Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side

from the checkmate...-I-guess dept

Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination loaded with perverse incentives for law enforcement. Investigations and convictions are too much work. Seizing cash from random motorists or residents is so much easier than legitimate police work. The laws barely governing this practice allow the agency performing the seizure to keep all or most of what's seized, which has led directly to the widespread abuse we see around us today.

The practice always has its defenders. Most of those defenders come from the same agencies that are directly profiting from asset forfeiture. They say the expected stuff about fighting the good Drug War -- that taking $500 from a random motorist somehow creates a ripple effect felt all the way at the top of the drug distribution chain. Everyone knows they're full of shit, but there are enough true believers in most state legislatures that the practice remains largely unaltered across the United States.

But there are some outliers. Some people see the perverse incentives asset forfeiture creates and say perverted cops are the best cops.

Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn't pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.

If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?"

I don't know... how about IT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. This is a law enforcement professional who actually thinks cops won't do cop work unless they can periodically seize cash from people they interact with. Hey, Mr. Bruder, if cops can't solicit bribes or extort protection money from local businesses, why should they be bothered to patrol neighborhoods or respond to robbery calls?

If Wells Fargo account reps can't sign people up for accounts without their knowledge or permission, why should they even show up to help people open accounts or deal with banking issues? If an entrepreneur can't rope investors into a pyramid scheme, why even bother getting out of bed at 4 am to bathe in the glow of inflated self-worth? Come on, Bruder. How can you be so obtuse?

There's nothing quite like a law enforcement union rep telling the public the police are only willing to work when they can directly profit from their efforts. That's the kind of word-of-mouth advertising asset forfeiture reform efforts need... courtesy of a union rep who doesn't want the practice ended, much less altered.

That's the stupidest thing said in defense of asset forfeiture in this article from the Greenville News, which gathers law enforcement responses to its investigation of the unsavory tactics deployed by state agencies. Even victims of crime aren't off limits. Local cops will take money right off the kitchen counter when investigating murders and claim the $43 pocketed was the result of criminal activity.

But it's not the only stupid thing said by law enforcement reps defending forfeiture.

Clemson Police Chief Jimmy Dixon said if police didn't get to collect forfeiture money, it would hamper the department's ability to conduct long-term drug surveillance.

"It could potentially shut down our K-9 unit," he said. "Overall, our ability to conduct undercover narcotics operations could be stifled."

Lt. Jake Mahoney with the Aiken Police Department said they'd have to divert money from the budget to cover drug enforcement.

Greenwood Police Chief Gerald Brooks said it would "sharply curtail our drug enforcement activities."

Sounds like another set of cops with motivation problems. But even if you believe they're not like the union rep quoted above them, they're still complaining about possibly not being able to do something they're not legally allowed to do.

Forfeiture proceeds are not meant to be written into a budget or counted on for recurring expenses, but should be treated as a supplement to provide for extra training or equipment, according to the law and legal opinions.

Those are the arguments in favor of asset forfeiture: cops won't do their job if they can't earn cash on the side and budgets, that aren't supposed to include forfeiture funds, will experience shortfalls because chickens cops aren't supposed to count will no longer be hatched. Nice work, so-called drug warriors. It isn't -- and never has been -- about dismantling the drug trade. If law enforcement ever made a serious dent in crime, the extra money would dry up. And that's something they're just not going to allow to happen.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, corruption, incentive, jarrod bruder, legalized theft, police, south carolina, stealing


Reader Comments

The First Word

Solution

Easiest solution.

End the War on Drugs. Immediately.

After all, according to what we are learning these days, nobody is really waging any sort of "war" against the Drug Trade anymore anyway.

The Police have basically become employees of the Drug Trade, earning a far larger income from the Black Market than that which the public pays them. Exactly the same thing happened during the last moral prohibition.

This double income explains too, their recent Reverse Robin Hood assaults on the public, as their loyalty shifts towards the employer who pays the higher wage.

