Picture yourself driving down the road tomorrow,
想象你明天沿着公路行驶，
heading somewhere to buy an item you found on Craigslist, perhaps a nice mountain bike for 3,000 dollars.
前去购买Craigslist上淘到的好东西，那可能是一辆价值3000美元的高级山地自行车。
At that price, it's probably one of those bikes with a little electric motor on it -- maybe some streamers from the handlebars.
在这样高的价格下，这可能是一辆有着一台小型电动马达的自行车--可能车把手上还挂着流苏飘带。
The seller has declared this a cash-only deal, so you have, in the console of your car, 3,000 dollars. Suddenly, you are pulled over.
卖家声明，这次交易只能用现金，所以你在车上的操作台里放着3000美元现金。突然间，你被警察叫停到路边。
During the stop, the officer asks, "Do you have any drugs, weapons or large amounts of cash in your car?"
警官走上前来问道，“你车里有任何毒品、武器或者大额现金吗？”
You truthfully answer, "Yes," not to the drugs or to the weapons, but to the cash.
你诚实地回答道，“是的，”不是说是有毒品或者是有武器，而是说车里有现金。
In the blink of an eye, you are ordered out of your car. The officer searches it and finds your cash.
转瞬间，你就被命令从你的车里出来。这位警官搜查了这辆车，并且发现了你放的现金。
On the spot, he seizes it, and he says he suspects it's part of a drug crime.
他当场就没收了它，并且他声称他怀疑这些现金与毒品犯罪有关。
A few days later, the local district attorney files paperwork to keep your money -- permanently.
几天以后，当地检查官发布文件要扣留你的钱--永久性地扣留。
And all of this happens without you ever being charged or convicted of any crime.
这一切都发生在你并没有被起诉，或者没有被判定犯有任何罪状的情况下。
Now, you might be saying, "Ah, this would never happen in the United States."
你可能会说，“啊，这种情况永远不会在美国发生。”
Incidents like this occur every day in our country.
这类事情其实每天都会在我们的国家发生。
It's one of the most significant threats to your property rights most people have never even heard of. It's called "civil forfeiture."
这是对你财产权的最大威胁，大多数人甚至都没听说这类事情。这种做法叫做“民事没收”。
Most of you are generally aware of criminal forfeiture,
你们中的大多数人通常都知道“刑事没收”，
although the term itself might be a little unfamiliar, so let's begin with forfeiture.
虽然你们可能对于这个术语本身不太熟悉，所以让我们从“没收”这个词开始讲起。
When we forfeit something, we give up that thing, or we're forced to give it up.
当我们被没收某样东西时，我们是让出了那件东西，或者说我们是被迫放弃了那件东西。
In criminal forfeiture, someone is charged and convicted of a crime, and therefore, they have to give up property related to that crime.
在刑事没收中，有的人被指控并且被定罪，因此，他们必须放弃与此次犯罪有关的财产。
For example, suppose you use your car to transport and deal drugs.
比如说，假设你使用你的车去运输和进行毒品交易。
You're caught and convicted; now you have to give up or forfeit your car as part of the sentencing. That's criminal forfeiture.
你因此被抓住并被定罪；这时你就不得不在判决过程中交出，或者说让执法机关没收你的车。这就是刑事没收。
But in civil forfeiture, no person is charged with a crime -- the property is charged and convicted of a crime.
但是在民事没收中，没人会被起诉任何罪行--而财产本身会被起诉并且被定罪。
You heard that correctly: the government actually convicts an inanimate object with a crime.
你们没听错：政府真的可以给无生命的物品定罪。
It's as if that thing itself committed the crime.
这就好比物品自己犯了罪一样。
That's why civil forfeiture cases have these really peculiar names, like, "The United States of America v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."
这就是为什么民事没收案件通常有一些非常奇怪的名字，比如说，“美国起诉1990年产福特雷鸟轿车”。
Or "The State of Oklahoma v. 53,234 Dollars in Cash."
或者是“俄克拉荷马州起诉53234美元现金”。
Or my personal favorite: "The United States of America v. One Solid Gold Object in the Form of a Rooster."
或者是我最爱的案件名：“美国起诉一尊公鸡形状的纯金雕塑”。
Now, you're thinking: How does something like this happen?
