E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Tibbs calls for more transparency on civil asset forfeiture

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Thou shalt not steal. -- Exodus 20:15

The most important duty elected officials have is to protect the rights of the people they serve. In order to protect those rights, everything government does, including in the arena of law enforcement, needs to be as transparent as possible. That is why I am calling for more transparency on civil asset forfeiture and why I believe the Bloomington City Council needs to pressure both the mayor and the police department to be more transparent.

Back in February, I submitted several questions to the Bloomington Police Department regarding civil asset forfeiture. One of those questions was how much money and property is confiscated on an annual basis through civil asset forfeiture. The BPD refused to answer that question, citing those figures as "investigatory records." This is not an acceptable answer and is one area where the city council should demand more transparency.

Obviously, the results of an active, ongoing investigation can be sensitive information and disclosing certain information publicly can compromise the results of that investigation. No one wants to see the guilty go unpunished because too much was disclosed. But we also live in a constitutional republic where due process rights and private property rights are critical to our liberty. In order to ensure government is not trampling on those rights, we need government (including law enforcement) to be transparent.

I simply do not buy the argument that disclosing how much money and/or property is confiscated on an annual basis would compromise ongoing investigations. One does not need to specify how much money or property was taken from a specific person in order to disclose the total amount of money and property confiscated. The city council should act in their role as watchdogs to pressure the administration to be more transparent.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.