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.

Use of Students as Confidential Informers -- Dangerous and should be illegal!

On December 7 2015, CBS "60 Minutes" show reported on the unbelievable amount of use of college students as confidential informers (CIs).  Police apparently set up extortion-like situations to persuade students to serve as confidential informers.  Then they require the students to make a fixed number (like 10) drug buys with "wires" to help make arrests.  Because of this pressure, CI recruits may set up friends or associates as patsys in order to meet their quota.  Working as a CI is incredibly dangerous, and student CIs have been murdered when their police role was discovered.

The police claim that the informers are critical to their operation. By using a CI, the police are able to dramatically increase the number of arrests while using much less police labor.   It is clear from the interviews, that the police are most concerned about making "drug busts."  They admit that the use of CIs help them increase the statistics on the number of arrests, which, in turn, helps them obtain more "grants" from Federal or State agencies.  With more money from grants, they can increase pay, hire more police and increase their "status" within the police hierarchy. Because of this, the police, and police organizations lobby to try to prevent any restrictions on recruitment of CIs.  They appear to hide behind an argument that they feel they are protecting their community and the country from the "evil of drugs."   In another breath they say that all they are doing is enforcing laws that are on the books, and that they don't need to justify the laws.

There are possibly as many as 100,000 confidential informers in the US.  Most of them are students and most are "recruited" with charges related to marijuana, rarely any of the "harder" drugs.  In most states there are no laws to protect or control the use of CIs.  To recruit a CI, the police don't have to formally charge the student.  They don't have to "Mirandize" the student by explaining they  have the right to obtain a lawyer.  They apparently can also lie to the students by telling them that they would go to jail if they don't cooperate and become a CI.  The recruited CIs are also told they are not allowed to tell anyone, including their parents, that they are working as a CI.   The CI is given no training, and even though the police may promise to provide protection for the CI in dangerous situations, they don't always follow up and provide that protection.  So the CI role can be extremely dangerous.

I think the use of students as CIs in college or high schools "stinks," is un-American, and may even be unconstitutional. Other organizations, such as Drug Policy Organization, have the same opinion: http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/sickening-use-young-people-confidential-informants-drug-war.   However the police love to do it, because, as was stated on 60 minutes, the police are addicted to the money involved in the drug war as much as the actual addicts are addicted to their drugs.

I believe that we do need some laws, probably at the Federal level to put some reasonable controls on the use of CIs.  Some of the reasonable controls should include:

1. Police should be required to tell the "truth" when recruiting CIs.  In particular they need to be required to tell the truth about the likely penalties that the recruit might encounter if convicted. I was astounded when I learned that people can be charged with a crime of "lying to police" -- but police can lie to citizens as much as they want! 
2. Use of a CI is something very close to entrapment, and similar to use of a wiretap, since the CI is "wired" when meeting with the dealer.  Therefore, it seems that a judge should be required to sign off on both the recruitment of a CI and each use of the CI.  For each "assignment" for the CI, the judge should also be provided the police plan to make sure that the CI will be protected. 
3. If the CI being recruited is under the age of 21, they should be required to tell the person that they should obtain a lawyer, or get their parents involved in making the decision to become a CI. 

  

US Prison Population and Drug Offenses

I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.

Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations.  The Huffington Post agrees with that number.  I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses.  A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws.  Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related.  Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion.  That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.  

The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners.  I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem.  But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war.  At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up."    So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership.  As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US,  There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war.  In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need.  Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war.   This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex.  They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys.  They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs. 

There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population.  See this article:   However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics.  If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress.  It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado.  If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.  

One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?"  Is it our drug laws?  We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation.  Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations.  Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns?  That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level?  We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world.  Is it our racial and cultural mix?  It is hard to see how that would be connected.   Is it our freedom of religion?  Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence?  Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US?   Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists,  and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.

