IP: Re: Asset forfeitures - piracy (fwd)

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: shapj () us ibm com
> X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
>
>
> I am struck by three simple and obvious counterbalances that do not appear to be
> under consideration:
>
> The first is a law mandating the prompt (90 days or less) return of property
> deemed to be seized from innocent parties.  That is, if law enforcement preempts
> due process by seizure, they should be prepared to immediately demonstrate
> guilt.
>
> The second is a law mandating that when property is jointly held by an innocent
> party and a suspect, the innocent party should receive proportional
> compensation.  I am mindful of the loss of house and home experienced by
> innocent spouses.
>
> The third is a requirement that property returned following seizure should be
> accompanied by compensatory interest at somewhere between 2% and 5% *per day*,
> or alternatively that the seizing agency should be required to pay damages under
> the usual 3x rule within 90 days.
>
>
> The problem is not that property is being seized.  The problem is that due
> process is being evaded and there is no accountability for error.  If a law
> enforcement agency had to pay for its mistakes, the incentive system would
> ensure that seizure occurred only under suitable certainty.
>
> Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
> IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
> Email: shapj () us ibm com
> Phone: +1 914 784 7085  (Tieline: 863)
> Fax: +1 914 784 7595