Sheriff uses civil forfeiture to take money from armored trucks

[GloomCookie]

I stumbled across this video from the excellent channel Lehto's Law. Link to video: https://youtu.be/9GKg1UucxNc

The San Bernadino County Sheriff is stopping armored trucks carrying money from California licensed marajuana distributors and seizing the assets. Because marajuana is legal in the state of California, the Sheriff can't keep the funds, so they turn the money over to the FBI since marajuana is still illegal on the federal level. The Justice Department prosecutes the case and kicks back 80% of seized funds back to the San Bernadino Sheriff.

I'm not a fan of civil forfeiture to begin with, but this is now literal highway robbery.

[TheGlyphstone]

So I went trawling on Google, finding a bunch of articles from January about the lawsuit that the trucking company filed, then one from this April that says they won the suit. Couldn't find more confirmation though.

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2022/04/19/sb-sheriff-must-return-unfairly-seized-money


John Oliver ran an episode about civil forfeiture last year and it pretty much is literal highway robbery in most cases.

[Beorning]

Huh. How could something like this be legal? On what grounds was FBI prosecuting these cases? If marijuana is legal in California, then shouldn't they politely remind the Sheriff about it and send the seized money back?

Also, couldn't the marijuana distributors sue the Sheriff... or demand him / his department to be charged with some criminal offence?

[TheGlyphstone]

Huh. How could something like this be legal? On what grounds was FBI prosecuting these cases? If marijuana is legal in California, then shouldn't they politely remind the Sheriff about it and send the seized money back?

Also, couldn't the marijuana distributors sue the Sheriff... or demand him / his department to be charged with some criminal offence?

Because marijuana is legal in California at the state level, but it is illegal in the country at the federal level. Since the FBI's jurisdiction is federal-level crimes, they could prosecute for it.

[Beorning]

Hmmm. Even if these marijuana distributors operated only in California (as I assume was the case)?

Does that mean that even if you're officially licensed to sell marijuana in California, FBI could arrest you, have you prosecuted at a federal court and sent to a federal prison?

[gaggedLouise]

Aaah okay, at first I thought it was about druglords or professional pushers openly driving around with their collected money in armoured vehicles and I thought: wtf?  :D

"Only in the USA!" :)

[TheGlyphstone]

Hmmm. Even if these marijuana distributors operated only in California (as I assume was the case)?

Does that mean that even if you're officially licensed to sell marijuana in California, FBI could arrest you, have you prosecuted at a federal court and sent to a federal prison?

Technically, yes, but the FBI doesn't usually bother to do so unless it's associated with a larger problem of organized crime, gangs, or similar.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/federal-marijuana-laws.html

One of the bigger complications though is that licensed dispensaries can't store their money in banks, because it would make the banks liable for holding proceeds of a criminal activity. Which is why they have to move it via truck instead of just depositing it in their bank account down the street. Civil forfeiture is commonly used to generate revenue for police or sheriff's departments in this way - seize someone's car for "suspicion of drug trafficking" even if you dont find any drugs in it or on them, then sell the car at auction and keep the money for your budget. The former owner of the car is SOL in most cases.

[Thufir Hawat]

Civil forfeiture is commonly used to generate revenue for police or sheriff's departments in this way - seize someone's car for "suspicion of drug trafficking" even if you dont find any drugs in it or on them, then sell the car at auction and keep the money for your budget. The former owner of the car is SOL in most cases.

...how is THIS legal and why is it unenforceable >:( ?

[TheGlyphstone]

Last Week Tonight did an episode all about it, and how it's technically legal and used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

John's commentary can be colorful at times, but it's a very good summary in more detail than I can share right now.

[Oniya]

I'm pretty sure that Steve Lehto has done a butt-ton of videos about civil forfeiture cases.  (Mr. Oniya follows the channel, and is always bringing up some anecdote from the channel or other.)

There was one where a company operated safety deposit boxes - 'no questions asked' - and the cops suspected that the owners (and others) were storing illegal proceeds.  Judge said 'you can't open the boxes'.  So they seized the whole inventory of boxes.  Regular Joes who were using the storage for things like family heirlooms and documents couldn't get their stuff either. 

Starts here, and there have been several updates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy3623YRsMk

[GloomCookie]

This stuff sickens me. Like, I hate the idea that if I'm driving around in my truck and there's something the police decide they want, they can take my money, my truck, toss me in jail for 24 hours, release me on "Oops wrong info" and I'm unable to get any of it back because now the truck and money are considered guilty, even if I was innocent.

[stormwyrm]

mumble mumble... No person shall be ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... mumble mumble.

I suppose Kissinger was exaggerating, as it seems even the unconstitutional can now be done immediately.

[Thufir Hawat]

Last Week Tonight did an episode all about it, and how it's technically legal and used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

John's commentary can be colorful at times, but it's a very good summary in more detail than I can share right now.

Can I just reiterate the principle "if applying a given law in a specific way leads to clearly illegal actions becoming legal, you should take it as a hint that said law wasn't meant to be applied in this way", and move on 8-)?

[Oniya]

Can I just reiterate the principle "if applying a given law in a specific way leads to clearly illegal actions becoming legal, you should take it as a hint that said law wasn't meant to be applied in this way", and move on 8-)?

Oh, it would be very nice if common sense was that common.