As the Drug Cartels collapse without a legally contraband product to sell, all the Drug Warrior Cops immediately lose their secondary employer and their second income, as the Drug-Trade based forfeiture laws lose their very reason for existence.

Lets face it. Ending the war On Drugs would be the biggest blow to organized crime since the end of the last phony political morality war - Prohibition.

Problem solved. No muss. No fuss.

And most of the bad cops - who are only in it for the extra income - would likely quit the force soon there-after, making room for employment of some actual crime fighters and investigators.

Then, while sanity is actively present, maybe we could also accept that the Drug Problem is a social and medical problem and not a criminal problem, and that its purported dangers are actually far more Hollywood Hero bullshit than Reality-based anyways.

Hey. I can dream, right. :)


—GEMont

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:07pm

    Two kinds of cops...

    Bad cops... and the cops who let them continue to be bad cops.

    I'm perfectly happy to hear they will be violating less people's 4th amendment rights because there's not any personal cash in it for them. I'm perfectly happy to hear they will be doing less no-knock raids on the wrong house or shooting the wrong people (of darker skin or tatoos or whatever the criteria for killing the wrong people is) because they won't get something out of it.

    Perhaps they could just focus on, you know, POLICE WORK, and not being a drug czar or a trademark-infringement confiscation group or an arm of the MPAA/RIAA/BSA...

    Yes, come to think of it, bad cops and the ones who let them be bad cops, go back to doing traffic patrol. Oh and leave the solving crimes part to detectives.

    E

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lebron Paul 2020, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:18pm

    So if they don't close out cases, do we get to pay them less?

    ACAB is getting harder & harder to argue with

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:18pm

    'Drugs are bad... if we're not making money from them.'

    You just gotta love it when the gorram police union rep paints those he's supposed to be representing as so grossly corrupt that they can't even be bothered to do their damn jobs if they can't profit from it. Utterly indifferent to drugs and the problems related to them if they can't make a buck from them.

    If not being able to steal anything they please means they need to cut some fat then great, how about they start with the rot infesting their ranks who only care about drugs when they can profit from them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 10:24am

      Re: 'Drugs are bad... if we're not making money from them.'

      Technically "their job" is defined by whoever employs them, e.g. a city/town council which may be as corrupt as they are. The Supreme Court has been clear that cops don't have any actual responsibility to protect people.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:29pm

    LawDirt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:34pm

      Re: ButtHurt

      Got a point or just drop in to make weird complaints? Would you like to plug your much better blog?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:58pm

      Re:

      Fox News.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:38pm

        Re: Re:

        Fox News.

        I'm sorry, this is Techdirt - how you managed to come here instead of Fox News can only be explained by the brain rot you got from watching Fox News too much, and I'm sorry to say in most cases it's irreversible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          How much news about Foxes is on Fox news...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rocky, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            How much news about Foxes is on Fox news...

            If you happen to be a Fox (as in the animal) aficionado I terrible sorry to disappoint you, Fox News don't have news, they have news-like "entertainment". I recommend cat videos on youtube instead, just pretend they are foxes.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              TFG, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Rocky, you may have misinterpreted the intent of the original post. Granted, it's not incredibly clear, but I believe the intent may have been as follows:

              AC 1 says "LawDirt" - apparently to imply that TechDirt shouldn't be covering Law in addition.

              AC 2 says "Fox News" - and based on second reply, I believe this to be intended as a demonstration that an organization is able to provide content that is outside of the possibly narrow categories the organization has in their name.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Rocky, 7 Feb 2019 @ 11:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Oh, I was fully aware that was a possibility - but when trolls don't give context (which they usually don't) it's kind of funny to apply a context that mocks.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:34pm

    Life is a jungle that most of us pretend is civilized.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 8:26pm

      Re:

      Few people recognize that humans are wild animals. Termites build complex, air-cooled towers. Bees create hives. Monkeys and birds use tools. Cities, airplanes, factories, omelets, domesticated animals...natural, WILD humans simply do more complicated things than other wild animals.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:35pm

