As part of the ruling, the judge notes "Through the pendency of this litigation, nearly all Plaintiffs and class members have had their seized property returned".
Basically, the FBI in this case actually did give nearly all the property back. Seems like a win right?
Not actually -- I don't think the FBI necessarily expected this case to blow up like this, so they're going back to their favorite playbook.
Make the facts of the case most favorable, so the judge will be inclined to rule on the law itself. In other words, the FBI wanted a favorable ruling, so it returned everything.
If there was no suit, was no publicity, would the FBI have returned nearly as much? I doubt it. Civil asset forfeiture needs an examination in this country.
> In other words, the FBI wanted a favorable ruling, so it returned everything.
How and why does the FBI work against the interests of the public (i.e. property rights)? Do they simply get to keep the proceeds of the seizure, which would be a perverse incentive?
The DoJ gets to keep the money from what I understand. On the Federal level this is the better version, because at least it needs to be reappropriated to the department through institutions.
At many local level states, literally the police dept gets to keep the money and fund e.g. bonuses using them, which is really a peverse on the ground incentive.
Basically, the FBI in this case actually did give nearly all the property back. Seems like a win right?
Not actually -- I don't think the FBI necessarily expected this case to blow up like this, so they're going back to their favorite playbook.
Make the facts of the case most favorable, so the judge will be inclined to rule on the law itself. In other words, the FBI wanted a favorable ruling, so it returned everything.
If there was no suit, was no publicity, would the FBI have returned nearly as much? I doubt it. Civil asset forfeiture needs an examination in this country.