U.S. Police/Agents Can Seize and Forfeit Your House
For What You Say
At Alcohol/Drug Recovery Meetings
Should Congress pass laws that protect alcohol and drug recovery meetings from police spies and quasi-government-agents?
There is no precedent case law that will absolutely prevent what people say at Alcohol and Drug Recovery meetings from being used against them in a criminal or civil court.
Many drug and alcohol addicted persons who attend recovery meetings become dependent on group support to break their addiction. Commonly they share information about themselves with their recovery support group that relates to their illegal drug-use and/or alcohol problems. Consequently it is not surprising addicted alcoholics and drug-users believe "that" what they say in an Alcohol or Drug recovery group meeting is "confidential" and will not leave the room when the meeting is over. That is why alcohol and drug recovery-meetings are Bonanza of information for undercover police and quasi-government-agents that attend recovery meetings.
Quasi-government-agents are "civilian operatives" private contractors, that operate with state and/or federal government clearances to cause the arrest of people, gain information and cause the forfeiture of a person's' property believed involved in crime: Quasi-government agents work for themselves and may not follow the law. They are highly motivated by large "asset forfeiture commissions." Several thousand Quasi-government agents operate in the U.S. They can be paid up to 50% the value a home or other property they cause to be forfeited by the police/government. When the Federal Government uses "Civil Asset Forfeiture" to seize a home, sometimes the only "civil evidence" is the quasi-agent's testimony who is involved. Government is only required to show a "preponderance of evidence", little more than hearsay to forfeit your house. Effective in 2000, the federal five-year statute of limitations to civilly forfeit property starts from time police allege they learned a property became subject to forfeiture.
How to Lose Your House at an Alcohol/Drug Recovery Meeting:
Example: A "woman" while attending an alcohol recovery meeting believed talking about a personal problem that caused her to start drinking again would help her recovery. The woman told the recovery group she discovered her husband at home doing illegal-drugs. A female quasi-government-agent that trolls recovery meetings for information was sitting in the room. The woman's house is worth $300,000. The quasi-government-agent sees the woman's problem with her husband as a $300,000 opportunity to forfeit her house. The female-agent knows she can get up to half its value if she can prove by using a "low standard of evidence" the woman's home was involved with illegal-drugs, even a small amount of drugs.
Because the quasi-government-agent heard the "woman" at the alcohol recovery meeting state she was "drinking again," the agent knows its possible the "woman" was delusional or mistaken about her husband's illegal drugs at her house. The Quasi-government-agent not to lose her "huge forfeiture commission" along with the assisting police, may have to create a preponderance of civil hearsay evidence showing the woman's husband had illegal drugs at her property before police can seize her home. This is a forfeiture agent's dream: the woman by talking at an alcohol recovery meeting about what caused her drinking, made her home subject to civil forfeiture by police. Current Civil Asset Forfeiture Law presumes the woman's home is guilty because she admitted she knew her husband had illegal drugs at her property and she did not act to stop it.
Consequently if the Quasi-government-agent or those assisting the agent are corrupt and frame the woman's house with hearsay evidence or plant drugs to forfeit it, no one of course will believe it because the "woman" told her alcohol recovery group that her husband had illegal drugs at her home.
Many persons who attend alcohol/drug recovery meetings don't believe undercover police and government agents attend recovery meetings to glean information that can be used to arrest people and forfeit property. Considering the huge amount of cash police and Quasi-government-agents realize from setting up property for asset forfeiture, with little oversight, with such financial incentives it would appear impossible to keep these people from spying on Alcohol and Drug Recovery meetings.