugs. A large, developing body of studies documenting this conclusion is referenced in the accompanying list of references and other resources. The bottom line is that at best, in the words of the Justice Department-sponsored study by the Research Triangle Institute (338k), D.A.R.E. has a "limited to esentially nonexistent effect on drug use."

   The U.S. General Accounting Office reported, "There is little evidence so far that [D.A.R.E. and other "resistance training" programs] have reduced the use of drugs by adolescents" (U.S. GAO/GGD-93-82, "Confronting the Drug Problem," page 25).

   D.A.R.E.'s official response to this growing body of research is disdain for science. "Scientists tell you that bumblebees can't fly, but we know better," declared D.A.R.E. Executive Director Glenn Levant upon release of the government-sponsored report that D.A.R.E. doesn't work (USA Today, October 11, 1994). The local D.A.R.E. officers we talked to also claim that the anecdotal evidence is convincing that D.A.R.E. is working extremely well, citing the warm reception they have received by schools and parents. "Besides," they often add, "even if we are reaching only one kid, it's worth all the effort."

   (It is not clear why their standard of success is so low. We would hardly declare a math curriculum successful if only one kid learned to add.)

   In an editorial October 15, 1993, The Chapel Hill (North Carolina) Herald observed, "If D.A.R.E. isn't doing the job it's supposed to, we owe it to fifth- and sixth-graders to find out why."

   Curiously, the web site of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the nation's preeminent anti-drug abuse agency, doesn't even mention D.A.R.E.

2. Content. The content of the D.A.R.E. curriculum is raising a variety of concerns about what D.A.R.E. is actually teaching our children. These concerns include:
   • D.A.R.E.'s message to children is muddled and confusing. It doesn't tell kids that they must not use drugs. Instead, D.A.R.E. tells them that they have the "right to say no," implying that they have the "right to say yes." Despite the term in its name, D.A.R.E. doesn't teach kids what "drug abuse" actually is, or how it can be identified.
   • D.A.R.E. is not respectful of parents and other civilian adults. The D.A.R.E. video, called "The Land of Decisions and Choices," shown to students as part of Lesson 2, portrays all adults as drunks or other drug abusers, or senile...other than the D.A.R.E. officer. Parents find this film a bizarre, brazenly exaggerated depiction of drug use. Although each child is given a D.A.R.E. "workbook," students are encouraged to leave them at school and not take them home. Some parents worry that the heavy emphasis on "resistance skills" subverts their own authority with their children.
   • It is a well established fact that children's greatest drug risk is with alcohol and tobacco, yet D.A.R.E. is soft on those drugs, hammering almost exclusively on illicit drugs. As a condition of "participation" in D.A.R.E., children are expected to abstain from all drugs. D.A.R.E. officers themselves are not required to meet that standard.
   • D.A.R.E. is based on unproven, and likely false, educational hypotheses, the most notorious one of which is that using drugs is a sympton of low self esteem, or of high stress. Thus casual, responsible use of any drug (alcohol, caffeine, tobacco) by parents or anyone else is to be seen as pathological, i.e., "abuse." From this dubious premise, it is alleged that self-esteem can be "built" by reciting state-sponsored catechisms. These catechisms consist of claims of "rights" which are said to have been conferred on fifth grade D.A.R.E. students. They include the "right to be happy" and the "right to be respected."

   Many parents take issue with the emphasis on "self-esteem" in schools these days, and the notion that it can be readily "taught." Lillian Katz, Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois, put it this way: "Self-esteem and self-confidence don't come from being told you are great. You get them by facing challenges and mastering them through hard work and persistence." (Readers Digest, April 1994, "Are We Demanding Enough of Our Kids?)

   To determine if students are experiencing a low, medium or high level of stress, students are given a test, in Lesson 8, called "My Stress Level." Among the causes of "high stress" are said to be: taking a test, being late for something, meeting someone new, being the first one to do something, or helping to plan a special event. In an earlier version, even "doing your chores" was said to cause stress.

3. Undermining the role and credibility of police. The role of police is to protect the public safety, and to respond to emergencies. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect them to take on the job of teaching mental health and attitudes. Nor it is helpful for civics education for children to be taught fictitious "rights." When a child grows up and learns that she was lied to about her "right to be happy," how will she feel about the officer who taught her otherwise, or the school in which she was so taught?

4. Not fair to professional teachers. D.A.R.E. mocks their years of study, by asking them to step aside for a high school graduate with two weeks training to come in and teach mental health and psychology. If police officers have the education and training necessary to be good teachers, what is the point of requiring years of study and teaching certificates?

   If Johnny can't read, teachers bear accountability. If Johnny doesn't stay off drugs, will the police take responsibility for the failure of drug education in schools, and protect teachers from any attribution of blame?

5. Sacrifices excessive academic time. D.A.R.E. consumes approximately seventeen hours of academic time that would otherwise be available for science, math, reading or some other academic subject. In the absense of any proof that D.A.R.E. works, this is a substantial sacrifice of valuable school time.

6. Perpetuates the war. To many people, D.A.R.E. represents the strongest commitment our nation can make to curb drug abuse by young people, and that it deserves to be pursued, even when we know it isn't working. By thus deceiving America into thinking that we are doing something serious about keeping kids off drugs, D.A.R.E. is impeding the nation's efforts to find more efficacious ways to achieve the broader goals of national drug policy, viz., to protect the public health and safety, to prevent abuse, and to eliminate the crime and violence associated with illicit drug trafficking.

   Peter G. Arlos, a Pittsfield, Massachusetts, city councillor, put it this way:

   "The tragic truth that the nation is spending $700 million a year on a program that may not work has not sunk in on the local or the national levels. A large D.A.R.E. bureaucracy has grown up that feeds on itself. The public raises no uproar because it needs the comfort of its delusion that something is being done to protect children from drugs."
   Letter, Sunday Republican (Springfield, Mass.), November 21, 1993

7. Subverts public education by transforming schools into instruments for the propagation of prohibitionist doctrine and the perpetuation of the war waged in its defense. Although a national debate is growing over whether prohibition, enforced by war, can reasonably be expected to achieve the goals listed above, D.A.R.E. defends prohibition zealously, disputing that the distinction between legal and illegal drugs is based solely on historical anomaly. ("Drug legalization: surrender is not the answer!," National D.A.R.E. Officers Newsletter, January, 1995). Looking at history, especially pre-war Germany, some parents compare D.A.R.E. to previous instances of installing uniformed, sometimes armed, agents of the state in classrooms to tell children what their attitudes ought to be, and to obtain information about family home life which may be of interest to the state.

   
   This van, pictured on a web site maintained by a DARE officer, was seized by the government under a controversial program known as asset forfeiture, in which drug defendants can lose their property even if they are never found guilty of any crime.

   It is widely known that D.A.R.E. officers are instructed to put a "D.A.R.E. Box" in every classroom, into which students may drop "drug information" or questions under the pretense of anonymity. Officers are instructed that if a student "makes a disclosure related to drug use," the officer should report the information to further authorities, both school and police. This apparently applies whether the "drug use" was legal or illegal, harmless or harmful. In a number of communities around the country, students have been enlisted by the D.A.R.E. officer as informants against their parents.

8. D.A.R.E. costs a lot of money. Glenn Levant, the D.A.R.E. executive director, states that D.A.R.E. consumes some $750,000,000 per year. The money goes to purchase paraphernalia--T-shirts, bumper stickers, caps, pens, pencils, etc.--from D.A.R.E. -licensed vendors, as well as for training and overtime salaries for police." It is important to realize that every dollar spent on D.A.R.E. is a dollar not available for a useful, educationally sound drug education program in schools. The overwhelming preponderance of federal "Drug-Free Schools" money goes into the D.A.R.E. program.
   • How much money is spent on D.A.R.E.?
   • Who gets the money?
   • Who really pays for D.A.R.E.?

You don't have to be actually dealing any drugs to be robbed at gunpoint by the cops. Just drive down I-10 through Louisiana with some cash in your car. Oh, yeah, and it helps - a lot - if you're black.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? God, I wish I were. Here, read this. Or, from the President of the ACLU, this. Or lest you fall for the anti-ACLU business that is so popular with demagogues in this country, and dismiss the above as just the ranting of some left-wing weirdos, here is a statement published by the office of conservative Republican congressman Henry Hyde. In fact, the appaling damage which the logic-twisting pro-police-state judicial activists of the Rehnquist Supreme Court have inflicted upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens has outraged many Congressmen of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, who have responded this year with legislation to undo their excesses and restore those Constitutional rights to the public. This bill has not yet been signed by President Clinton, who has a terrible record of siding with the law enforcement gang against the interests of mere citizens. Let us hope that FBI Director Freeh and Drug Tsar McCafferty (that war criminal) don't talk him into vetoing this bill.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

(1) Prohibition. When alcohol was banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The amendment was withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. Work through proper channels? Write your representatives? Convince legislators through proper means? Didn't happen. And the people were REWARDED for their disregard of an unjust law.

(1a) Drug Prohibition. When drugs like marijuana were banned, people still produced, transported, and consumed it. "But it was the law!" The laws were made harsher and harsher, until by the year 2000, a defacto "drug exception" had been carved out of the bill of rights, over two million Americans were in prison, about half of them on mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes, the economies of most Central American countries had been destabilized, and back in the U.S., the police in New York and Los Angeles had been transformed into roving gangs of death squads. Police were given the power to seize any and all property belonging to anyone accused of a drug crime without any process or trial. The citizens of a few states, in general elections, legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, but the federal government declared that the state laws were invalid, and began an intensive campaign to intimidate, arrest, and prosecute doctors and patients who tried to exercise their rights. At the local level, the police simply refused to obey the new laws. Children were removed from core classes such as reading and math, in favor of mandatory drug propaganda classes tought by uniformed police officers, where they were encouraged to turn in their parents "for their own good." Still, all that the legislatures could or would do was pass harsher and harsher laws, and in May 2000 a law passed Congress that would create an explicit "drug exception" to the first amendment itself.

It is a common myth that alcohol prohibition was ended by civil disobedience. In fact, ending prohibition was part of a national political strategy, orchestrated by a group of New York lawyers, who were trying to save the United States from the disaster that it destroying it now. It was a strategy that helped propel FDR into power and in the process, reshaped Congress, and our entire government.

For the real story of how alcohol prohibition was ended, read here. It's quite interesting.

Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness.

Actually, in this case your establishment would be subject to civil forfeiture, meaning that the government could confiscate your establishment without even having to provide any evidence of wrongdoing on your part. Your only recourse would be to post 10% of the value of your establishment, then go to court and prove that your establishment wasn't used to sell drugs. Under the tortured logic of our "drug" laws, your property is presumed guilty unless you can prove it innocent.

Don't presume that your constitutional rights apply when you are charged with a drug crime. They don't anymore.

Check out fear.org

Repression never stops. The Spanish Inquisition comes back every few years. Right now it's the atheists and OSS zealots. In a few years it'll be the Blacks again.

Actually, right now it's drug users. As of a few days ago, the U.S. passed the two-million prisoner mark. According to the Department of Justice's own figures, one quarter of those, or one half million U.S. citizens are imprisoned for non-violent drug offences alone.

Mandatory minimum prison sentences were applied in 64 percent of drug cases in 1998. The average length of imprisonment for drug offenses was 76 months; for firearms violations it was 63 months; and for manslaughter, it was 45 months. -- The Washington Post

Even if you find yourself with incurable cancer, like Steve Kubby, and all that is keeping you alive is regular use of medical marijuana, you are subject to imprisonment and likely death in prison from deprivation of your medicine if you are caught using an illegal medicine, i.e. one that is not patented by a campaign-contributing pharmaceutical company. Many medical marijuana patients, once discovered, find themselves under a court order not to use the only medicine that will keep them alive, and are subject to drug tests, and risk imprisonment and death in prison if they dare to continue using their medicine.

Drug users in general are subject to abuse and murder by the police. Their property is subject to seizure without trial, thus bankrupting them and preventing them from defending themselves. They are sent to special "drug courts" where they find that their constitutional rights don't apply. They are subject to "mandatory minimum" sentencing rules that forbid the judge from using any discretion in sentencing, hence the 76 month average drug sentence.

Back to the original point, if you go back far enough, the origins of most religions are based on the teachings of individuals who have had mystical -- i.e. hallucinatory, drug-like experiences. During the inquisition, someone who accidently ate the wrong mushroom, had a "mystical" experience, and claimed to have seen God would be put to death. In the year 2000, someone attempting to replicate the experience would face years in prison if caught.

Atheists and blacks, by contrast, are protected by a host of federal and state laws.

The US isn't doing to well on 'innocent until proven gulity' either. If a cop decides that it's suspicious that you take money to Las Vegas to gamble with, or that it's possible to use an innocent item in a drug related way, then you can loose all your assets.

That does indeed happen - remember, this is a government that can take your property and make you prove that you didn't buy it with drug profits before you can have it back. In that case, you have no rights and the burdeon of proof is on you, because they're putting the property on trial and not you! (see FEAR's webpage for more information about civil forfeiture). Certainly when they're dealing with someone who's been convicted of crimes that are probably related to the evidence they can't understand, he's going to have even less of a chance of geting his property back.

A friend of mine had some cellphones taken from him by the police because there had recently been a burglary in the area - because it was electronic equipment, they were going to confiscate it. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't charged with any crime. They didn't just give them back when they determined that nothing like that had been stolen. He had to get the company they were bought from to fax the police a list of the serial numbers.

I also see nothing wrong with allowing police to confiscate cars when needed to perform their duties, as long as the owner is compensated for the loss.

Civil forfeiture is one of the most monsterous manifestations of the growing American police state.

I don't know what the actual laws allow them to do, but the reality of it is that people have had cash seized simply because they were driving around with too much cash.

I've never heard of any threshold for "enough" drugs to make you subject for forfeiture. There is a whole list of crimes that being suspected of makes you subject to forfeiture. http://www.fear.org has a bunch of information about civil forfeiture.

If I had substantial assests, I'd be using them to make myself a royal pain in the ass to the powers that be. I'd therefore be concerned about making someone's shit list and having the hammer of civil forfeiture - whereby the state can take anything and everything you own without even charging you with a crime, much allowing you a trial by a jury - directed against me.

... or at least when they were both on the same side of the issue.

It's civil forfeiture... take a look at this page on the F.E.A.R. Foundation's website, where you'll find:

ACLU Press Release: House Passes Traffic Stops Bill

...and...

NRA Fax Alert Reports Good News On the Hyde Bill

... or at least when they were both on the same side of the issue.

It's civil forfeiture... take a look at this page on the F.E.A.R. Foundation's website, where you'll find:

ACLU Press Release: House Passes Traffic Stops Bill

...and...

NRA Fax Alert Reports Good News On the Hyde Bill

This is nothing new.

"Most people don't know it, but the government can take people's homes, cars, and money without charging them with a crime--and the burden of recovery is on the owners!" -- Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure? by Representative Henry J. Hyde

Mostly due to the War on Drugs, forfeiture laws have become unconstitutional. Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. have many incentives to keep property:

• - They get to KEEP it if you are found guilty, which allows them to fund themselves through asset forfeiture. The middle/upper middle class are often targetted more often as "suspects" because they have more assents which law enforcement can use/auction off than the poor, and can't afford the million-dollar lawyers which the rich can.
• - The legal system in the U.S. currently holds the opinion that "property can be responsible for the crime." We all know that it is the user of the computer, or the car, or the gun, or the expensive yacht who is at fault for the crime-- these are all just tools. But law enforcement and the justice system do not currently hold that opinion. They believe the property is just as evil as the criminal, and the property must be proven innocent also. (Otherwise they get to keep it and fund themselves, as above.)
• - The current social & justice system opinion is that guilty parties must be stripped of their livelihood (including any property they own which they might enjoy/have purchased with ill-gotten gains) -- whereas the more rational approach, and the more successful approach, is rehabilitation.

Until the laws are changed prohibiting the law enforcement agencies from keeping property they seize, it comes down to this: police target a "suspect" with "nice" assets and seize the property for themselves, sometimes liquidating it even before trial, and even if the suspect is proven innocent.

I suggest reading some of the excellent articles at fear.org, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation. There are many problems with the current system which must be reformed.

Yes, they can take your stuff, all they need is a warrant -- which can be very easy to get. And then the burden is on YOU -- how do YOU demonstrate that the property is innocent of a crime. But it gets worse than that. Sometimes they LOSE TRACK of your property (because law enforcement seizes a lot of property) and you are unable to get it back. Like I said before, a lot of this has to do with bad laws passed by politicians trying to "get tough on the War on Drugs":

For more than 200 years, the federal government has had the authority to take property through forfeiture. Beginning about 1980, the number and value of seizures started growing dramatically as law enforcement agencies began relying more heavily on forfeiture to fight drug traffickers and other organized crime figures. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 expanded the government's seizure authority and established forfeiture funds within the departments of Justice and the Treasury.\1 Recently, asset forfeiture laws were expanded to cover crimes associated with money laundering and certain financial institutions-related offenses. Collectively, enforcement actions associated with these changes have resulted in the value of Justice's and Treasury's seized property inventories growing from a reported $33 million in 1979 to almost $2 billion in 1994.

THE PROBLEM

As asset forfeiture programs grew in the 1980s, our attention was focused primarily on the management of seized and forfeited property. We found that property was not being properly cared for after it was seized, resulting in lost revenue to the government when the property was sold. Much has been accomplished in this area since the 1980s. However, some significant problems remain with seized property management, and continued oversight is necessary. Also, the departments of Justice and the Treasury continue to operate two similar but separate seized asset management and disposal programs without plans for consolidation, despite legislation requiring them to develop a plan to consolidate postseizure administration of certain properties.\2

In recent years, interest in the asset forfeiture programs has extended beyond asset management to questioning whether forfeiture laws are applied appropriately and effectively and consideration of how forfeiture proceeds should be used.

-- from The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Asset Forfeiture Programs.

I suggest everyone in the U.S. join the libertarian party in an effort to return to more constitutional principles.

Actually, no, they don't. (Well, maybe they do written down on a yellowing scrap of paper somewhere, but in actual practice law enforcement at all levels has been getting into the habit of just stealing stuff.)
/.

I was thinking the same thing. The FBI needs to keep his entire computer as evidence? What, do they think they're going to find "hacking evidence" on his sound card or something? The only thing they'd need would be the hard drive(s). I figure it probably _wasn't_ as much a matter of the FBI saying, "We'll have to keep this, but you can go free", as a matter of the FBI taking it, then deciding not to press charges, and saying "You want your computer back? Go ahead, try and sue us for it..." Take a look at http://www.fear.org.