    War on drugs results in war crimes

    Every cop who steals money and says it is because of the war on drugs needs to be prosecuted for war crimes. They are violating our rights and claiming it is justified by drugs. The only problem is none of the laws excuse violations just because drugs are involved or claimed to be involved. Let us separate the police from their illegal activities and prosecute everyone who violates the law, not just those on the wrong side of the thin blue line.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 12:36pm

    Section 230 and Article 11/13 are to blame.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    rw (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:10pm

    Theft by cop or theft by random other person still equals theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:14pm

    And another sign of the police state Adam Schiff loves and works tirelessly to expand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:28pm

      Re:

      Wait, investigating a corrupt politician is a police state? Investigating those in power is like the opposite of that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Agammamon, 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Its only the opposite when those investigations aren't used to increase the power of the police state.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:38pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, an investigation in search of a crime is absolutely one of the worst examples of a violating a persons rights and are the actions of a police state. It really doesn't matter if the politician is corrupt or not.

        Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          While I agree there are enough useless laws in the US to make it very difficult to not break one, I think your assertion that "Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies." is faulty, even if just an overstatement for emphasis.

          For example, what multiple felonies am I guilty of? Make sure you include proof, as in the US people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Really? Give me full access to all your records and financial dealings and a team of lawyers to go over them and I can guarantee a costly and life destroying prosecution.

            Try googling Three Felonies a Day. While the book uses that number as hyperbole, the general idea that there are so many laws on the books that we unintentionally commit felonies is very much the case.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Ehud Gavron (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:50pm

              Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Prosecutions

              I think what the gentleman is saying is whether or not you are taking actions which might be a violation of the law, it is not "committing a felony" until felony charges are brought up and you are found guilty by a jury of your peers or an arbiter of law.

              When you drive "a little over the speed limit" you are in fact in violation of the law, and perhaps you do it 20x a day. If LEO could pull up evidence in retrospect and bust you for 600x/month that little bit of speeding could be reckless driving, and for the sheer amount, likely cause a loss of license.

              They don't have that retrospective evidence... yet... and so you're free to speed, 1-4MPH above the posted speed limit, 5-9MPH above the posted speed limit, 155MPH as per your rev limiter. Whatever. Until you're not.

              Three POTENTIAL felonies a day is probably an exaggeration. Three POTENTIAL violations of the law is probably right. Ever eat food in a supermarket before you paid for it? Opened a can of Coke™ and drank some before paying for it? That's shoplifting because we can't determine your positive intent [to pay for it] any more than we can determine your negative intent [to shoplift it].

              Plenty of other examples. Point is... don't confusion a potential violation of the law with CRIME, FELONY, or being found guilty of either.

              E

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You have already stated that every adult is guilty, so why do you need more evidence? You have apparently already had a trial and conviction for each and every adult in the US, multiple times because as you stated, we are already guilty.

              Go ask your teams of lawyers.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yes, that is the point. All it takes is an aggressive prosecutor to go after you.

                Just because your guilty of something doesn't mean you have been prosecuted and sentenced for it. I am pretty sure you realize that and are just being intentionally obtuse.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:59pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Except your statement was:

                  "Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies."

                  Which means that we have already been found guilty. And no, being accused is one thing, being found guilty is another. Your statement isn't an accusation, it is an assertion that the deed is done. As Ehud pointed out above you left out the word potentially which means what you said is a done deal. Try this on for size:

                  "The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)."

                  Then take your aggressive prosecutors and shove them squarely up your ass as I am not the one being obtuse.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 7:03pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    So all those people who have been wrongly convicted of a crime were actually guilty by your standard. I guess the innocence project should just stop their work of freeing "guilty" people.

                    You really are a fucking idiot if you think being convicted of a crime is the same thing as being guilty of the crime. I guess all those blacks convicted during the Jim Crow era were really guilty.

