https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3274&year=2024

What do we think about the various civil asset forfeiture reform measures in the legislature? Might they pass?


If I ever met Karl Rhoads in person I'd encourage him to spend his time on measures like these and not gun reform measures. Something positive to say about the guy, no?

(He's also a great gun salesman, but I digress.)

I don't trust him. There must be an angle or agenda.

i'm just speculating here, but a lot of CAF loot winds up in the hands of the feds, with a small percentage going to the local LE that did the seizure.

With police budgets in HI being very tight, and departments under-manned, it may be that he doesn't see the reward for HI officers and lawyers doing the work.

Normally, CAF takes the form of money laundering or money running between drug business groups/individuals.  That can fall under the DEA, which of course is federal.

Then again, maybe he's acting preemptively as he could be involved in shenanigans which put him at risk for having his assets seized.

I'd like to think it's because the practice of taking people's cash and vehicles with the requirement they prove they were not the proceeds or assets used in criminal activity is unconstitutional -- most people have about $1K seized, and even if they tried to prove the cash was "innocent" of any wrong-doing, the lawyer and time needed to get your cash back isn't worth it.

i'd really like to think that, but I don't believe these people have any qualms about restricting our rights.

i'm just speculating here, but a lot of CAF loot winds up in the hands of the feds, with a small percentage going to the local LE that did the seizure.

With police budgets in HI being very tight, and departments under-manned, it may be that he doesn't see the reward for HI officers and lawyers doing the work.

Normally, CAF takes the form of money laundering or money running between drug business groups/individuals.  That can fall under the DEA, which of course is federal.

Then again, maybe he's acting preemptively as he could be involved in shenanigans which put him at risk for having his assets seized.

I'd like to think it's because the practice of taking people's cash and vehicles with the requirement they prove they were not the proceeds or assets used in criminal activity is unconstitutional -- most people have about $1K seized, and even if they tried to prove the cash was "innocent" of any wrong-doing, the lawyer and time needed to get your cash back isn't worth it.

i'd really like to think that, but I don't believe these people have any qualms about restricting our rights.

The amount split between the feds and the states really depends on the nature of the particular case. If the feds and local agencies worked together it can be split up according to amount seized and how much each side did for the case.

Hawaii state asset forfeiture has much fewer teeth than federal asset forfeiture laws so it is much easier for the feds to forfeit things than the local cops here. There are much fewer citizen protections on the fed side. Overall there seems to be a national trend to cut back on forfeiture powers and it seems Hawaii is following suit.

This push is actually more of a liberal trend right now, guess you are part lib Flapp. 

The amount split between the feds and the states really depends on the nature of the particular case. If the feds and local agencies worked together it can be split up according to amount seized and how much each side did for the case.

Hawaii state asset forfeiture has much fewer teeth than federal asset forfeiture laws so it is much easier for the feds to forfeit things than the local cops here. There are much fewer citizen protections on the fed side. Overall there seems to be a national trend to cut back on forfeiture powers and it seems Hawaii is following suit.

This push is actually more of a liberal trend right now, guess you are part lib Flapp. 

Still trying to pick a fight, i see.  Pathetic.


Since when is opposing the systemic violation of basic constitutional rights and protections a liberal ideal?  i would have you observe to the political leanings of most of those opposed to the Second Amendment.

There is a libertarian and an authoritarian side to every argument. Because of the nature of the USA's two-party system, politicians who are on the libertarian side regarding self-defense rights are often on the authoritarian side of civil asset forfeiture. And vice versa.

The discourse can be elevated beyond weaponized terms like "liberal" and "socialist".

One should only trust the government has their best interest with a grain of salt.

Remember that other post about CAF and how the safety deposit company was under investigation and the warrant applied to only that company. But instead, the feds ceased everyones stuff and it took a lawsuit that took years to decide on to get their property back from the feds.  Unknown if the feds actually gave it back or not.

Still trying to pick a fight, i see.  Pathetic.

I didn't actually think you were a liberal, it was a joke... 

There is a libertarian and an authoritarian side to every argument. Because of the nature of the USA's two-party system, politicians who are on the libertarian side regarding self-defense rights are often on the authoritarian side of civil asset forfeiture. And vice versa.

The discourse can be elevated beyond weaponized terms like "liberal" and "socialist".

An astute observation.

There is a libertarian and an authoritarian side to every argument. Because of the nature of the USA's two-party system, politicians who are on the libertarian side regarding self-defense rights are often on the authoritarian side of civil asset forfeiture. And vice versa.

The discourse can be elevated beyond weaponized terms like "liberal" and "socialist".

I never met a real Libertarian/conservative that was for Confiscation of property without
due process - you get bonded or released on PR  out of jail,  your confiscated property, all of it, must
be returned at the same time.
Another thing I'd change is speedy trial. if you haven't had a trial for a non-violent crime within two weeks
you are freed "without prejudice".
Will make our legal system dramatically different.
Will also create food and big box store deserts.
 

An astute observation.

Not really. it assumes there's a libertarian side of politics, and anyone paying a minimum amount of attention has come to realize that the only official choices are between Coke and Pepsi flavored totalitarianism

Not really. it assumes there's a libertarian side of politics, and anyone paying a minimum amount of attention has come to realize that the only official choices are between Coke and Pepsi flavored totalitarianism

"the only official choices are between Coke and Pepsi flavored totalitarianism"
In many places you are absolutely correct!
Most large cities only have one flavor.
Hawaii doesn't have legal cities so We all have the single flavor choice, town of Honolulu.
 

I didn't actually think you were a liberal, it was a joke... 

Using humor directed at someone who doesn't think you're funny isn't a smart tactic.

 

he/she has demonstrated over and over that humor is not his/her forte'

Using humor directed at someone who doesn't think you're funny isn't a smart tactic.

 

Using humor directed at someone who doesn't think you're funny isn't a smart tactic.

 

I'll keep that in mind when sending out invitations to my stand up routine. In all fairness it was my mistake, I should have remembered  you would turn everything into a fight.

I'll keep that in mind when sending out invitations to my stand up routine. In all fairness it was my mistake, I should have remembered  you would turn everything into a fight.

Almost a good admission of being wrong...

Almost a good admission of being wrong...

Comedians don't "send out invitations" to get people to come watch ...

... unless they are performing in their grade school talent show.

Comedians don't "send out invitations" to get people to come watch ...

... unless they are performing in their grade school talent show.

As someone would say to make a thread go on and on and on unnecessarily, there is at least 1 comedian who did in the entire world and in since the comedian title or reference was created. So you sir are wrong about that. And as an example: The sky is blue because we see blue.

As someone would say to make a thread go on and on and on unnecessarily,

Recognizing yourself in a mirror is a measure of intelligence, apparently one you don't meet.

Recognizing yourself in a mirror is a measure of intelligence, apparently one you don't meet.

You're going to have to let us know when you're joking and when you're serious. 

Honestly, I can't tell the difference when almost all your comments appear semi-facetious.