Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You may remember the crazy asset forfeiture case in Tenaha, Texas, where they've had a police shakedown program going for years. In this tiny town, the police would routinely pull people over, accuse them of a drug crime and then force them to sign over their property - cash, jewelry, cell phones, etc - or face prosecution.
A lawsuit was filed against the police and the district attorney. And now the district attorney is arguing that she should be allowed to use the proceeds from the sale of those illegally-seized assets to pay for her defense in a case challenging her for illegally seizing them. The ACLU has filed a brief (PDF) in opposition to allowing the DA to do so.
Ironically, police and prosecutors love asset forfeiture laws because, they say, those laws prevent criminals from using the revenue generated by their criminal activity to pay high-powered attorneys to get them off in court. Now suddenly a prosecutor thinks she should be able to do the same thing she denies to other accused criminals; funny what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
You really should read the complaint (PDF) in this case. As bad as the asset forfeiture laws are, the abuse here was still astonishing. This was nothing less than the police acting like the mafia, shaking people down for cash and valuables by threatening them. They never even charged anyone with anything, just made them sign a form agreeing to turn over the property or face prosecution.
Politics
Comments
I don't know. I think this might be a gray area. I mean, no where in the constitution does it say you have the right to carry large sums of cash.
Posted by: Skip | October 5, 2009 10:19 AM
Nothing gray about how this town ripped off people. They also targeted minorities. They financed trips to 'conventions'. They never charged anyone with a crime. They threatened to take their kids away. This town should be sold for scrap to pay the judgments. It would serve them right to lose big and have to forfeit everything.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 5, 2009 10:56 AM
Ummm Skip, 5th amendment, due process. Specific element:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 5, 2009 11:19 AM
Ummm Skip, 5th amendment, due process.
I MAY BE IN DESPERATE NEED OF COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, BUT MY SARCASM DETECTOR IS A-OK!!! PERHAPS OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO GET THEIRS TUNED UP!!! ;-) !!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | October 5, 2009 11:24 AM
Sorry -- according to settled law, they had due process. They could have refused to waive, posted a bond, etc. and had a chance of getting their stuff back.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 5, 2009 12:24 PM
If this isn't a Federal RICO prosecution, then why do we have RICO? Just circle the town with razor wire and shoot anything that tries to escape.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 5, 2009 12:26 PM
kehrsam:
"...shoot anything that tries to escape".
That will in no wise serve justice. Public hangings are much more desirable in that regard.
Posted by: democommie | October 5, 2009 1:13 PM
Yeah, after legal fees and court costs far in excess of the amount extorted. That is, assuming they didn't thereupon "resist arrest" and end up dead.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | October 5, 2009 3:00 PM
On a somewhat tangential but related topic. I just left Michael Moore's home theater after watching his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story.
Moore had a segment in this movie about a similar topic I think Ed blogged about but I couldn't easily find. A businessman in PA gets the state to give him $58 million to build a privately run juvenile detention center. According to Moore it cost $8 million to build IIRC. I assume given Moore's movies frequently utilize hyperbole that the $58 million is revenues prior to cash outlays for expenses and investments.
The story focused on some juveniles' point of view on how a judge was paid off to send these kids to this center; kids who in no way deserved to be sent to such a detention center. The judge was paid at least $2.6 million in kickbacks for doing so, their due process rights were almost completely absent and in fact they were sometimes kept in captivity for months past their sentence, probably in order to maintain optimal capacity of the facility since the operation received payment from the state based on headcount.
I found a NYT version of the story for your perusal.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 5, 2009 4:04 PM
Skip,
What method of transferring large amounts of wealth was there in the 1780's? The only method available to most people was cash (such as it was) and valuables. The right to hold cash or valuables didn't need to be guaranteed because there was no other alternative.
Posted by: blurdo | October 6, 2009 12:19 AM
-I don't know. I think this might be a gray area. I mean, no where in the constitution does it say you have the right to carry large sums of cash.-
-They could have refused to waive, posted a bond, etc. and had a chance of getting their stuff back.-
Your naivity is chilling. where in the constitution does it allow government officials to scam the public and threaten them into submission? Where has that EVER been allowed in any civilised country?
Idiot.
Posted by: Richard eis | October 6, 2009 9:24 AM
ahh, I see Skip is trying this whole "it's not in the constitution" line elsewhere.
It appears we are either speaking to a text insert program or a person who thinks they are funny. Since both appear to have the same level of intelligence, we may have poe like difficulty guessing the REAL Skip.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 6, 2009 10:41 AM
Richard Eis, if that is in fact your real name, where in the Constitution does it state that Skip does not have the right to mess with your head?
I think, if you'll double-check my blind assertions, that "head messing" falls to the states, of which only Texas has any relevant legislation (hence their motto "The head messing state").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 7, 2009 3:48 AM
Where I come from, demanding money with menaces is actually a criminal offense. Even when the cops do it.
Posted by: eddie | October 7, 2009 2:25 PM
Agreed, eddie. "Give us your stuff or we'll charge you" is _insane_. Either there's nothing to charge them with, in which case it's plain extortion, or there _is_ something to charge them with, in which case it's _corruption_ on the part of the officers involved. Think about it - they're accepting monetary reward for failing to do their duty as law enforcement! It's demanding a bribe, with legal pretenses.
Posted by: Snoof | October 8, 2009 1:20 AM