你们应该在想：怎么会发生这种事？
That's exactly what I said when I first learned about civil forfeiture while on a road trip with my wife. No, we did not get pulled over.
我第一次了解到民事没收时也是怎么说的，当时我正和妻子在长途旅行的车上。不过，我们并没有被叫停到路边。
I was reading about the history of civil forfeiture as part of my work as a research director at the law firm,
我当时正在读关于民事没收的历史，这是我作为法律公司研究总监的一部分工作，
and I came across one of the cases I just mentioned, "The United States of America v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."
然后我就看到了我刚才提到的众多案例中的一件，“美国起诉1990年产福特雷鸟轿车”。
In that case, Carol Thomas loaned her car to her son.
这起案件中，卡罗尔·托马斯把她的车贷款卖给了她的儿子。
While in the car, her son committed a minor drug crime.
而她的儿子在车里进行了一次轻微的毒品犯罪。
Carol didn't commit any crime, so law enforcement couldn't convict her and take the car,
卡罗尔没有犯任何罪，所以执法人员不能给她定罪并没收这辆车，
but they could -- and did -- use civil forfeiture to "convict the car" and take it.
但是他们可以，并且也的确使用民事没收给这辆车“定罪”并没收了它。
Carol was completely innocent, but she lost her car nonetheless.
卡罗尔完全是无辜的，但不管怎样，她还是失去了她的车。
In other words, she was punished for a crime she did not commit.
换句话说，她因她并没有犯下的罪行而受到了惩罚。
When I read this, I was gobsmacked. How could this occur? How is this even legal?
当我读到这儿时，简直目瞪口呆。这样的事情怎么可能发生呢？这怎么能是合法的呢？
It turns out, it began in our country with maritime law.
原来，民事没收最早出现在我国的海商法中。
Early in our republic, the government sought to fight piracy -- yes, actual pirates.
在建国初期，政府致力于抗击海盗劫掠--是的，是真正的海盗。
The problem was the government often couldn't catch the pirates,
问题在于，政府经常无法抓到海盗，
so instead it used civil forfeiture to convict the pirates' property and take it, and therefore deny the pirates their illegal profits.
取而代之的是，政府使用民事没收给海盗的资产定罪，并且进行没收，以此来收走海盗的不法资产。
Of course, the government could've simply taken and kept the booty without necessarily using civil forfeiture,
当然，政府本可以不利用民事没收，而干脆直接收缴并保留这些赃物，
but doing so would have violated our most basic due process and property rights.
但是这样做就会违反我们最基本的正当法律程序和财产所有权。
Now, the government rarely used civil forfeiture until the 1980s and the war on drugs.
直到20世纪80年代，政府都很少使用民事没收，接着禁毒战争就来了。
We expanded civil forfeiture law to cover drug crimes and then later, other types of crime.
我们把民事没收法扩充到了毒品犯罪领域，后来又涵盖了其它各种类型的犯罪。
Canada and the European Union adopted similar provisions
加拿大和欧盟也采取了类似的法规，
so that now all kinds of people are ensnared in the forfeiture web, people like Russ Caswell.
以至于现在各种各样的人都陷入了民事没收的泥淖中，比如罗斯·卡斯韦尔。
Russ Caswell owned a small budget motel in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.
罗斯·卡斯韦尔在马萨诸塞州图克斯伯里拥有一家小型的廉价汽车旅馆。
His father built the motel in 1955, and Russ took it over in the 1980s.
他的父亲在1955年建造了旅馆，罗斯在1980年代接手了它。
During the years that Russ owned the motel, from time to time, people would rent rooms, and they would commit drug crimes.
在罗斯拥有旅馆的那些年里，不时地，有人们会租用房间，并在里面进行毒品犯罪。
Russ didn't condone the activities -- in fact, whenever he found out about it, he would immediately call police.
罗斯那时并没有纵容这些行为--实际上，每次他发现这种事情时，他都会立马报警。
Russ was entirely innocent of any crime,
罗斯与任何罪行都是完全无关的。

but that did not stop the US Department of Justice from seizing his motel simply because other people committed crimes there.
