383
submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

A North Carolina teenager was hoping to get her life back on track after a state judge ordered a man who sexually abused her to pay her $69,000. Instead, she got a nasty surprise.

The local police department had already seized the cash through civil asset forfeiture, and it was already gone. Despite a judge's order, she will get nothing.

The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police—and of how the federal government allows state and local police to evade reforms to stop forfeiture abuse.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 129 points 1 year ago

The judge should make the dept pay her. How is this not the automatic result? I know, don’t explain it to me. I’m just mad.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the money's not gone. We know where it went, and there was no actual crime related to the money.

Civil forfeiture is state-sponsored theft.

[-] SARGEx117@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Don't worry about silly things like rights. You have no rights and no property if the proper authority arbitrarily decides you don't.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

"Rights don't exist if someone can take them away" - Carlin

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Can't most departments seize for feds and get a cut in return, state civil asset forfeiture is getting less common because it's getting easier to fight because it's more known and everyone thinks it's idiotic.

[-] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 1 year ago

Daily reminder that the police are not here to help

[-] FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

My partner works customer service for a big company and had a customer call in to say an employee at some location was threatening his life. Her nee jerk response was for the customer to call the police but he responded with the names of other minorities that were killed by police and said he felt calling the police would be a bigger threat to his life than the problem employee. Sad that this is how far we've fallen, oh wait, this has always been the case. We just now have the means to document and report these abuses of power.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 year ago

The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police

The case is a reminder this entire concept is theft.

They steal the money, charge the inanimate object with a crime, and expect you to sue to get it back. They stole it. Stop using big words to make it sound sane. We legalized theft, for cops.

[-] keefshape@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oops replied to wrong post

[-] Kushia@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 year ago

Police already stole the cash..

[-] TheScaryDoor@startrek.website 43 points 1 year ago

Fun fact, civil forfeiture started in maritime law when ships were seized carrying illegal items and the perpetrators were foreign nationals that were never in the country, so the only way to pursue an indictment was to seize the ship and charge the ship itself with the crime.

[-] crawley@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Boy howdy are cops abusing maritime law then.

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sovcit moment right there

[-] oDDmON@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

There are rules, after all.

Ya just gotta be quicker. /s

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

The civil forfeiture rule is, “gotcha money BIIITCH!” (And your car, house, etc.)

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Those who receive stolen property may be required to return it to the person it was stolen from.

[-] Daqu@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

Let her take something from the police in return. Maybe some of their cars?

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
383 points (99.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7250 readers
329 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS