纽约客近年好文集锦 政治时事4.docx

1、纽约客近年好文集锦 政治时事4TakenUnder civil forfeiture, Americans who havent been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all were losing?BY SARAH STILLMANOn a bright Thursday afternoon in 2007, Jennifer Boatright, a waitress at a Houston bar-and-grill, drove with he

2、r two young sons and her boyfriend, Ron Henderson, on U.S. 59 toward Linden, Hendersons home town, near the Texas-Louisiana border. They made the trip every April, at the first signs of spring, to walk the local wildflower trails and spend time with Hendersons father. This year, theyd decided to buy

3、 a used car in Linden, which had plenty for sale, and so they bundled their cash savings in their cars center console. Just after dusk, they passed a sign that read “Welcome to Tenaha: A little town with BIG Potential!”They pulled into a mini-mart for snacks. When they returned to the highway ten mi

4、nutes later, Boatright, a honey-blond “Texas redneck from Lubbock,” by her own reckoning, and Henderson, who is Latino, noticed something strange. The same police car that their eleven-year-old had admired in the mini-mart parking lot was trailing them. Near the city limits, a tall, bull-shouldered

5、officer named Barry Washington pulled them over.He asked if Henderson knew that hed been driving in the left lane for more than half a mile without passing.No, Henderson replied. He said hed moved into the left lane so that the police car could make its way onto the highway.Were there any drugs in t

6、he car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car.The officers found the couples cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station. In a corner there, two ta

7、bles were heaped with jewelry, DVD players, cell phones, and the like. According to the police report, Boatright and Henderson fit the profile of drug couriers: they were driving from Houston, “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics,” to Linden, “a known place to receive illegal narcoti

8、cs.” The report describes their children as possible decoys, meant to distract police as the couple breezed down the road, smoking marijuana. (None was found in the car, although Washington claimed to have smelled it.)The countys district attorney, a fifty-seven-year-old woman with feathered Charlie

9、s Angels hair named Lynda K. Russell, arrived an hour later. Russell, who moonlighted locally as a country singer, told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their chi

10、ldren would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.“Where are we?” Boatright r

11、emembers thinking. “Is this some kind of foreign country, where theyre selling peoples kids off?” Holding her sixteen-month-old on her hip, she broke down in tears.Later, she learned that cash-for-freedom deals had become a point of pride for Tenaha, and that versions of the tactic were used across

12、the country. “Be safe and keep up the good work,” the city marshal wrote to Washington, following a raft of complaints from out-of-town drivers who claimed that they had been stopped in Tenaha and stripped of cash, valuables, and, in at least one case, an infant child, without clear evidence of cont

13、raband.Outraged by their experience in Tenaha, Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson helped to launch a class-action lawsuit challenging the abuse of a legal doctrine known as civil-asset forfeiture. “Have you looked it up?” Boatright asked me when I met her this spring at Houstons H&H Saloon, where

14、she runs Steak Night every Monday. She was standing at a mattress-size grill outside. “Itll blow your mind.”The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing. It enables authorities to confiscate cash or property obtained through illicit means, and, in many states, funnel the proceeds directl

15、y into the fight against crime. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, cops drive a Cadillac Escalade stencilled with the words “This Used To Be a Drug Dealers Car, Now Its Ours!” In Monroe, North Carolina, police recently proposed using forty-four thousand dollars in confiscated drug money to buy a surveillance drone

16、, which might be deployed to catch fleeing suspects, conduct rescue missions, and, perhaps, seize more drug money. Hundreds of state and federal laws authorize forfeiture for cockfighting, drag racing, basement gambling, endangered-fish poaching, securities fraud, and countless other misdeeds.In gen

17、eral, you neednt be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offens

18、e before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owners guilt or innocence.One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Po

19、unds of Shark Fins. (Jennifer Boatright and Ron Hendersons forfeiture was slugged State of Texas v. $6,037.) “The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window,” Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A pie

20、ce of property does not share the rights of a person. Theres no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundr

21、ed dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve.The tangled nature of the process became clear when I spoke to Nelly Moreira, a stout, curly-haired custodian who lives in Northwest D.C. Moreira relied on her 2005 Honda Accord to

22、drive from her early-morning job, cleaning Trinity Washington University, to her evening job, cleaning the U.S. Treasury Department. In March, 2012, her son was driving her car when he was pulled over for a minor traffic violation, and, after a pat down, was found to have a handgun. He was arrested,

23、 and her car was seized. Moreira, who grew up in El Salvador, explained in Spanish that she received a letter in the mail two months later asking her to pay a bond of one thousand and twenty dollarswhich she took to be the fee to get her car back. Desperate, she borrowed cash from friends and family

24、 to cover the bond, which is known in D.C. law as a “penal sum.” If she hadnt, the car would have been auctioned off, or put to use by the police. But all that the money bought her was the right to a complex and slow-moving civil-forfeiture court case.She was left struggling to make her car payments

25、 each month as her Honda sat in a city lot, unused and unsheltered from the elements. The bond, the loans, and the public-transportation costs added up. “There were days I didnt have a good meal,” she told me in February, sitting beneath her daughters quinceaera portrait in her narrow fuchsia-painte

26、d row house.The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia won the release of Moreiras car last summer, and in May filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of approximately three hundred and seventy-five car owners like Moreira. Describing the policy as “devastating for hundreds of famil

27、ies who depend on their cars for many of the urgent and important tasks of daily life,” it called for higher standards of proof and the end of penal-sum fees. At a public hearing on July 11th, D.C.s attorney general, Irvin Nathan, acknowledged “very real problems” relating to due-process rights. But

28、 he warned that millions of dollars raised by forfeiture “could very easily be lost” and “an unreasonable burden” placed on his office if the reforms supported by the Public Defender Service were enacted. He proposed more modest changes that would leave the current burden of proof untouched.“We all

29、know the way things are right nowbudgets are tight,” Steve Westbrook, the executive director of the Sheriffs Association of Texas, says. “Its definitely a valuable asset to law enforcement, for purchasing equipment and getting things you normally wouldnt be able to get to fight crime.” Many officers

30、 contend that their departments would collapse if the practice were too heavily regulated, and that a valuable public-safety measure would be lost.But a system that proved successful at wringing profits from drug cartels and white-collar fraudsters has also given rise to corruption and violations of

31、 civil liberties. Over the past year, I spoke with more than a hundred police officers, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and forfeiture plaintiffs from across the country. Many expressed concern that state laws designed to go after high-flying crime lords are routinely targeting the workaday

32、homes, cars, cash savings, and other belongings of innocent people who are never charged with a crime.When Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson complained to the county in the hope of retrieving their savings, they got another surprise. Lynda Russell, the district attorney, told them she had warned

33、“repeatedly” that they did not have to sign the waiver, but, if they continued to contest it, they could be indicted on felony charges. “I will contact you and give you an opportunity to turn yourself in without having an officer come to your door,” she wrote in a letter mentioning the prospect of a grand jury. Once again,