New California Law Puts Restrictions on Asset Forfeiture But Police will find a way around it.

Jeff McDonald reported in the Union Tribune Oct 1, 2016 that Governor Brown signed SB443,  the law sponsored by Sen Holly Mitchell and pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union that requires a person to be convicted before the Government gets to keep "booty" captured by police.

It is clear to me that the asset seizure that state and Federal police agencies have participated in over many years is unconstitutional.  Although, it has never been fully tested in the Supreme Court.  This new law will make it illegal for State police agencies to steal property from citizens without a conviction.  However Federal agencies within the state will still do it.  I suspect that the city, county and state agencies will "partner" with Federal agencies in order to keep up their stream of ill-gotten gains.

It is clear that a criminal's ill-gotten gains should be taken.  A criminal has no right to keep, for example, stolen money or goods.  If a person is convicted of a crime, they should give up those assets and they should go for restitution or for the overall welfare of the public.  Why, however, should the police agency who made the "bust" get to keep the "booty" from the bust?

In addition to local police "partnering" with Federal agencies, the police can simply make it difficult for a citizen to get their assets back through bureaucratic complications.  If police take $10,000 in cash from me when I'm on my way to buy a car, would I then want to put up another $5000 to hire a lawyer to get my money back?

This new law helps in avoiding the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of asset forfeiture.  However until Federal law also changes, and the attitude of the police changes, the problem will continue.  

We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop

This is unbelievable.  The police now steal more from citizens using "asset forfeiture" than thieves steal from citizens.   See this link on "The Influence:"  We Need to End This Form of Robbery by Cop | TheInfluence.  When thieves steal something from someone, and are caught, they get due process of law, and are required to return stolen property pay restitution.  However when the police steal our property, and claim it was "ill gotten gains" --without needing proof--the owner of the property is forced to spend a small fortune in legal costs to try to get it back --even if never convicted of a crime.  Absolutely crazy!  It is hard to believe that it could ever be legal and within our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I can understand "freezing assets" when a criminal is arrested.  But if not charged and convicted the police should be required to give us our stuff back within a minimum amount of time -- 30 days?  And if there were losses or damage to the property, the police should be liable for that as well.

Police Disciplinary Secrecy

Steven Greenhut column in today's Union Tribune pointed out a difficult situation in maintaining police discipline while also keeping the public informed.



LEGISLATURE REVISITS POLICE DISCIPLINARY SECRE... | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com



Apparently in 2006 Senate Bill (SB) 1019 was proposed to open up police department discipline records to the public.  At that time, it was "dead on arrival."  Now, Assemblyman Mark Leno has introduced another bill:  SB1286 to allow the public to learn more about discipline against police officers.



Greenhut seems to imply that we absolutely need to find out the names and discipline history of police officers.  However there is another side.  Taxpayers invest a LOT of money in training officers.  We also pay fairly high salaries to these officers who daily risk their lives to protect us.  Exposing those officers to unfair public criticism can discourage people from wanting to be officers and hurt recruiting, which, in turn, can sharply increase the cost to everyone.  Sometimes what could be perceived as a police officer making an error, could also be due to inadequate training, equipment, or management.  Police management should be the first level under fire from the public.  Management should have good statistics at their fingertips that identify the numbers and types of problems encountered and the numbers and types of discipline that has been handed out.   Only in cases when police have, in fact, been charged with a possible criminal offense should the individual police officer's name be made public.

I hope that the new SB1286 takes all of that into account.