SB 2016-017: End Abuse of Civil Forfeiture Act (Final Vote)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

72 hours for debate.

[tmthforu94]

I am strongly opposed to the bill as worded - there is a reason why only 1 of 50 states in the US have completely outlawed it.

I will be working on an amendment that I think all sides will be OK with and will state my full explanation at that time.

[Blair]

I would be interested in hearing what Tmth has to say about this bill- after doing research on it during the House Bill Process I supported what the bill wants to do- end the absurd abuse that could come through these police powers

[tmthforu94]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only two states qualify under what is currently written - Montana and New Mexico. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is more than enough, in my opinion, and is still ceding a lot more than I would prefer. I'd also be fine with adding a clause allowing regions to completely outlaw it if they felt so compelled.

[tmthforu94]

...with no objection, the amendment is adopted.

I'm inclined to bring this to a final vote tomorrow unless anyone objects.

[Santander]

Thank you tmth for at least restoring some semblance of reality into this bill. I agree that requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard of evidence than I am comfortable with, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

[Blair]

How is that too be determined?

[Goldwater]

How is that too be determined?

Reasonable doubt? The same way it is used in court cases IRL, I would assume.

[Santander]

How is that too be determined?

Reasonable doubt? The same way it is used in court cases IRL, I would assume.

Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required in criminal cases. The standard of evidence required to in civil cases is lower.

[Blair]

I don't think that reasonable doubt would stop the abuses that we've seen; I mean my biggest concern is that asset forfeiture can happen before a conviction is gained.

I'd like a vote on the amendment offered- I was doing event work last weekend so I only had limited access and didn't have time for a comprehensive check of Senate work.

[tmthforu94]

I don't think that reasonable doubt would stop the abuses that we've seen; I mean my biggest concern is that asset forfeiture can happen before a conviction is gained.

I'd like a vote on the amendment offered- I was doing event work last weekend so I only had limited access and didn't have time for a comprehensive check of Senate work.

An amendment can't be retroactive - if an amendment is desired to change it back to criminal conviction, I'll hold off on a final vote until one is offered. I can't generate activity by myself, but I'm at least trying to create somewhat consistent rules for the body.

Senator Blair, can you elaborate on the abuse you've seen and why requiring criminal conviction, a policy that goes far beyond current US policy and is further federal overreach, is required instead of reasonable doubt?

[tmthforu94]

Here is the proposed version (I'll sponsor it for the sake of moving this along, even though I oppose it).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

Sorry the delay; whilst this website has its obvious view it does well to highlight the awful abuse of civil forfeiture (I'm still very much in favour of criminal forfeiture)

http://endforfeiture.com/

[Blair]

Some other information for people

+The Federal aspect (rather than local/regional policing) takes in 5.4 billion a year through the process.
+ There should be a step in place to make sure that people are told when they're having property/assets seized- currently they don't even have to be informed.
+ There should be a requirement that funds be deposited to educational programs, or those benefiting victims of crime (rather than buying the Sheriff a new car)


Interesting example from Nebraska

  http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/20/nebraska-ends-civil-police-forfeiture-pr

[Leinad]

federal overreach

sigh...

I asked to fix this in the House thread:

In addition, the vast majority of civil forfeiture is conducted at the state level, and general law enforcement is not within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government, meaning this bill would have little effect, even if passed.

True, so we can pass a bill reforming civil forfeiture at the federal level, and the regions can follow our lead.

but for some reason, it wasn't amended by anyone.

[tmthforu94]

We will now be voting on the amendment to change it back to criminal conviction instead of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.


NAY

[Pingvin]

Nay

[Goldwater]

NAY

[Senator Cris]

Nay

NAY

I'm not sure you can vote here.

[Goldwater]

Nay

NAY

I'm not sure you can vote here.

Oh, am I already out of office? My mistake.

[tmthforu94]

With 3 Nays, the amendment has failed.

I will bring this to a vote later tonight, unless there are objections.

[Blair]

Well have to conference this won't we as its different to the house?

[tmthforu94]

Well have to conference this won't we as its different to the house?

This is the House bill that came over to the Senate. If this passes the Senate, the House will have the opportunity to vote up or down on it. That is how the process is now, though hopefully next session between a constitutional amendment and some edits to the rules, we can create a smoother process.

[tmthforu94]

Senators, we will now proceed to a final vote on the End Abuse of Civil Forfeiture Act. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Nay