ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7pzv60 wrote

I contacted James Arciero about it almost a year ago. This was his office's response:

>Civil asset forfeiture seems to be an issue whose time has come and gone. We do not see any momentum for its increased use as a tool of law enforcement.

Unfortunately he had no primary challenger last election. Plus I took it to mean that he doesn't really have the pull in the statehouse to get anything done about it.


ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7p1wyv wrote

>To seize money or property under civil forfeiture rules, the state needs to show there's "probable cause" that it's connected to the criminal activity, Fick explained. If someone wants the seized assets back, he said, it's their responsibility to bring an action to prove it wasn't connected to an offense.

Just a reminder that civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery.

>The state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2018 that civil forfeitures in the Farak and Dookhan cases do not need to be returned.

I don't understand how they can vacate all of those convictions, but keep the money they stole from them.


ak47workaccnt t1_j66gqby wrote

What the heck is "sea-lioning"?

Nvm. It's like the brother of the gish gallop. Instead of giving an overwhelming number of arguments, they overwhelm you with requests for debate and "evidence".