D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-police-plan-for-future-seizure-proceeds-years-in-advance-in-city-budget-documents/2014/11/15/7025edd2-6b76-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?hpid=z4
7 comments
In some places, not selling to police is illegal discrimination.
For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Long v. Valentino (1989). http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 . A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh.
> And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer, bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].) Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a proposition we consider in the following section.
...
> At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746 [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137].)
> A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not like police. ...
BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".
For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Long v. Valentino (1989). http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 . A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh.
> And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer, bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].) Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a proposition we consider in the following section.
...
> At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746 [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137].)
> A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not like police. ...
BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".
You can say "I do not feel safe interacting with someone who has a firearm, please come back without". That means you have to be consistent about it, of course, and also kick out other members of the public who have a weapon.
That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just have to add "absolutely no exceptions".
It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I guess.
If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.
That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just have to add "absolutely no exceptions".
It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I guess.
If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.
While it's true that some police officers do carry a gun, not all do so. Your original call was "Don't sell to police", not "Don't sell to those carrying a gun." You are using that as a proxy workaround. However, it likely won't work as I believe the laws regarding "no firearms allowed" signs exempt law enforcement from following those signs.
(Consider, for example, the difficulty of entering a business where the business owner is sniping passer-bys and has also posted "no firearms allowed" signs on the entrances.)
FWIW, the Unruh Civil Rights Act is broader in scope than Title III of the Civil Rights Act, which I believe is what you are referring to. For example, it also includes discrimination against someone "who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner".
My point remains: it may be illegal for a business to discriminate against someone based on their occupation. It's best to check with the laws before carrying out your proposed social rejection scheme, if only to have an idea of the possible consequences.
(Consider, for example, the difficulty of entering a business where the business owner is sniping passer-bys and has also posted "no firearms allowed" signs on the entrances.)
FWIW, the Unruh Civil Rights Act is broader in scope than Title III of the Civil Rights Act, which I believe is what you are referring to. For example, it also includes discrimination against someone "who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner".
My point remains: it may be illegal for a business to discriminate against someone based on their occupation. It's best to check with the laws before carrying out your proposed social rejection scheme, if only to have an idea of the possible consequences.
Neither one? Can you provide evidence that shunning works?
For example, if a police officer is checking out in your store and you say "sorry, I'm not selling to you", I think you've just created a very ugly situation.
For example, if a police officer is checking out in your store and you say "sorry, I'm not selling to you", I think you've just created a very ugly situation.
Bad behavior thrives under misaligned incentives -- especially when it goes unnoticed. In such cases, the best remedy is to shine a light on the problem. Accountability, rather than aggression, will garner far better results.
I don't know, which one? Because I have never seen shunning work, ever. Aggression seldom helps, but at least there are documented cases where it worked. I have never seen any documented case of shunning producing any effect.
All I got for you is that it worked in my hometown to send away a prefetto (unelected bureaucrat with some executive and police powers). The guy basically ended up placing himself under house arrest because he had to get gas at night at self-services when there was nobody to tell him "i am not selling you any gas", couldn't buy fresh food because he had to use the self-checkout at the supermarket or not eat, etc. This lasted around six months, after which he quit.
This is an example of ostracism. I think the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism#Fall_into_disuse is interesting and relevant:
> The threat to the democratic system in the late 5th century came not from tyranny but from oligarchic coups, threats of which became prominent after two brief seizures of power, in 411 by "the Four Hundred" and in 404 BC by "the Thirty", which were not dependent on single powerful individuals. Ostracism was not an effective defence against the oligarchic threat and it was not so used.
"The police" constitute a relatively large group, so the ostracism you saw against one person might not be so effective.
> The threat to the democratic system in the late 5th century came not from tyranny but from oligarchic coups, threats of which became prominent after two brief seizures of power, in 411 by "the Four Hundred" and in 404 BC by "the Thirty", which were not dependent on single powerful individuals. Ostracism was not an effective defence against the oligarchic threat and it was not so used.
"The police" constitute a relatively large group, so the ostracism you saw against one person might not be so effective.
Often, especially in the DC metro area, police do not live in the same jurisdictions that they work in.
Alternatively, lobby your democratic representatives to change the damn law? The UK has similar laws, but they don't create perverse incentives.
If cities arent allowed to include projected seizure revenue in future budgets, but D.C. has budgeted for their seizure revenue through 2019, whats going to give this new reform any teeth? Whats the difference in flouting one law or two?
All, or maybe most, well and good. Not sure if re-directing the proceeds from police to general funds will eliminate conflicts of interest.
Instead, the incentives to seize assets might well expand now that the legislative power will be tasting the goodies.
I know at least one cop who will vouch that at least one place he worked enforced a quota system for traffic tickets.
If you believe such pressure would not extend to asset seizure, you might want to cut back on your drug consumption.
Instead, the incentives to seize assets might well expand now that the legislative power will be tasting the goodies.
I know at least one cop who will vouch that at least one place he worked enforced a quota system for traffic tickets.
If you believe such pressure would not extend to asset seizure, you might want to cut back on your drug consumption.
every six months have a citizen ballot voting whether to return funds seized or allow the department to use the funds for specified purposes
keep - 2 million in cash from a child pornography ring
return - 2500$ taken from an individual pulled over for a traffic violation without a citation or criminal charge
if the funds are voted to be returned then the department has to pay interest to the original owner of the seized assets
set the interest's equivalent to something that remains contemporary over time, alike a 401k investment equivalent, or if the funds were in an IRA, etc.
keep - 2 million in cash from a child pornography ring
return - 2500$ taken from an individual pulled over for a traffic violation without a citation or criminal charge
if the funds are voted to be returned then the department has to pay interest to the original owner of the seized assets
set the interest's equivalent to something that remains contemporary over time, alike a 401k investment equivalent, or if the funds were in an IRA, etc.
From the article: "Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures under city and federal laws"
That's 2,000 per year, or 1,000 per six months.
Do you think a citizen ballot with 1,000 items on it will be a meaningful check on police powers?
Also, "from a child pornography ring" is likely incorrect. It should more likely be "from what is claimed to be a child pornography ring".
Otherwise the ballot will say "$15,000 from a drug dealer" even if it's better described as "$15,000 from someone the officer thinks might be a drug dealer but doesn't have any real evidence other than that drug dealer carry a large amount of cash."
That's 2,000 per year, or 1,000 per six months.
Do you think a citizen ballot with 1,000 items on it will be a meaningful check on police powers?
Also, "from a child pornography ring" is likely incorrect. It should more likely be "from what is claimed to be a child pornography ring".
Otherwise the ballot will say "$15,000 from a drug dealer" even if it's better described as "$15,000 from someone the officer thinks might be a drug dealer but doesn't have any real evidence other than that drug dealer carry a large amount of cash."
i agree the idea is fleshed superficially, child pornography is pretty easy to get people to rally against where as drug issues enter grey areas of ethics and morality..
i am more interested in the idea of punishment for improper use of this and other vague laws as a method of deincentivising abuse
i also think the logic of 'there are too many instances to be able to regulate' is flawed and incentivises the offenders to be more aggressive
a possible solution to volume could be only deal in values less than a certain threshold and raise said threshold with each vote depending on number of instances until all instances are voted on
you could backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with lower number of instances
the goal is to reduce the number of instances so this issue will hopefully solve itself
as for terse yet comprehensive descriptions of the events that led to the forfeiture there is room for a discussion on how best to handle that
the recent vote in my city carried with it a number of numbered and alphabetized bills that carried a sentence or two description on the ballot i figured something similar
imperfect but better than 'well, its out of control so let's hope it just rights itself'
i am more interested in the idea of punishment for improper use of this and other vague laws as a method of deincentivising abuse
i also think the logic of 'there are too many instances to be able to regulate' is flawed and incentivises the offenders to be more aggressive
a possible solution to volume could be only deal in values less than a certain threshold and raise said threshold with each vote depending on number of instances until all instances are voted on
you could backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with lower number of instances
the goal is to reduce the number of instances so this issue will hopefully solve itself
as for terse yet comprehensive descriptions of the events that led to the forfeiture there is room for a discussion on how best to handle that
the recent vote in my city carried with it a number of numbered and alphabetized bills that carried a sentence or two description on the ballot i figured something similar
imperfect but better than 'well, its out of control so let's hope it just rights itself'
Your proposals are untenable. If my $20,000, which I got from friends and family to buy a backhoe loader for my contracting work, is confiscated for up to 6 months, then that's a huge pain in my life and career. If my car is confiscated then that's a huge impact on my ability to get to work.
If you then "backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with lower number of instances" it becomes worse.
Prohibit civil forfeiture. It's much easier.
If you want citizen oversight, get a citizen review board, and require that the putative owner is allowed to have a public defender. And make sure the public defender's office is sufficiently funded.
If you then "backlog previous periods of unvoted instances into later months with lower number of instances" it becomes worse.
Prohibit civil forfeiture. It's much easier.
If you want citizen oversight, get a citizen review board, and require that the putative owner is allowed to have a public defender. And make sure the public defender's office is sufficiently funded.
If this isn't stopped soon next they will go after your 401ks like in eastern Europe and then your bank accounts like Cyprus.
The Constitution means nothing to these thieves.
The Constitution means nothing to these thieves.
Even in city general fund creates the same conflict of interest. Forfeited property should be destroyed.
Okay, so the forfeited car is smashed into a cube. It's destroyed as a car, but not destroyed as a collection of potentially useful atoms.
What then? Do they sell the metal? Or does the metal recycling center get to profit from the free lump of metal on their doorstep?
Individually, the same applies for the parts. The battery is easily recycled for the lead, and under environmental laws can't simply be tossed into the trash heap. Who gets the profit from that?
It's a reduction of value, certainly, but I don't see how the value in a destroyed car goes to 0, so there will still be some conflict of interest.
What then? Do they sell the metal? Or does the metal recycling center get to profit from the free lump of metal on their doorstep?
Individually, the same applies for the parts. The battery is easily recycled for the lead, and under environmental laws can't simply be tossed into the trash heap. Who gets the profit from that?
It's a reduction of value, certainly, but I don't see how the value in a destroyed car goes to 0, so there will still be some conflict of interest.
If your hometown has a police department that acts like a gang:
Don't fuck the police. Don't date, them, either.
Don't sell to police. If they want groceries or gas, let them have to explicitly confiscate the stuff.
Don't talk to police officers unless they force you. Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty.
There are two ways a community can fight against a mafia -- a shooting war, or comprehensive shunning. Guess which works better in the long term?