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.
You know someone is going to come in and say this is awful because reasons, because it was done under the Obama administration by Eric Holder.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Normally the antics of Mr. Holder really piss me off. But this? This is awesome!
And thus be seen for the closet corporate fascists that they are. Holder didn't go far enough, and neither did Obama (He never so much as mentioned it). The practice needs to end nationally, via federal law.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The problem wasn't that they weren't following the laws. The problem was what they were doing wasn't illegal in the first place.
It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law. But it's often impossible to get them to "do the right thing".
So this is definitely a good step in the right direction. Don't complain just because we've gone from "impossible" to merely "difficult". Sometimes these things take awhile to straighten out. Be thankful we made some significant progress today.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
That someone will be the GOP. I can see them trying to spin this as Obama's "war on cops". They're very predictable in opposing anything Democrats do no matter how rational it is.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
But he's correct. Even when "Obummer"'s administration does something demonstrably good that sharply aligns with the folks who hate him, they will minimize it rather than provide the accolades he deserves.
The GOP maybe, but this has been a hot-button issue for conservatives for a while, and the current sentiment is "wait, who did this wonderful thing, I must have heard you wrong". The difference between conservatives and the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And the evil he committed greatly outweighed the few good deeds he might have accomplished. History will judge Holder the same.
Heck, even when he does something they've been stumping for in the first place, they'll turn around and lambaste him for it!
Hold them until until the owner/driver of the car has been successfully prosecuted and then sieze them.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I do not think anybody particularly cares about cash found next to the evidence of an overtly prosecutable crime. The problem is when the cash itself seems to be the target, in the absence of any apparent crime. The examples the made the news were things like driving 64 mph in a 55 mph zone with $5000 cash on hand -- here is your speeding ticket and the police keep the $5000 cash.
There is no good reason, under any circumstances, for pretrial forfeiture. If you have probable cause (the Constitutional standard for police procedure in the field) to suspect a person of the crimes you describe, arrest and charge him. If he is subsequently found guilty, THEN taking his stuff can be a part of the punishment.
The reason police love civil forfeiture is that is is used only in situations where a suspect is not arrested. An arrest triggers a series of Constitutional protections, while civil forfeiture takes place outside of this legal firewall.
I'm not an Obama fan, and I'm certainly not a Holder fan. However, if Holder's actions result in eliminating most of the bogus seizures that have been going on, I'll be more than happy to give him due credit for it.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Sure, except that's not the damn choice! The actual choice is between due process (i.e., outlawing civil forfeiture) and lack of due process (i.e, shitting all over the Fourth Amendment), and that should be an easy choice for anyone who isn't a totalitarian sociopath.
Choosing between fines and prison as a punishment after trial and conviction is a wholly separate issue.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Even a broken clock is right twice per day. Finally Holder got something right.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm glad you were modded up, because 'civil asset forfeiture' has been a sticking point of mine for quite some time, and you basically said my piece in it.
A number of states limited it using state rules, only to have police departments continue to do it under the federal rules.
The abuses I've read about...
For example: Grandma owns her house. One of her many grandsons, fleeing the police with drugs on him, temporarily escapes into her house until she gets home and promptly turns him over to police. Despite this for some unknown reason the cops decide to seize her house because 'it was used to store drugs'. The only known time there were drugs in there was when the grandson was running! Took the governor telling them to back off.
I don't read AC A human right
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes in the evidence locker until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
It goes into impound until the driver finishes their trial for possession.
What's that? You can't be bothered with a court case to prove that anything illegal happened? Well, fuck you.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
And yet when the Democrats came to power, the motto was "Never let a crisis go to waste".
There is a school of thought in comparative politics called "American Exceptionalism" -- in this case, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is exceptional in that it only works in the US -- other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships. See Dahl, Robert Polyarchy .
Believe it or not, is it actually the 5th Republic French Constitution (the DeGaulle constitution) that has proven the most successful in bringing democracy to democratizing nations.
Reforms like proportional representation, abolishment of the electoral college, and institutions to do away with the two-party system have been long in coming to the American political system to keep it in line with the modern conception of democracy. Instead, it keeps slipping into this vaguely democratic polyarchy.
One of the down sides to being an early adopter. We were one of the first kids on the block to install this shiny new "representative democracy" thing on a large scale, but the bugs really hadn't been worked out yet, and political parasites immediately began to exploit it's weaknesses to insulate themselves from the will of the people. A couple centuries of digging in and they make ticks look positively benevolent. And of course since they're the ones making the rules, good luck dislodging them. Especially with the various black-op "security" branches showing a distinct bias towards interpreting their job as "protecting the status quo"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sorry, but it IS illegal and protected by the Constitution under the 4th amendment (emphasis mine below). Do you see that word "seizures"? Look it up, it protects people from civil forfeiture.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People are not losing their money and/or property after a court decision found them guilty of some crime, people are losing their money and/or property without a trial at all.
That is what people have been complaining about, and for Holder not to stop it completely is yet another failure of the Obama administration.
I agree with your statement about the police not following the law, but that is an easy fix. Start jailing cops that break the law, jail cops that cover for their buddies, and jail judges who dismiss cases simply because the defendant is a cop. Since we have not been doing that, we recently had cops killed by vigilantes.. go figure.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it. Make that apply to ANY amount, even if it was only a dollar.
Looking from Australia we admire the focus of the US constitution on civil rights etc. None of that is in the Australian constitution, and the UK does not even have one.
Yet the US has these crazy laws. Civil forfeiture, way out of control plea bargaining, no legal representation for the poor, and, until relatively recently, slavery. I do not think that any other country in the western world has abuses to anything like that level.
Does the US constitution actually remove people's rights? Or would the situation be even worse without it?
The US Constitution was written by a bunch of wealthy land owners. Our representative gov't was specifically designed to ensure they'd keep that land and that the rabble wouldn't get too uppity. They weren't shy about it either. You can read plenty of documents from the time where they talk about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/