Lawmakers hear how forfeiture laws work in theory, in reality

This law must be changed as, the way it is written, it gives arresting officers the leeway to make decisions about property seized before a suspect is convicted or ever having a court appearance. Because a defendants initial court appearance routinely take days or weeks, from the time of arrest or charge, this constitutes theft by implication.
The courts need to initiate a forfeiture court, if you will, that would deal with impounded property at the time of the defendants first court appearance combining the civil action and criminal action. If defendant is later found guilty a fine in the amount of the value of the disputed or "forfeited" property would be levied against the perpetrator.

The lawmakers write the laws right? But now they need to have the law they implemented explained to them how it works? And we wonder where all the stupid laws come from. Then they couldn't even spare the time to hang around long enough to hear first hand about the problems what they have done causes for real people. Amazing. Like I said before, they are not our representatives. They have an agenda all their own now and it doesn't include making our lives better. It just gives them a nice secure job with lots of benefits and a very good paycheck paid by us. Career politicians who think the government is a private enterprise.

Candace wrote:

The lawmakers write the laws right? But now they need to have the law they implemented explained to them how it works? And we wonder where all the stupid laws come from. Then they couldn't even spare the time to hang around long enough to hear first hand about the problems what they have done causes for real people. Amazing. Like I said before, they are not our representatives. They have an agenda all their own now and it doesn't include making our lives better. It just gives them a nice secure job with lots of benefits and a very good paycheck paid by us. Career politicians who think the government is a private enterprise.

You took the words right out of my mouth.:)

We have to explain the laws to the very people who wrote them..........
and we have to do it in the fall when they are not even in session,
yet are hanging around in hearings..........

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!!!!!

The other part of the forfeiture law that needs to be overhauled is who gets the proceeds. Giving the arresting agency 80% of the proceeds of forfeited property is just ripe for abuse. A nice car, no lien holder, solely titled in one name, oh yeah, that's a good one to go after. And since it's no longer just drug dealing that warrants forfeitures, any hint of gang activity whether proven or not, DUI's, and whatever else they can lump into that works too. And since it will cost you upwards of $5,000 for an attorney to fight the forfeiture and more if you try to appeal, they have definitely stacked the cards in the justice departments favor. Oh and the rest of the proceeds is divided what....20% to the county attorneys office and the other 10% where? How many other law enforcement agencies had a say in this law and how it was written?

Candace wrote:

The other part of the forfeiture law that needs to be overhauled is who gets the proceeds. Giving the arresting agency 80% of the proceeds of forfeited property is just ripe for abuse....<cut>... Oh and the rest of the proceeds is divided what....20% to the county attorneys office and the other 10% where? How many other law enforcement agencies had a say in this law and how it was written?

Um 80%+ 20% is 100%, there is no 'other 10%' to go anywhere.

Here is how the Forfeiture laws work around here:

1. Cop sees something he wants
2. Cop creates 'reason' for questioning owner of the 'something he wants'
3. Cop seizes wanted item, and anything else of value at time.
4. Cop uses new truck to pick up the $4000 worth of TV/Stereo equipment he just purchased
5. Sucker, er I'm sorry, "Suspect" is out Truck,$4000 cash, and anything else of value in said truck.

6. REPEAT as desired.

Check Your Math wrote:

<quoted text>
Um 80%+ 20% is 100%, there is no 'other 10%' to go anywhere.

Personally, I come from the Yogi Berra school of math.
He says "baseball is 90% mental..........
and the other half is physical."
:)

The bound copies of Minnesota statutes are more almost three feet wide. No legislator knows what is in all of it. Most of the seizure/ forfeiture laws were written decades ago, and few legislators in the room had even voted for them. So of course they had questions.

And for the comment about big salaries, the legislature last had a raise in salary in 1999, going from about $29K to about $31K a year. When was your last raise?

Great - now we pay thieves to steal from us with our taxes.

linda wrote:

The bound copies of Minnesota statutes are more almost three feet wide. No legislator knows what is in all of it. Most of the seizure/ forfeiture laws were written decades ago, and few legislators in the room had even voted for them. So of course they had questions.
And for the comment about big salaries, the legislature last had a raise in salary in 1999, going from about $29K to about $31K a year. When was your last raise?

