383
submitted 11 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

A North Carolina teenager was hoping to get her life back on track after a state judge ordered a man who sexually abused her to pay her $69,000. Instead, she got a nasty surprise.

The local police department had already seized the cash through civil asset forfeiture, and it was already gone. Despite a judge's order, she will get nothing.

The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police—and of how the federal government allows state and local police to evade reforms to stop forfeiture abuse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] some_guy 130 points 11 months ago

The judge should make the dept pay her. How is this not the automatic result? I know, don’t explain it to me. I’m just mad.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 104 points 11 months ago

Yeah, the money's not gone. We know where it went, and there was no actual crime related to the money.

Civil forfeiture is state-sponsored theft.

[-] SARGEx117@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Don't worry about silly things like rights. You have no rights and no property if the proper authority arbitrarily decides you don't.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

"Rights don't exist if someone can take them away" - Carlin

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Can't most departments seize for feds and get a cut in return, state civil asset forfeiture is getting less common because it's getting easier to fight because it's more known and everyone thinks it's idiotic.

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
383 points (99.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7114 readers
577 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS