[alex_wlu_82]

I just saw on the news that police in Brampton seized close to 3M in cash and jewelry as well as 700 pounds of gear. This got me thinking: where does the money go? I know where the weed goes.. burned by the police (in more ways than one, me thinks)

[OldManMac]

I don't know about Canada, but here in the U. S., it is kept by whatever police agency confiscated it, after conviction.

[faragbre967]

If it's a corrupt police station they'll sell the drugs for money. But if they just confiscate money, then they keep it.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by faragbre967:
If it's a corrupt police station they'll sell the drugs for money. But if they just confiscate money, then they keep it.

Keep it and spend it on what? Squad cars? Hookers?

[mdc]

that could buy *a lot* of donuts

[mixin visuals]

its common knowledge that whenever a drug bust occurs, and money is found, each cop that is involved in the bust splits the "winnings". the money is automatically used to purchase stock in krispy kreme and distributed between them

this is the reason krispy kreme gained such fame

[djohnson]

The money goes to help pay for the police department. I think they have to keep it for a year or something like that first.

[d4nth3m4n]

arent there a sleu of "funds" that a police station supports?- like the defensive driver fund.

and the jimmy fund.


...something.

[Shaddim]

It's used as "setup cash" for future stings, bribe money for informants, new gear, and general expenditures. Here in Knoxville they have a few "trophy" cars seized from drug raids that are used to show that they can take a drug dealer's "bling bling�" away.

[ThinkInsane]

I think it probably varies from state to state, but here in New York it goes into regional accounts to support multi-jurisdictional drug task forces. Our local Sheriff's Dept. takes cool cars that have been confiscated, decals them like Sheriff's patrol cars, and use them for the DARE program.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, our department has a kick-ass black Z06 that was seized and put KPD emblems on the sides. Looks very intimidating.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I believe if it is a federal crime, the money just goes to the Treasury. The same goes for seized property that is auctioned off. For example, cars, houses, etc used as instrumentalities of the crime.

I have heard that some states will directly use the seized property that they seize. I seem to recall a few years ago that North Carolina (I think) outfitted its state troopers with seized fast cars. I remember seeing Porches with police lights. Very odd. But quick.

One of the more amusing cases I read was a person who was a drug dealer. He had paid his taxes on his illegal earnings in order to keep the IRS from investigating his suspicious income. But eventually he was caught for the drug dealing and his earnings were seized. So he applied for a refund of the taxes he paid on his now-seized earnings. The tax court said no.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by mdc:
that could buy *a lot* of donuts

Jelly filled my friend. Now that's living it up.

[wdlove]

That is my understanding also, that the money goes to the police department that confiscated during a drug bust. If they also get items of value that hold occasional auctions to the public.

[djohnson]

When I was in school, they would show the confiscated cars, well the cool ones, in the city rodeo parade. They were pretty cool... all decked out in police logos and what not.

[DeathToWindows]

I don;t know waht happens to teh cash, but phys. objects are auctioned off...

[zigzag]

This is one of the major problems with the so-called drug war - the cops have a vested interest in perpetuating it. It's corrupting and another good reason to legalize.[/rant]

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, our department has a kick-ass black Z06 that was seized and put KPD emblems on the sides. Looks very intimidating.

I have a friend from Detroit who says he's seen a Z06 cop car driving around. Ain't no running away from that ****. Heh.

[Rain]

Originally posted by zigzag:
This is one of the major problems with the so-called drug war - the cops have a vested interest in perpetuating it. It's corrupting and another good reason to legalize.[/rant]

Yep. See "Training Day" for Hollywood's dramatization of it.

ETA: Brampton sure is getting a lot of press today. I just read about an NHLer who's from Brampton was charged for hiring a hitman to kill someone.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
I have a friend from Detroit who says he's seen a Z06 cop car driving around. Ain't no running away from that ****. Heh.

All the good State cops around here drive pimped out Cameros. And you can't tell them from normal cars because have no visible lights (They are all in the tinted areas of the car)

[iNub]

Let me get this straight. The police are seizing this money and property, and giving it to ... themselves? It seems really morally wrong to use the money confiscated from a crime, for anything. I'm not sure what else you could do with it, though.

I'm with you, whoever-you-are! Legalize everything, now. The problem will take care of itself. The dealers will lose their primary motivation for dealing, insane profits. The users would ... err ... overdose. Crime would drop, my city would stop sucking, and .... that'll never happen.

[James L]

iNub,

Police investigations ain't cheap... they can run into the millions per investigation. Why not use the money they got from the losers against them? It is better than raising property taxes yet again to pay for it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by James L:
iNub,

Police investigations ain't cheap... they can run into the millions per investigation. Why not use the money they got from the losers against them? It is better than raising property taxes yet again to pay for it.

It makes sense from an economic standpoint, but public policy shouldn't be based solely on economic factors. It's difficult to make rational decisions about drug policy when police departments have a vested economic interest in perpetuating existing laws.

Besides, if one wants to make an economic argument, the overall societal costs of the so-called drug war are far greater than the benefits to police departments. It would be cheaper overall to change the drug laws and give police departments more funding out of tax revenues than to continue the present policy.

