A Not-So-Careful Search

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The police love asset forfeiture laws because they get to keep lots of cool stuff that used to belong to drug dealers (among other crimes to which the laws apply). So imagine how happy the Dallas police were to seize a black 2004 Infiniti at a drug house. It became a nice ride for undercover police officers.

Of course, before they put the car into service, they searched it for contraband. Not well enough, it seems. After two months:

An officer cleaning the car at a patrol station Wednesday discovered the nearly 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of cocaine carefully hidden in hydraulically controlled compartments.

Oops.

On a more serious note, wouldn't the public be better served if (as is true in some states) seized assets were sold and the money directed to school budgets? That would certainly give the police less incentive to indulge in questionable seizures.

< A Bad Prosecution Refuses to Die | Who Got an iPhone Today? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Not-So-Careful Search | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If anyone of us..... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:57:37 PM EST

bought a used car and the police found 50 lbs. of dope in it, you bet your arse we'd be well on our way to a persecution and PMITA prison.

So...when is the trial date for the officers who were in last possesion of the vehicle prior to the find?...lol

Fight inflation; destroy the assets (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by roy on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST

A lot of these assets simply shouldn't be confiscated, but some should, and some of those will be valuable. If the assets support some social good like education, police will still feel like seizing the assets is a good thing. Cops mostly aren't Snidely Whiplash types; they like schools.

We could use them to fund the Public Defenders Office, but that creates some new screwy incentives.

: The problem is not who gets the loot. (none / 0) (#12)
by js991 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST

You are right. The whole idea is unconstitutional. I could see it if the police had to prove the property was drug assets. But they don't. The person has to prove the property is not drug assets. The burden of proof is backwards, and then there is a conflict of interest to boot.
This kind of sick situation is not best "fixed" by some creative new scheme of who to give the stolen goods to. The solution is to go back to the law as we inherited it and as most people understand it!

I doubt it... (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by Addison on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 05:00:58 PM EST

RE this:

I doubt that would be the real end result. What would happen instead is improper seizures would be less scrutinized -- or more applauded -- because the end beneficiary would be schools and children, instead of the police.

When the police benefit there's a clear conflict of interest problem AND a slight built-in societal bias against authority.

Wheen the schools benefit there's no clear conflict AND a slight bias in favor of confiscating valuable goods from "scum" that will go to "the children."

See the lottery for more evidence of "school funding" as a cause for a lack of adequate criticism of potentially bad policy.

I would suggest (none / 0) (#2)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST

the assets be sold and taxes reduced by that amount.

: Wile.... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST

are you suggesting the police hold an auction and sell all that perfectly good dope collecting dust in the evidence locker?
Not a bad idea brother...I'd be bidding up a storm at such an auction.
Or better yet, let the original owner sell it and tax his/her earnings...that should, in theory, lower the tax burden on the rest of us.

How can the police be so sure (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:18:12 PM EST

that it wasn't police cocaine they found?

I like the idea of the proceeds going to (none / 0) (#4)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST

the schools and other places in dire need of money.

: Even though.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:24:26 PM EST

the proceeds are stolen?
That ain't righteous...

The department budget would never pay (none / 0) (#7)
by kredwyn on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST

the amount necessary for an Infinity when they've got one stuck indefinitely in the impound yard.

Lots and lots of assets that have been forfeited do go up for auction. And the monies garnered go back into the state coffers.

Typical lazy.. (none / 0) (#8)
by AX10 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST

government types who abuse their power.

The PD office I used to work for (none / 0) (#9)
by myiq2xu on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST

defended a guy arrested for smuggling dope in a hidden compartment. When the atty from our office interviewed him (in custody) he denied knowing anything about the dope and said he had just bought the car a few weeks before.

The atty asked him where he bought it and the guy replied "At an impound auction."

: Note to self.... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:18:07 AM EST

good buys at impound auctions:)