The legislators give themselves a big raise every year right when the session starts. That's like their first order of business.

sara wrote:

<quoted text>
The legislators give themselves a big raise every year right when the session starts. That's like their first order of business.

No, they don't. You might be thinking of Congress, who gives themselves regular raises, but not the legislature. 1999. The last century.

Government is bad. These forfeiture laws are routinely abused by the police and prosecutors.

Its the prosecutors and cops who we should send to jail.

Legislators take their money in per diems, so as to make it hard for people to see how much they get paid. Every year that number goes up.

Da Legislators wrote:

Legislators take their money in per diems, so as to make it hard for people to see how much they get paid. Every year that number goes up.

Which begs the question: what are they doing in hearings in
October? Is the per diem being paid now?

I will stand corrected if wrong, but my Poly Sci teacher
always talked about a part time legislature with a constitutional
mandated adjournment. Wouldn't that mean they are in
adjournment?

It's a 70/20/10 percent split between the seizing agency, prosecutor's office, and general fund, respectively.
It's always interesting to see who shows up to defend these laws and practices. Cornish showing up is no surprise. He is a big time opponent of change in any form as it relates to drug laws. I suspect his department is largely funded by property seizures. Sign #1 that for his community's size, perhaps the size of his force is too large if they have to go out and find ways to subsidize themselves.
The funding of any law enforcement agency that relies on forfeitures is absolutely ripe for abuse. It makes little sense that if someone were in a home smoking a joint and not endargering the public in any way that ANY property should be seized. Most people don't care that this is happening, because it occurs mostly in poor areas where people cannot afford the legal fees to fight to get their property back. That's pretty sad. It's not a stretch to see how this would place further financial burden on these people, and further perpetuates crime. Prohibition is a DISASTER. Stories like the MGTF are fueling the call for reform in this country. That the legislators could not stick around to hear the stories of people affected by this "War" shows where their priorities lie. Easy money. How much forfeited cash do you suppose makes its way into the campaign coffers of politicians? Why do you suppose they vie for endorsement of the police unions? Easy money. Just follow the money like everything else related to politics.

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
You took the words right out of my mouth.:)
We have to explain the laws to the very people who wrote them..........
and we have to do it in the fall when they are not even in session,
yet are hanging around in hearings..........
BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!!!!!

You would think when one's job involves being competent enough to write laws that lawmakers would be able to read and interpret laws that were passed in prior years. Instead, they need their hands held. Stop the closed-loop system of easy cash from special interest groups, which most definitely includes law enforcement. When given the choice of doing the right thing, or taking the money to insure their campaigns are successful, politicians time and again have shown their true colors. Greedy. Immoral. Unethical. You'd think we were talking about criminals.(Wait,-perhaps we are?!)

Check Your Math wrote:

<quoted text>
Um 80%+ 20% is 100%, there is no 'other 10%' to go anywhere.

Sorry, I think it's 80%, 10% and 10%.

linda wrote:

The bound copies of Minnesota statutes are more almost three feet wide. No legislator knows what is in all of it. Most of the seizure/ forfeiture laws were written decades ago, and few legislators in the room had even voted for them. So of course they had questions.
And for the comment about big salaries, the legislature last had a raise in salary in 1999, going from about $29K to about $31K a year. When was your last raise?

But what kind of benefits come along with that salary besides per diem for expenses? Also if you work for a state agency and are a legislator does that constitute double dipping into the state payroll and benefits? People wouldn't even hold these offices if there was no monetary reward. Right. They have an interest in the public benefit and are trying to hold the government accountable. Doesn't quite sound that way anymore.

linda wrote:

The bound copies of Minnesota statutes are more almost three feet wide. No legislator knows what is in all of it. Most of the seizure/ forfeiture laws were written decades ago, and few legislators in the room had even voted for them. So of course they had questions.
And for the comment about big salaries, the legislature last had a raise in salary in 1999, going from about $29K to about $31K a year. When was your last raise?

Um, My last raise was in 1997 (2 years earlier than the legislature) Since then, I've been required to take 2 "temporary" pay cuts (neither of which have been rescinded.

Its absolutely deplorable that the legislators didn't have the decency to stay and hear from people whose lives were negatively affected by ineffectual laws that THEY have the power to change if they weren't so damn corrupt.