police seizing assets

[riflearm2]

there has to be quite a bit of gray area on this. police seizing assets for criminal activities has always been a sticky situation with me.

in this case, a minority owner of a hotel was convicted of videotaping and photographing a 13 year old boy undress. as a result, the hotel was sold and his interest ($400,000) was given to law enforcement.

i can understand if the guy was making money from criminal activity and those assets were seized. i can understand if the asset was being used for criminal activities of the owner. but, this could have been a one-time situation that results in all owners losing the hotel.

what if i owned a legitimate company, sold a dime-bag in my office to a friend, and we got busted? this cant be that subjective, can it?



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-child-sex-daytona-hotel-dennis-devlin-20141118-story.html

 

[Marine03]

Sorry, but anyone who gets their kicks watching boys get undressed should lose their shit. And for good measure, a public beating and a prison term should go along with it. Comparing that to selling a dime bag is not a very good analogy regarding this topic.

 

[mu21503]

It's a money making scam for police. It's fascinating that the victim didn't get the money.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Nobody is mourning that guy's loss, but all of the other owners shouldn't be punished.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Conceivably, you sell a dime bag in a shared businesses, the government can forfeit your interest in the property.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by Marine03:
Sorry, but anyone who gets their kicks watching boys get undressed should lose their shit. Comparing that to selling a dime bag is not a very good analogy regarding this topic.

i couldnt disagree more. in a criminal procedure, as long as the assets were not gained or used as a key factor in the crime, they should not be forfeited.

any personal disgust of a particular crime should not impact a sentence.

 

[GK4Herd]

Originally posted by Marine03:
Sorry, but anyone who gets their kicks watching boys get undressed should lose their shit. And for good measure, a public beating and a prison term should go along with it. Comparing that to selling a dime bag is not a very good analogy regarding this topic.

Slippery slope.

 

[pj(HN)]

Yep. Got love the war on drugs given to us by the tough on crime conservative republicans.

 

[wisemaniac]

Originally posted by pj(HN):
Yep. Got love the war on drugs given to us by the tough on crime conservative republicans.

Yup. Absolutely zero Democrats are responsible for the wars on drugs. Unless, you know, you count that ones who were. And there were a lot. Even the Obama administration & Holder's DoJ targeted users & the law abiding dispensaries in liberal states including California. But you know, whatever narrative you like to live by that fits your narrow world view.

 

[ThunderCat98]

If the assets are involved in, derived from, or comingled with criminal activity they can be forfeited under federal law. The phrase "involved in" is interpreted broadly by the Courts. In the case you cited, since the criminal activity took place in the hotel - which the offender held an ownership interest - it was "involved in" the criminal conduct. Of course forfeited property must meet certain thresholds (re: value), and any innocent owner is almost always given an opportunity to purchase the offending party's interest in lieu of auction or forced sale.

 

[pj(HN)]

Wise. We can thank the conservative republicans for the war on drugs. It's there baby. And yes conservative democrats have signed on to the agenda as well. Yet at the end of the day. The conservative republicans own this one. The good and the bad of this multi trillion dollar war on drugs.

 

[MARSHALL77]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by Marine03:
Sorry, but anyone who gets their kicks watching boys get undressed should lose their shit. Comparing that to selling a dime bag is not a very good analogy regarding this topic.

i couldnt disagree more. in a criminal procedure, as long as the assets were not gained or used as a key factor in the crime, they should not be forfeited.

any personal disgust of a particular crime should not impact a sentence.

So how would either a prosecutor or jury be able to distinguish between assets used to perpetrate a crime and assets that were not as in for an example cash. Just asking a question as being one formerly in law enforcement as well as a "student" of the law.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Originally posted by MARSHALL77:

So how would either a prosecutor or jury be able to distinguish between assets used to perpetrate a crime and assets that were not as in for an example cash. Just asking a question as being one formerly in law enforcement as well as a "student" of the law.

In my opinion that is the prosecutors problem, and if he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt then the assets shouldn't be forfeited.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Originally posted by HerdandHokies:

Originally posted by MARSHALL77:



So how would either a prosecutor or jury be able to distinguish between assets used to perpetrate a crime and assets that were not as in for an example cash. Just asking a question as being one formerly in law enforcement as well as a "student" of the law.

In my opinion that is the prosecutors problem, and if he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt then the assets shouldn't be forfeited.

First of all, comingled funds are forfeitable, especially if they are being comingled for the purpose of laundering the dirty money with "clean" - which is almost always the case.

Second, the Supreme Court has held that there is no 6th amendment right to a jury trial on forfeitted assets. That being said, nearly all forfeiture allegations are submitted to the jury as a special interrogatory (there is a rule of procedure that allows for jury consideration as to nexus at the request of either party). The standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is by a preponderance of the evidence. Once that is done, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property should be forfeited.

Caveat - of course I am speaking generally. As with all laws, there are always exceptions and loopholes.

This post was edited on 12/9 4:09 PM by ThunderCat98

 

[HerdandHokies]

I wasn't saying that's how it does work, I was saying how I wish it worked. I also think letting the police keep assets they seize is a terrible idea.