                    Oh, the definition of guilty is: having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable:

                    Notice you don't have to be convicted of something to be guilty of it, you actually have to have done it. Being found guilty of a crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. Maybe you should take your brown shirt fascism to a more appropriate place.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Thad (profile), 8 Feb 2019 @ 9:30am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You're doing that thing where you're trying to use a dictionary definition as a legal definition.

                      Don't do that thing.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 11:19am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Your doing that thing where using a legal definition instead of the dictionary definition.

                        Don't do that thing.

                        Stating everyone is guilty of committing crimes in there life is clearly not the same as stating everyone has been convicted of committing those crimes.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Thad (profile), 8 Feb 2019 @ 11:37am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Your doing that thing where using a legal definition instead of the dictionary definition.

                          It's "you're", but yes, I am. Because we are talking about law, you dink.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 2:23pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Double Income, No Kids? Strange insult.

                            No we are talking about how easy it is to be targeted by law enforcement. The argument that was being made is how easy it is to be targeted by a rogue prosecutor. Choosing your definition of a word over another equally valid definition is just a childish method of winning an argument.

                            I get it, you lack the mental capabilities to argue in good faith, so you had insist on using a different definition of the word guilt to change the meaning of the argument.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 6:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The LAW is out of order. This COURTROOM is out of order.. and you sir, miss or madam can pay for your own lunch because I'm not buying it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mason Wheeler (profile), 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Try googling Three Felonies a Day. While the book uses that number as hyperbole, the general idea that there are so many laws on the books that we unintentionally commit felonies is very much the case.

              As I already pointed out, the book is a bunch of nonsense filled with "examples" that are not things ordinary people actually do.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies.

          No, they're not. This ridiculous notion comes from a ridiculous book (which I believe was called "Three Felonies A Day" or something similar) purporting to explain how all sorts of common, everyday activities have been interpreted in one context or another as felonies, and therefore the average American adult commits three every day.

          But if you actually look at the book and its contents, the "common, everyday activities" are anything but; the examples the author gives are things that ordinary people don't actually do, and certainly not on a daily basis! The whole thing is just a bunch of trolling that, unfortunately, a lot of people fell for.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 1:31pm

    Clemson Police Chief Jimmy Dixon said if police didn't get to collect forfeiture money, it would hamper the department's ability to conduct long-term drug surveillance.

    "It could potentially shut down our K-9 unit," he said. "Overall, our ability to conduct undercover narcotics operations could be stifled."

    >Lt. Jake Mahoney with the Aiken Police Department said they'd have to divert money from the budget to cover drug enforcement.

    >Greenwood Police Chief Gerald Brooks said it would "sharply curtail our drug enforcement activities."

    Uhm, good? That sounds like a feature, not a bug, when the War on Drugs is completely immoral and you shouldn't be doing these things in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:00pm

    i think the guy has a good point. we can't trust the people who are in those positions now to do their job without the grease.

    so . . . replace them all from top to bottom.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:30pm

    I'm sure the South Carolina tourism industry is trilled to death with what the sheriff and local police have to say about their desires to rob the public blind and assault them if they protest. Bonus points for only doing this to out of state vacationers because that would certainly encourage more potential targets to visit the state.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 6:13am

      Re:

      I live for the day we see entire police departments BUSTED for gross violation of ethics, mass violations of civil rights, and corruption. And if they can be busted for hippocracy, nail them all to crucifixes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:54am

        Re: Re:

        I suggest a more level headed approach where the law is enforced without unnecessarily violent behavior.

        I suppose the desire for revenge is human nature and therefore the give what you get response, but in order to set a good example and ensure there is nothing for the perps to complain about, one must take the high road and avoid the mistakes the perps made.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:45pm

    Public service paid for by the public

    "Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn't pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.

    If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?""

    There is another prime example for why people who get paid by taxes should not have access to union representation. We pay the taxes, the taxes pay the government employees, the government employees pay the union with our tax dollar supplied wages, so by extension, we are paying the unions. The unions are bat shit crazy out of control, and using our money to spew their vitriol.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 8:33am

      Re: Public service paid for by the public

      Counterpoint: Everyone should have union protection

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Feb 2019 @ 8:58am

        "Everyone should have union protection"

        Though this incident provides an example of how unions can grab for too much power as well. The difficulty is determining what is fair and reasonable, which asset forfeiture never was.

        At this point, it seems the every Sheriff's Office that affiliates itself with the South Carolina Sheriff's Association should be disbanded and replaced entirely, on account of demonstrated disinterest in serving the public.

        That is, of course, assuming it speaks for the sheriffs. And if it doesn't, they better speak up soon. There's a lot of talk of brioche in Paris.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 8:55am

      Re: Public service paid for by the public

      If cops don't want to do their job for the SALARY they get paid to do their job, respectful of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR PINK SLIPS. PERIOD.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:47pm

    South Carolina breeds a special kind of stupid trash

    And Jarrod Bruder does an excellent job of demonstrating just how stupid and trashy they get.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:00pm

    This is why I don't care when cops get killed while doing their jobs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:46pm

    When you think your job entails stealing cash from anyone wherever you find it and murdering unarmed civilians whenever you feel uneasy, then please, stop doing "your job" immediately. In fact, please do resign; we'll all feel much safer without a bunch of armed hoodlums roaming the streets looking for targets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 3:54pm

    EVERYBODY is talkin' these days about Tammany men growin' rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin' the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There's all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I've made a big fortune out of the game, and I'm gettin' richer every day, but I've not gone in for dishonest graft - blackmailin' gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. - and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics. There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em."

    Just let me explain by examples. My party's in power in the city, and it's goin' to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I'm tipped off, say, that they're going to layout a new park at a certain place. I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before. Ain't it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? of course, it is. Well, that's honest graft.

    -George Washington Plunkitt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GoodCopsBadCops, 7 Feb 2019 @ 5:07pm

    Fire the fuckers then...

    If the Sherriff's Union claims that there is no incentive to do the job without asset-forfeture (ie, allowing the cops to be criminals) then fire their sorry asses, or, better yet, arrest their thieving asses and throw them in the clink next to their victims that they stole from.

    Let nature take its course.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 7:54pm

    "If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?""

    And this is someone who is a bright shining example of what is wrong in the system.

    Our pay & benefits aren't good enough to do the job, so we need the right to get just a little bit extra. We can shoot someone in the back & face no charges, but we need the right to steal his car too. We can raid the wrong house, kill the residents, face no charges but we should be able to take and sell the house b/c we smelled pot inside 14 sealed bags and tupperware, in a safe, in the back of the house, that we managed to smell over the cordite & adrenaline rush having just executed the homeowners.

    We all know the old timey image of a cop on the beat taking an apple from the fruit vendor without paying... I guess they just decided to move up & now take Apple products without paying.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 9:21pm

    "Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job..."

    This is cause to fire every officer that is a member of that labor union. Period.

    I am pretty sure we can recruit officers who find reason to do their job in the need, a duty to act and a steady paycheck.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 8 Feb 2019 @ 3:14am

    The main problem with this argument:

    If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?"

    Well, that sounds like a good approach for a war against property, not a war against drugs. I mean, where is the incentive and confiscate drugs when a drug courier will be either carrying drugs or cash? Confiscating drugs will leave you without reward. Confiscating both requires intervening when a deal is done and a maximum number of armed alert people are around. And it still does not yield more cash.

    So you let the drugs pass without disturbance and try to intercept the money instead. Of course, there is even more incentive to confiscate money that has no dangerous drug dealers connected with it.

    How about not giving the police any of the confiscated cash amounts and instead reward them for drugs they hand in for destruction? That would seem to be a better incentive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 5:28am

    And on the Other side of the world when our right wing politician wanted to copy "drug money grabbing", the Leftists wouldn't let them copy the US model, now "proceeds from crime" are only forfeit After Conviction. Seized monies can be used to fund the defence. and forfeit money is always put into the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund.

