Slashdot Mirror
Eric Holder Severely Limits Civil Forfeiture
gurps_npc writes: As most people know, the US has for quite some time let police seize pretty much anything they wanted to, forcing you to go to court to get back your stuff (at significant expense). Most of the problems came about because the Federal government let the local cops keep most of what they took.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
Local and state police used to be able to federalize their seizures to keep it beyond the reach of laws governing civil forfeiture. That protection is gone now.
RTFA next time -
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Republicans called for this to happen.
The driver would be arrested due to the drugs and possibly the weapons. They would be held as evidence. This hasn't changed.
Here's what has: Up until now, the driver could just be driving around with the money... no drugs, no weapons, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and the cops could seize it based on the extremely flimsy suspicion that the driver was a drug dealer. This money would wind up in the coffers of that local police department, to be used at their discretion.
The driver would theoretically have the chance to legally reclaim the money. However, the driver could easily wind up spending more money in legal costs than the original sum that was seized. And in some jurisdictions, the authority making the final decision in such a legal case is the same organization that seized the money in the first place.
See the issues here?
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Here are some people that might disagree:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop...
You are welcome on my lawn.