但是这并没有阻止美国司法部查封他的汽车旅馆，仅仅因为有其他人在这里进行过犯罪。
But Russ's case was not alone. Between 1997 and 2016, the US Department of Justice took more than 635,000 properties.
但罗斯的例子并不是个例。在1997到2016年间，美国司法部没收了超过63万5千件财产。
This means each year, tens of thousands of people lose their properties in cases in which they're never charged or convicted of any crime.
这意味着每一年里，就会有数万人在从没有被起诉或者任何罪名的情况下，失去他们的财产。
And we're not necessarily talking about major drug kingpins or headline-grabbing financial fraudsters
我们讨论的并不是那些大毒枭或者那些极受关注的金融诈骗犯，
whose cases involve hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
这些人牵扯了少则几百万，多则数十万美元的案子。
Many of these seizures and forfeitures involve just everyday people like Russ Caswell or you or me. But it gets worse.
很多起查封和没收案件涉及的仅仅是普通人，就好比罗斯·卡斯韦尔，或者你们，或者我自己。还有更糟糕的。
Are you wondering: Where does all this cash and property end up?
你们有没有感到疑惑：所有这些现金和财产最后到哪里去了呢？
In most places, law enforcement keeps it.
在大多数地方，这些财物由执法机关保管。
And they use it to buy equipment or pay for building repairs or even pay salaries and overtime.
他们使用这些东西去购买设备或者进行建筑维护，甚至用以支付工资和加班费。
This is a clear conflict of interest. It creates a perverse profit incentive that can distort law enforcement.
这种行为是很明显的利益冲突。这提供了一种会扭曲执法行为的非正当利益激励。
And this is a problem that's not lost on those in law enforcement, either.
对于执法机关内部，在这件事情上没有迷失的人来说，这也同样是个问题。
Former chief of police in Rochester, Minnesota, Roger Peterson, described the choice that police officers often face.
明尼苏达州罗切斯特的前警察局长罗杰·彼得森描述了警官时常会面临的选择。
As he described it: suppose I'm a police officer, and I see a drug deal.
在他的描述中：假设我是一名警官，我看到了一场毒品交易。
Now I face a choice: Do I go after the buyer and remove from the street illegal drugs,
那么现在我就面临一个抉择：我是追寻买家并且清除街头的非法毒品呢，
or do I go after the seller and get cash for my agency to use?
还是去追逐卖家，以此为自己所在的部门谋利呢？
So it's easy to see why a police officer might go for the cash.
所以很容易就知道为什么警官可能会选择去追查现金了。
It was just such a circumstance that compelled police officers in Philadelphia to seize an entire house.
正是这样的大环境迫使费城的警官查封了一整栋房屋。
In 2014, Chris and Markela Sourovelis' son sold 40 dollars worth of drugs down the street from their house.
在2014年，克里斯和玛克拉·苏罗威利斯夫妇的儿子，在他们居住的这条街上出售了价值40美元的毒品。
Forty dollars. The police watched the deal go down.
就40美元。警察眼看着交易进行下去。
They could've arrested the buyer and confiscated the drugs, but they didn't.
他们本可以逮捕买家并且没收所购的毒品，但是他们没有这么做。
They could've arrested the Sourovelises' son right there on the street and grabbed 40 dollars. But they didn't.
他们本来可以当场在街上逮捕苏罗威利斯夫妇的儿子，并取走这40美元。但是他们也没有。
They waited to arrest him at home, because then they could seize their entire house.
他们等到他到家才开始抓捕，因为这样他们就可以收缴他们的整套房屋。
The house was worth 350,000 dollars. That is what I mean by a perverse profit incentive. But the Sourovelises' case was no outlier.
这套房子价值35万美元。这就是我所说的不正当的利益激励。但苏罗威利斯夫妇的案例并不是极端情况。
Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love," the "Athens of America," the "Cradle of Liberty," birthplace to the Constitution,
费城，被称为“友爱之城”、“美洲大陆的雅典”、“自由的摇篮”、宪法的诞生地、
home to the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, the "City that Loves you Back"
自由钟和独立纪念馆的所在地、“爱你之市”，
that Philadelphia was running a forfeiture machine.
我们所知的那个费城，正开动着一台“没收机器”。
Between 2002 and 2016, Philadelphia took more than 77 million dollars through forfeiture, including 1,200 homes.
