Homeless in Arizona

According to this letter to the editor from Lt. Tony Ryan the Arizona RICO or forfeiture laws are nothing but armed robbery by the police.

In the letter Lt. Tony Ryan, more or less called Maricopa County Attorney a liar for his previous editorial or letter saying that the police fairly and squarely steal our money.

This letter to the editor was published in the Sunday, December 13, 2015 issue of the Arizona Republic. It was written by retired cop Lt. Tony Ryan of Sahuarita. I think Sahuarita is just south of Tucson next to Green Valley.

Since I couldn't find a online copy of the letter I retyped it by hand. Any mistakes are mine.

In this letter to the editor Lt. Tony Ryan of Sahuarita pretty much says the RICO or forfeiture laws are nothing but armed robbery by the police.

According Lt. Tony Ryan 28% of the loot stolen by the police with these "RICO" or forfeiture laws is given to the cops that stole it in the form of straight pay. overtime pay or benefits.

Lt. Tony Ryan didn't say want percent of the money the police departments that steal it keep, but I suspect it is also a big chunk of the money.

Lieutenant Tony Ryan follows.

County attorney has no idea how forfeiture laws play out

Even the original architects of civil forfeiture laws said last year, "The program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished."

Mr. Montgomery said that civil forfeiture helps the community because funds go back to the community and are used as restitution for victims of crime, but $62 million in Arizona forfeiture funds were used to pay for benefits, salaries and overtime pay for law enforcement - 28 percent of forfeited funds.

This represents an obvious personal investment in maintaining civil forfeiture laws. Comparatively, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission approved just over $4 million for "victim compensation and assistance." Arizona Residents have a right to due process before our property is seized, and we have a right to know exactly how civil forfeiture funds are spent.

- Lt. Tony Ryan (Ret,), Sahuarita

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery Editorial

Source

My Turn: Arizona won't seize your property unjustly [We will steal it fair and square, like we did to the Indians]

Bill Montgomery, AZ I See It 4:33 p.m. MST December 7, 2015

County prosecutor: Misconceptions abound in a recent report card that criticized Arizona's asset forfeiture procedures.

Paul Avelar and Keith Diggs earn an “F” for grossly distorting Arizona’s civil forfeiture laws with a self-serving, special interest “national report card.” ("Arizona must end 'policing for profit,'").

Their critique conflates civil and criminal legal standards to make the preposterous claim that law enforcement can seize someone’s property without due process and force a property owner to prove their innocence in order to get it back. [What's preposterous about it. It happens every day???] If this were truly the case, courts would have struck down our forfeiture laws years ago. [I am not sure on this, but I think in some cases the courts get a cut of the stolen loot, and the police also tet a cut].

Congress established civil asset forfeiture laws in the 1980s to remove financial incentives from criminal activity and return illegally obtained proceeds to victims and the community. In Arizona, asset forfeiture has been used to disable drug trafficking operations, shut down prostitution rings and pay back victims of large scale financial frauds.

Forfeiture proceeds are not “profit.” They are ill-gotten gains that are recovered and used to fund community programs that address substance abuse, gang prevention, witness protection and prisoner re-entry. They also provide needed resources to law enforcement that otherwise would come out of taxpayer pockets.

Indeed, without asset forfeiture statutes, it’s doubtful whether Arizona would currently enjoy the lowest rates of violent and property crime in decades. [That is called bait and switch Mr. Bill Montgomery. You just said that the RICO laws are only used against victimless crimes committed by organized crime like drug dealers and prostitutes, now you are lying and saying they are used to prevent violent crime. That's a lie, you don't use the RICO laws against muggers and wife beaters. You almost exclusive use the RICO laws against people that you suspect of selling drugs.]

Our forfeiture laws successfully balance individual property rights with the imperative to disrupt criminal activity. Property owners are given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard by a court, satisfying due process requirements. [BULLSH*T!!! When you steal mommy's 2015 Mercedes, because her 17 year old son smoked a joint in it, that's not disrupting criminal activity, that's armed robbery by the police.]

They do not have to “prove their innocence,” as Avelar and Diggs wrongly claim. The state must prove to a judge under the established rules of civil procedure that the property at issue was used or acquired during the commission of a crime for financial gain, also known as racketeering. [Translation - that's making them prove their innocence in big $1,000 words] Courts have clearly found that there are no property rights to proceeds from criminal activity.

Avelar and Diggs assert that forfeiture is somehow unjust because it does not require a criminal conviction. But under their notion of justice, a drug cartel courier would be able to simply claim he was unaware of the drugs and cash stashed in his truck to foil a criminal prosecution and prevent law enforcement from seizing the contraband and drug money.

Forfeiture is designed as a civil action precisely because it targets illegal activity in which a criminal conviction would either be impossible or ineffective in stopping criminal conduct. [Translation. We don't have a shred of evidence that the people were involved in crime, so we will just use the asset forfeiture laws to steal all their property, money, cars and home unless they can prove there assets were not involved in some ambiguous crime. ]

Congress addressed many of the concerns raised by the Institute for Justice back in 2000 with the passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. And while there may be room for additional, reasonable reforms, it would be horribly misguided and potentially disastrous “simply to abolish forfeiture,” as Avelar and Diggs suggest.