[Kung Fury]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/woman-sues-albuquerque-seizing-civil-asset-forfeiture-ban Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...eiture-ban

The police seized this woman's car because someone else was using it for drunk driving. Now the city of Albuquerque wants the woman to either transfer ownership of the car to the city, or pay $4000 to get it back.  Not to mention that New Mexico passed a law banning the horrific practice of civil asset forfeiture. This woman wasn't even convicted of a crime and the city is extorting her to get her car back. Despicable.

[Preditor]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/woman-sues-albuquerque-seizing-civil-asset-forfeiture-ban Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...eiture-ban

The police seized this woman's car because someone else was using it for drunk driving. Now the city of Albuquerque wants the woman to either transfer ownership of the car to the city, or pay $4000 to get it back.  Not to mention that New Mexico passed a law banning the horrific practice of civil asset forfeiture. This woman wasn't even convicted of a crime and the city is extorting her to get her car back. Despicable.

She's responsible for the car. Regardless of who's driving it and if it's under her she should have to pay for it. That is unless someone stole it then she shouldn't have to. However, if it has been impounded then she has to get it back. There's nothing wrong with this. It's not extortion but the car is under her name, and whoever was driving it at the time probably broke the law. It's her fault for not being responsible for her own vehicle. As I said unless this was stolen then there's not a problem, the police and government have every right to hold the car. They are not just taking it randomly they are taking it because whoever was using it broke the law.

[BlackDog]

There are though multiple cases of Civil forfiture being used incorrectly, or flat out abused by local authorities

[Taylor]

Federal Government extorting US Citizens? Never heard that one before.... No definitely not.

[Cooli]

Seems like a good rp idea.

[Lord Octagon]

Seems like a good rp idea.

WomanSuesAlbuquerqueFoSeizingCarDespiteBanOnCivilAssetForfeitureRP?

It's got that ring to it.

[Kung Fury]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/woman-sues-albuquerque-seizing-civil-asset-forfeiture-ban Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...eiture-ban

The police seized this woman's car because someone else was using it for drunk driving. Now the city of Albuquerque wants the woman to either transfer ownership of the car to the city, or pay $4000 to get it back.  Not to mention that New Mexico passed a law banning the horrific practice of civil asset forfeiture. This woman wasn't even convicted of a crime and the city is extorting her to get her car back. Despicable.

She's responsible for the car. Regardless of who's driving it and if it's under her she should have to pay for it. That is unless someone stole it then she shouldn't have to. However, if it has been impounded then she has to get it back. There's nothing wrong with this. It's not extortion but the car is under her name, and whoever was driving it at the time probably broke the law. It's her fault for not being responsible for her own vehicle. As I said unless this was stolen then there's not a problem, the police and government have every right to hold the car. They are not just taking it randomly they are taking it because whoever was using it broke the law.

This lady is not being charged with a crime, but somehow its ok that her car is being taken away? Her son is the one that was drunk driving, he should receive the punishment, not her. The city of Albuquerque is saying that they want her to settle her lawsuit for $4000 to get her car back, which implies the settlement fee must paid as well as any impound fees. So this lady had her car seized even though she is not being charged with a crime, all she did was trust that her son would use her car responsibly. Now the city wants either her car, or $4000 from her, it is extortion. Also, if that's not a good enough argument for you, let it be pointed out that in the article it says the state of New Mexico banned the use of civil asset forfeiture, but the city used it anyway. That should show how much the city of Albuquerque and its police department really care about the law.

I do hope you watched the video linked by BlackDog, because it shows many cases where police use civil forfeiture to seize things from people who aren't being charged with a crime. I would also like to add a story I saw a while back where the

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-record-airport-seizures/88474282/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016.../88474282/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

DEA was data mining Americans' travel records so they could show up at airports and seize cash without charging people with a crime.


Civil forfeiture should have been abolished a long time ago, but it is still here. Any officer or department who uses civil forfeiture to seize people's property without charging them with a crime does not care about justice.

[Cooli]

Seems like a good rp idea.

WomanSuesAlbuquerqueFoSeizingCarDespiteBanOnCivilAssetForfeitureRP?

It's got that ring to it.

Was more thinking of an extorting goverment.

[Preditor]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/woman-sues-albuquerque-seizing-civil-asset-forfeiture-ban Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...eiture-ban

The police seized this woman's car because someone else was using it for drunk driving. Now the city of Albuquerque wants the woman to either transfer ownership of the car to the city, or pay $4000 to get it back.  Not to mention that New Mexico passed a law banning the horrific practice of civil asset forfeiture. This woman wasn't even convicted of a crime and the city is extorting her to get her car back. Despicable.

She's responsible for the car. Regardless of who's driving it and if it's under her she should have to pay for it. That is unless someone stole it then she shouldn't have to. However, if it has been impounded then she has to get it back. There's nothing wrong with this. It's not extortion but the car is under her name, and whoever was driving it at the time probably broke the law. It's her fault for not being responsible for her own vehicle. As I said unless this was stolen then there's not a problem, the police and government have every right to hold the car. They are not just taking it randomly they are taking it because whoever was using it broke the law.