Chicago Police "Disappeared 7000 people" in Homan Square

Spencer Ackerman in the Guardian reported that Chicago police set up a "secret" warehouse called Homan Square where they brought people "snatched" off the street and interrogated them for hours or days, without giving them access to lawyers, or letting their family know where they were. According to this amazing Guardian website,  most of the people they took there were black, and according to the report, they were treated badly.  I found that this past March 2015, the Chicago Police Department published a "fact sheet" that disputed all of the claims against Homan Square, and claimed that it was not a "secret" location, and that they treated all people brought there for questioning fairly and in accordance with the law.  Around that same time, Nicholas Roti, the Chicago Police commander who managed the Homan Square site abruptly quit (see this article).  It is difficult to figure out if the Guardian is just simply sensationalizing a reasonable effort being done by the police, or if, in fact, Chicago Police may have overstepped the law in their attempt tocontrol crime.  If so, what they are doing sounds like something that is done in foreign countries to rival political parties.
Somehow this sort of treatment goes against everything I thought America stood for.  According to the article, it appears that most of the interrogation involved suspicion of production, sale, transporting or using illegal drugs.  The Chicago Police Department is trying to crack down on drugs as part of our country's absurd "war on drugs."  I'm sure the police probably think they are doing their city a service, and I suspect that they don't think much of the people they drag in for questioning.  Many of them may deserve harsh treatment.  But in addition to being illegal to bring people in for questioning without booking them and giving them access to lawyers, it also alienates the citizens against the police department.  If I, or a relative or friend had undergone such a treatment, I would probably harbor a resentment against the police for the rest of my life.  I would no longer assist them, I would not respect them and I might do what I could to interfere with them doing their job.  Likewise, if the police are, in fact, breaking the law by what they are doing, they also should be punished for doing it.  I would expect that the police have video of all interrogations, and can produce all of the proper booking information to dispute the charges from the Guardian.  I would expect also that the Illinois Attorney General, and/or the US Attorney General would have investigated, since this has been in the news for quite a while.  It will be interesting to see how this story progresses.

What worries me is that if the Police can treat citizens for relatively minor suspicion of illegal drugs, what would they do for suspicion of terrorism?  Could police round up and "disappear"  large numbers of our citizens for demonstrating against a war or some other policy and treat them as suspected terrorists?

Carlsbad Police Beat a Woman for No Apparent Reason

I read an article in the Coast News this week (Mid October 2015) about a lady named Cindy Hahn who was beaten by police for filing a complaint.  This situation sort of brings the Rodney King or Ferguson MO issue very close to home. Carlsbad borders on my city of Oceanside.

See these youtube videos from local TV stations about the situation:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW-oXRvue3Y
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBKYfHL2uw
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecWeIBWWL6U

After the incident, the police booked Cindy for resisting arrest and then the police testified in court.  After the police testified, Cindy's lawyer showed the DA the video taken by a spectator, and the DA dropped the charges. There is a gap before the video started which would be interesting to see.  Hopefully some of the bystanders who watched the scene are available to explain what they saw happen.  Did Cindy provoke the officer in some way?  Were photos taken of Cindy's bumps and bruises as a result of her altercation?  .
It appears that all of the police and Cindy Hahn were white race, so there probably was no "racial bias" in the situation.  I think if the Cindy had been black there would have been a LOT more press and maybe even demonstrations.   I think video is making everyone be a little more careful about what they say and do in stressful situations.  Hopefully Carlsbad police are "armed" with personal video systems.
Based upon the story, there are some facts that the police department needs to answer:
1. There must be recordings of the messages passed over the radio to the officers.Did the police officer get word from dispatch that a complaint was filed against him prior to the seat belt violation traffic stop?  

• If so, that seems like a bad procedure for the department, since it could lead to retribution. You would think that complaints like that should go to a supervisor for later follow-up
•  If not, then the assumption that the officer followed her for retribution may be false.

2. Why did the police attempt to arrest Cindy Hahn in the first place?  What was in the officer's police report?  What did the officer or officers say to the DA and the court?
3. Why were they hitting her?
4. Why did additional police officers get dispatched to the scene for such a trivial situation?
5. When the other police arrived and saw the first officer beating up the lady, why didn't they restrain the officer and help the lady?

I also think the DA should answer at least one important question:. Why after seeing the video and hearing the police officer lie on the stand, didn't the DA file charges against the officer?

The City of Carlsbad apparently didn't discipline the officers involved and now say they won't comment until they get into court. I would bet that the City will stretch it out for another year or so.  I'd hate it if the City agreed to an undisclosed settlement and all information was kept secret.  If the police, in fact, were out of control, they should be disciplined in some way.  If they weren't determined to be out of control, it means that the rest of us had better avoid Carlsbad!