[Beorning]

I freely admit that this thread left my mind boggled.

[Keelan]

I freely admit that this thread left my mind boggled.

Anything we can do to help with the confusion?

[Annaamarth]

Revamp/overhaul the US legal codex to remove the old loopholes to allow civil forfeiture to only be used in cases of 'innocent until proven guilty' instead of 'guilty because a cop said so', then perform a bottom-to-top cultural overhaul of the US to encourage spirit-of-the-law legal interpretation, then finish off with a complete overhaul of all of the sworn officers to prevent abuse of power, probably requiring a complete restructuring of the police unions and their agreements?

[GloomCookie]

Revamp/overhaul the US legal codex to remove the old loopholes to allow civil forfeiture to only be used in cases of 'innocent until proven guilty' instead of 'guilty because a cop said so', then perform a bottom-to-top cultural overhaul of the US to encourage spirit-of-the-law legal interpretation, then finish off with a complete overhaul of all of the sworn officers to prevent abuse of power, probably requiring a complete restructuring of the police unions and their agreements?

And when does everyone in America get their pony too?

There are already movements to overhaul civil forfeiture, which is a good thing, but US legal tradition is not going to be changed anytime soon. We inherited our system from the English, and we've only reinforced that system for the past 250 years. That's not going to change overnight, and is more or less wishful thinking. BUT... overhauling the way police officers function, especially removing protections offered by police unions, would go a long way to removing corruption and graft. So, while I think some of this is wishful thinking, I also think some places will be so entrenched, especially with attitudes that police do no wrong (believe me, there are places like this) that it'll be next to impossible to ever see true reform.

[Oniya]

especially with attitudes that police do no wrong (believe me, there are places like this)

Growing up in a white, middle-class community, I can absolutely attest to this.  'If you're in trouble, look for a policeman' was a thing that parents in those areas told their kids on the regular.  You saw crooked cops in shows like 'First Blood' or even 'Dukes of Hazzard' (heck, even Robin Hood) and it was 'a thing of fiction'.  Or you read about 1920's Chicago and it was 'a long time ago'.

It wasn't until recent years that I learned how many people don't have that experience.

[Thufir Hawat]

Oh, it would be very nice if common sense was that common.

It's actually a principle in my country's jurisprudence...but then we're not based on the Common Law 8-).

[greenknight]

That's...not a good thing. If your country doesn't have common law, then illegal made legal by fiat has to be re-litigated every time. You can't just say, "Judge Bob already said this was bad in Tom vs. Harry, so this is bad. Dismissed." That's all common law is; if something was okay/no okay in the past, people should be able to use that knowledge when considering future acts. Does that have problems, bad decisions getting enshrined and such? Sure. Is it a better baseline than risking every decision being a litigious event? Absolutely. And the US has common law and can still overturn CAF seizures.

[Annaamarth]

And when does everyone in America get their pony too?

... I chuckled, I admit it.  It's a good response - unfortunately, I have to admit that a significant emotion fueling my list was bitter spite.  I am not a fan of the current trend of US courts.

There are already movements to overhaul civil forfeiture, which is a good thing, but US legal tradition is not going to be changed anytime soon.  We inherited our system from the English, and we've only reinforced that system for the past 250 years. That's not going to change overnight, and is more or less wishful thinking.

To be clear, I don't actually want to change the US legal tradition that much.  The some of the framers of the US Constitution didn't want to include a bill of rights because enumerating rights could imply the absence of rights so enumerated - cf. LGBTQ+ vs. LGBTQIA+ - and only acceded with the 'catch-all' 9th amendment to preserve unspecified rights to the people and the 10th amendment to preserve unspecified powers to the States.  The right to privacy had been legally supported in the past by the supreme court as an unmentioned but inferred right - but recent decades have seen a strong push towards 'letter-of-the-law' interpretation.  In short, I don't want to see the legal system replaced - I want to see it recovered.

BUT... overhauling the way police officers function, especially removing protections offered by police unions, would go a long way to removing corruption and graft. So, while I think some of this is wishful thinking, I also think some places will be so entrenched, especially with attitudes that police do no wrong (believe me, there are places like this) that it'll be next to impossible to ever see true reform.

I grew up much like Oniya, though with just enough of a white-trash upbringing to have had PD show up when my dad needed to enforce a custody agreement.  I didn't understand at the time, I just thought it was cool a cop had shown up.

Then I grew up.  Now ... well, bitter spite.  Or spiteful bitterness, take your pick.

[Thufir Hawat]

That's...not a good thing. If your country doesn't have common law, then illegal made legal by fiat has to be re-litigated every time.

Sorry, but that's totally not true, and actually quite laughable a statement if you know the details of our laws ;D!

Having noted that, however, it seems you misunderstood the statement: it doesn't mean we "don't have common law" (as in, the use of court precedents), it means we're not part of the Common Law system, as practised in the USA, UK, Canada and India.
Instead, we're part of the Civil Law system, same as France, Germany and Japan, for that matter. And no, us being part of the Civil Law system doesn't mean that the US and the UK don't have civil law codes, either! That's just what the systems are named.

Here's a primer on the most important difference.
https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/

So all my opinions in this thread should be read with the above in mind. When I said that I don't understand how something might be possible...well, it's because it's Not Legally Possible in my country (and would be prosecuted if it came to light, as in the case of seizing and selling someone else's car).