This lady is not being charged with a crime, but somehow its ok that her car is being taken away? Her son is the one that was drunk driving, he should receive the punishment, not her. The city of Albuquerque is saying that they want her to settle her lawsuit for $4000 to get her car back, which implies the settlement fee must paid as well as any impound fees. So this lady had her car seized even though she is not being charged with a crime, all she did was trust that her son would use her car responsibly. Now the city wants either her car, or $4000 from her, it is extortion. Also, if that's not a good enough argument for you, let it be pointed out that in the article it says the state of New Mexico banned the use of civil asset forfeiture, but the city used it anyway. That should show how much the city of Albuquerque and its police department really care about the law.

I do hope you watched the video linked by BlackDog, because it shows many cases where police use civil forfeiture to seize things from people who aren't being charged with a crime. I would also like to add a story I saw a while back where the

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-record-airport-seizures/88474282/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016.../88474282/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

DEA was data mining Americans' travel records so they could show up at airports and seize cash without charging people with a crime.


Civil forfeiture should have been abolished a long time ago, but it is still here. Any officer or department who uses civil forfeiture to seize people's property without charging them with a crime does not care about justice.

Yes her car is being taken away because the person who was driving it was dangerous and under the influence which most likely got him arrested. If the car was under his name then he'd have to pay for it. Better yet maybe if he was following the law in the first place they wouldn't be in this situation. She should have been a responsible mother before letting her son take the car which can seriously be deemed as a weapon. And sure lets abolish civil forfeiture. Next time my friend goes on a killing spree with my gun I can just get it back and give it to my next friend. The car was involved, if she wants to get it back she has to pay for it. It's in her name, she should have been more responsible with who she trusts to drive her car that's her responsibility to look after.

Also I'm not denying that these things happen unjustly but this story that you've brought up certainly is a fair and just reason to hold her car.

[BlackDog]

Hold the car with an impound fee, maybe, the demand of turn the car over to us or pay 4,000 is excessive.

Your example of giving your friend a weapon who then goes on a killing spree does not work here, as in that case you probably would be criminaly liable in some way for arming him.

Letting your child borrow the car, who then proceeds to get drunk is a monster of a different breed as the vehicle would be impounded, and he would be thrown in the drunktank or jail for a bit pending a hearing.

The end result should never be "This is ours now unless you pay" as was the case in the above video for a couples home when their son was caught smokeing weed on it, they attempted to seize the entire house because of it.

Civil forfeture has its place, but it appears to be routinely misused or abused across the US

Some more cases of its misuse in Albuquerque 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.abqjournal.com/575256/you-dont-have-to-be-driving-to-lose-your-car.html Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.abqjournal.com/575256/you-do...r-car.html

[Kung Fury]

Blackdog pretty much hit the nail on the head. I would just like to say that it's not justice if people who did not commit crimes are being punished. A lot of people who get their stuff seized due to civil forfeiture don't even get charged with a crime.

You go on about how the woman deserves to have her car taken because her son broke the law. Yet when the police break the law they don't deserve any punishment?

I don't think civil forfeiture has its place, because I don't think police should be able to take whatever they want from random people without due process.

[BlackDog]

The idea behind it is essentialy if you caught a drug dealer with thousands in cash, you can seize it on site without the need for a warrant, which makes sense due to the insanely likelyhood that the money is infact drug money.

The problem, is that it is used id hazard a guess, 90% of the time? In situations that dont involve any kind of drug crime, or overt crime or a crime that in no way involved the person served the seizure claim, in some cases if the police pull you over, and ask if you have any money in the car, and you say yes I just won big at vegas, there is a high chance that money will be seized under civil forfeture laws, why? Pretty much because the local authority can, and many know that the average person cannot pay to fight to get it back, since if you end up paying say upwards to $10,000 in legal fees in your attempt to get what was taken back, if you win, they in no way are ordered to pay your legal fees for the seizure, so you racked up a 10k bill to get back, in this case a car probably worth only 4-5k.

The law has its place, but due to a lack of oversight and management, which in some states this kind of oversight is criminalized (See the ATF and how its almost impossible to do their job in some states), the law has essentialy become a boogyman that can be enacted at anytime, for prettymuch any reason the local authority sees fit, it has essentialy become another method to tax people to fund the department, in the absolutely worst way possible short of murdering you and just taking the item in question.

[Kung Fury]

The idea behind it is essentialy if you caught a drug dealer with thousands in cash, you can seize it on site without the need for a warrant, which makes sense due to the insanely likelyhood that the money is infact drug money.

The problem, is that it is used id hazard a guess, 90% of the time? In situations that dont involve any kind of drug crime, or overt crime or a crime that in no way involved the person served the seizure claim, in some cases if the police pull you over, and ask if you have any money in the car, and you say yes I just won big at vegas, there is a high chance that money will be seized under civil forfeture laws, why? Pretty much because the local authority can, and many know that the average person cannot pay to fight to get it back, since if you end up paying say upwards to $10,000 in legal fees in your attempt to get what was taken back, if you win, they in no way are ordered to pay your legal fees for the seizure, so you racked up a 10k bill to get back, in this case a car probably worth only 4-5k.

The law has its place, but due to a lack of oversight and management, which in some states this kind of oversight is criminalized (See the ATF and how its almost impossible to do their job in some states), the law has essentialy become a boogyman that can be enacted at anytime, for prettymuch any reason the local authority sees fit, it has essentialy become another method to tax people to fund the department, in the absolutely worst way possible short of murdering you and just taking the item in question.

I guess the original idea had good intentions. However realistically it's too much power to put in the hands of potentially abusive officers and agencies and, as you said, it gives an incentive to continue taking money from people to add to police funds. For that reason, I think civil forfeiture should be abolished.