    The police are paid by the government from taxes collected. IT is a crime to obtain money by menace.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Doug, 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:28am

    WTF?

    And then, the police have the gall to wonder why no one trusts them, or worse...officers get shot and/or killed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Hero, 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:37am

    Money seized through civil asset forfeiture should be used to fund clean injection sites.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:59am

      Re:

      Why not just return it to the proper owner, you know those people who committed no crime, were not charged, prosecuted or convicted? Is that really too much to ask?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2019 @ 7:14am

        Re: Re:

        by the time money is in the hands of the big time crook, you can't find the original owner, maybe that money is from someone who used their wages to by drugs, would you refund them their dope money. That is one example where money was legitimately obtained, then passed on to a crook to obtain an illicit substance.

        Is that drug user The sort of Victim of crime you want to give any seized proceeds of crime. Of course Not. There are always victims of crime, a fair percentage of victims of crime have no money component, or so low money value that nothing is recovered, or the money is so washed that you cant identify the victim, hence a victim of crime compensation fund.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2019 @ 7:28am

      Re:

      Clean Injecting rooms need a serious political effort and steady funding, I cant remember what budget that comes out of, definitely not from proceeds of crime money.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2019 @ 9:08am

    They got all those pretty psychedelic lights when they pull you over too!

    "This is a stickup! Reach for the sky scumbag."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GEMont, 8 Feb 2019 @ 11:24am

    Solution

    Easiest solution.

    End the War on Drugs. Immediately.

    After all, according to what we are learning these days, nobody is really waging any sort of "war" against the Drug Trade anymore anyway.

    The Police have basically become employees of the Drug Trade, earning a far larger income from the Black Market than that which the public pays them. Exactly the same thing happened during the last moral prohibition.

    This double income explains too, their recent Reverse Robin Hood assaults on the public, as their loyalty shifts towards the employer who pays the higher wage.

    As the Drug Cartels collapse without a legally contraband product to sell, all the Drug Warrior Cops immediately lose their secondary employer and their second income, as the Drug-Trade based forfeiture laws lose their very reason for existence.

    Lets face it. Ending the war On Drugs would be the biggest blow to organized crime since the end of the last phony political morality war - Prohibition.

    Problem solved. No muss. No fuss.

    And most of the bad cops - who are only in it for the extra income - would likely quit the force soon there-after, making room for employment of some actual crime fighters and investigators.

    Then, while sanity is actively present, maybe we could also accept that the Drug Problem is a social and medical problem and not a criminal problem, and that its purported dangers are actually far more Hollywood Hero bullshit than Reality-based anyways.

    Hey. I can dream, right. :)


    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    cattress (profile), 8 Feb 2019 @ 7:42pm

    So if I want my loved ones murder solved, I need to come up with reward money as an incentive (or my dearly departed had wads of cash on them, although then they could get paid without rendering service...)? I mean, he's basically saying they have no incentive to put in the effort to solve crimes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2019 @ 2:21pm

    Lt. Jake Mahoney with the Aiken Police Department said they'd have to divert money from the budget to cover drug enforcement.

    "the budget" being the cocaine and underage hookers budget.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2019 @ 11:24am

    There are millions of people who suffer with chronic pain who are also suffering at the DEA's guidelines for prescription pain medication. Doctors have become frozen with fear of disciplinary reprisals or criminal action taken against them for adequately caring for their patients who suffer traumatically with pain from many afflictions. Innocent lives are being ruined by this war on drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    All-Seeing_Jedi, 15 Feb 2019 @ 12:56pm

    Why should law enforcement still go after drug dealers if they can't get rich in the process?

    BECAUSE THEY TOOK AN OATH TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THEIR DUTIES AND UPHOLD THE LAW!!! THAT'S WHY!!! THEY GAVE THEIR WORD THEY WOULD DO THEIR JOBS WITH DILIGENCE WHEN THEY PINNED THE BADGE ON!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.