在2002到2016年间，费城通过没收获得了超过7700万美元，其中包括1200栋房屋。
Cars, jewelry, electronics -- all of it they sold, the proceeds they kept.
汽车、珠宝、电子产品--他们把所有通过变卖所产生的收益据为己有。
And they would have kept right on doing it, had it not been for a class-action lawsuit -- our team's class-action lawsuit -- Thank you.
而且他们会持续不断地这样做，直到发生了一场集体诉讼--一场由我们团队提出的集体诉讼。谢谢。
We forced them to change their forfeiture practices and to compensate victims.
我们强制他们改变了他们的没收行为并且去赔偿受害者。
When our team first began researching forfeiture in 2007, we had no idea how much forfeiture revenue there was. In fact, no one knew.
当我们的团队在2007年首次研究民事没收时，我们完全不知道没收所带来的收入能有多少。事实上，当时没有任何人知道。
It wasn't until our groundbreaking study, "Policing for Profit,"
直到我们突破性的研究，“警察为盈利而执法”的出现，
that we found federal law enforcement agencies have taken in almost 40 billion dollars -- billion with a B, since 2001,
我们发现联邦执法部门自从2001年起已经没收了接近400亿美元，单位是亿，
more than 80 percent of that through civil forfeiture.
其中超过80%的金额是通过民事没收得到的。
Unfortunately, we have no idea how much state and local agencies have taken in, because in many states, they don't have to report it.
然而遗憾的是，我们完全不知道州和地方机关没收了多少，因为很多州无需上报这项数字。
So until we reform forfeiture, we'll never know how much forfeiture activity actually occurs in the United States.
所以直到我们对没收进行改革前，我们都不会知道美国到底发生了多少次民事没收行为。
And we desperately need reform. Legislatures should abolish civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture.
我们迫切地需要进行改革。立法机关应该废除民事没收，并且用刑事没收来替代它。
And all forfeiture proceeds should go to a neutral fund such as a general fund.
所有的没收产生的收益都应该放进市场中性基金里，比如普通基金里。
When forfeiture proceeds stop hitting law enforcement budgets directly, that is when we will end policing for profit.
当执行没收的收益不再直接影响执法部门的预算，警察为盈利而执法才能终结。
Now, as you can imagine, law enforcement officials don't love these recommendations.
那么很显然，执法人员不会欢迎这些建议。
They stand to lose a lot of money, and they believe civil forfeiture is an effective crime-fighting tool.
他们面临失去大量的收入，而且他们相信民事没收是打击犯罪的有效工具。
The trouble is, it's not. In June 2019, we released a study that found forfeiture does not improve crime-fighting.
但问题是，这种方法实际上收效甚微。在2019年6月，我们发布了一项研究，表明没收行为并没有改善犯罪打击。
And the report also found that law enforcement agencies pursue more forfeiture money during economic downturns.
报告同时发现，执法部门在经济衰退时想要获取更多的没收收益。
So when city and county budgets are tight, law enforcement will use forfeiture to find the money.
所以当市县的财政预算吃紧时，执法机关就会通过实施民事没收去赚钱。
So it's no wonder, then, that law enforcement officials predict a criminal apocalypse -- if these reforms are adopted.
所以难怪，执法人员能够预测犯罪末日--如果这些改革被推行的话。
But some states have already implemented them, and we're pushing for reform all across the country,
但有些州已经在实施这些变革了，并且我们正在全国范围内推广这项改革，
because until we reform forfeiture, this is something that could happen to any of us.
因为在我们完全改变民事没收制度之前，任何人都有可能受其影响。
It can happen in the United States, it can happen in the United Kingdom, it can happen in countries throughout the European Union and beyond.
民事没收可能发生在美国、可能发生在英国、可能发生在欧盟的任何一个国家，以及其他很多地方。
People like you and me and the Sourovelises and Russ Caswell, just doing the everyday stuff of life,
像你、我、苏罗威利斯夫妇和罗斯·卡斯韦尔这样安分守己的普通人，
can be caught in a scheme we never thought possible.
都有可能陷入到我们从未预料过的计谋。
It is time we end policing for profit once and for all. Thank you.
是时候永久终结警察为盈利而执法了。谢谢。