[James L]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It makes sense from an economic standpoint, but public policy shouldn't be based solely on economic factors. It's difficult to make rational decisions about drug policy when police departments have a vested economic interest in perpetuating existing laws.

Besides, if one wants to make an economic argument, the overall societal costs of the so-called drug war are far greater than the benefits to police departments. It would be cheaper overall to change the drug laws and give police departments more funding out of tax revenues than to continue the present policy.

I actually agree with that to an extent. It all depends on what we are considering "drugs". I do not ever want to see the day come where we legitimize the use of crack, cocaine, heroin, PCP, Meth, etc. I work in health care and the effects of these drugs, on the innocents as much as on the users, can be devastating.

Now, pot on the other hand, I agree with. The laws that govern the use of marajuana are pretty archaic, especially considering the effects of alcohol and tobbaco on society and its health.. two drugs the government not only considers legal, but taxes to death.

Having said that, we live in the real world, and the reality is North American nations are not about to legalize the use of drugs, especially the hard ones, anytime soon. I don't necessarily agree with your comment "police departments have a vested economic interest in perpetuating existing laws" for the following reasons:

A) I personally know many cops who feel the same way I do about decriminalizing certain drugs (pot specifically).

B) Police enforce laws, not write them.

C) As a close friend said to me once "a person who says police officers want to be doing drug busts has never been shot at, and stabbed at, by a meth'd out loser who they are trying to take down".

So, what is the solution? While I don't disagree with your arguement, it ain't gonna happen. We are left with the fact that police need to perform these investigations and arrests, that they are very costly, and that the money needs to be obtained from somewhere. Given that reality, I would rather see the loser drug dealers money turned against them, whether morally correct or not, than see it come out of my tax dollars.

[macvillage.net]

I know in many cases the "assets" (cars, homes, any legal goods) are auctioned... often at a really good price.

I know people who have walked away from these auctions and resold things for quite a profit. On TV they showed a guy who made that his business. Does it around the country. And generates a TON of cash. Simply because he buys this stuff (cars, boats, computers, stereo equipment, you name it) at auction, and sells it for what it's really worth (auctions are often stupid and underadvertised, so if your smart, you can do well).

Walks away with a nice legal profit.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by James L:
I actually agree with that to an extent. It all depends on what we are considering "drugs". I do not ever want to see the day come where we legitimize the use of crack, cocaine, heroin, PCP, Meth, etc. I work in health care and the effects of these drugs, on the innocents as much as on the users, can be devastating.

Now, pot on the other hand, I agree with. The laws that govern the use of marajuana are pretty archaic, especially considering the effects of alcohol and tobbaco on society and its health.. two drugs the government not only considers legal, but taxes to death.

Having said that, we live in the real world, and the reality is North American nations are not about to legalize the use of drugs, especially the hard ones, anytime soon. I don't necessarily agree with your comment "police departments have a vested economic interest in perpetuating existing laws" for the following reasons:

A) I personally know many cops who feel the same way I do about decriminalizing certain drugs (pot specifically).

B) Police enforce laws, not write them.

C) As a close friend said to me once "a person who says police officers want to be doing drug busts has never been shot at, and stabbed at, by a meth'd out loser who they are trying to take down".

So, what is the solution? While I don't disagree with your arguement, it ain't gonna happen. We are left with the fact that police need to perform these investigations and arrests, that they are very costly, and that the money needs to be obtained from somewhere. Given that reality, I would rather see the loser drug dealers money turned against them, whether morally correct or not, than see it come out of my tax dollars.

I agree with you to a large degree as well. There are a lot of cops who, in private, recognize that the drug war is misguided. However, a sort of institutional dependency has evolved, an infrastructure. If the drug laws were significantly changed, a lot of funding would dry up (along with the forfeitures), and a lot of people would be out of work. The only people willing to speak up about it are a few federal judges - who can't lose their jobs - and the occasional brave politician.

We know that once a bureaucracy is established, it's extremely difficult to scale it back or dismantle it. Cops don't write the laws but, institutionally, they have a good deal of influence over them.

That's not to say that there aren't sincere proponents of the drug war, only that it's difficult to have a rational debate about it. And it isn't just the infrastructure - it's the public's uninformed hysteria, which the politicians play to.

I can respect the idea that some drugs are simply too dangerous to tolerate and that therefore the drug war is worth the trouble, but I mostly disagree with it. I think it causes far more problems than it solves, for reasons that are well-expressed elsewhere.

In any event, while I understand the economic argument, I think it's dangerous to give law enforcement a direct economic interest in busting people. I also think the current forfeiture laws fall somewhere seriously short of due process, but the Supreme Court has disagreed with me so there's not much I can do about it. I do think that if the drug laws were changed, it would remove a lot of the criminal economic incentive and render this debate somewhat moot.

Of course, a lot of the resources that presently support the enforcement infrastructure would be shifted to an education/treatment infrastructure (which can be equally greedy and inert), but I think we'd be better off overall.

Thanks for your comments.