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!
I'll bet this totally will stop the government from doing this stuff.
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.
Depends which part of the GOP you are talking about though (As the Republican party is not some giant monolithic lock step party). The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed, but have regretted it) will support this move. They have seen how this program has been abused by law enforcement agencies and needs to be curtailed.
(BTW, the democrats are very predictable in opposing anything republicans do, no matter how rational it is).
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.
The justice department is part of the executive branch, not Congress. This is the US Marshals, FBI, Secret Service, and so on. Holder is saying those Federal law enforcement agencies will no longer use civil forfeiture. Holder is in the correct position to make this happen. It could also have happened if Congress passed a law making it illegal, but enforcement is up to the executive, and law enforcement is up to the justice dept, specifically Eric Holder.
Holder has decided to go out on a high note. It almost makes up for all of his jack assery for the last 6 years.
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.
RTFA - Republicans called for this to happen.
"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."
The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible. It happens every time there's a significant disaster. These people only pretend that they're sorry later, and that goes for all of them, not just republicans.
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.
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?
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
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."
It can be difficult to get the cops to follow the law.
It can often be difficult to get the cops to even know the law.
It's going to get a lot harder since SCOTUS has declared that cops don't have to know the law. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/opinion-analysis-reasonable-mistakes-of-law-by-police-do-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/
Here are some people that might disagree:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
Actually your response proves the whole system is broken. The Presidential position is really meant to be nothing more than administering the applicable laws provided by the congress and senate. There should be a whole lot less focus on the President and far more focus on the places where laws are actually considered, written and brought into force. What really needs to happen is the congress and senate should work hard on stripping all powers away from the President beyond administrative roles, no more memo laws, no more made up letters pretending they are laws, a President tied down by the laws written by the congress and the senate. In fact all senior roles within the administration should really go to congressmen and senators as selected by the congress and the senate, those senior administrative roles should be directly answerable to the public. Having a US president with all those powers has proven to be very socially and economically destructive not only upon a US basis but upon a global basis. It seems high time for a change, for a President with far, far fewer powers. The autocrats might thing they are electing 'Leaders' but as far as progressives are concerned they are only ever representatives and the electorate remains the 'Commander in Chief' not only during elections but between them as well. You can not have a government of the people, by the people and for the people unless the people can maintain their voice throughout the electoral cycle and not just one day every four years, that is just plain nucking futs. Do you not realise countries like Australia would toss out a political leader that started to call themselves the 'Commander In Chief', that electorate does not ever accept the idea of surrendering power to someone who is just meant to be representing them. I don't get it, it seems America is no longer electing a President they are electing a King, WTF?
The people's opinions should always be sought when legislative decisions are made, not just a minority of corporate campaign donors and offshore tax haven holiday funders but the people. American seem to have forgotten who the boss is, in a democracy, they are not called representatives, basically employees for no reason, don't let them ever get away with the delusion that your politicians are you bosses, deciding for you, that is just plain wrong.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm in Queensland Australia. We have the VLAD laws
Vicious_Lawless_Association_Disestablishment_Act
A biker used to live around the corner from us.
His home and everything has been taken as proceeds of crime, it is now a construction zone ? fenced off, no entry.
He's probably in gaol.
And that's just for being a biker.
All so the conservative state government can be seen to be hard on crime.
Go well
And they have a database of plates of business owners that are likely to be carrying cash! (operation black asphalt) The whole thing is a scam, and massively changed my opinion of the police.
The "drug dog alerted on his car outside the view of the dash cam"
The drug dogs will simply be re-branded as kiddy porn dogs, and your cash will have trace amounts of 10 year old on them.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Good point. And reaction to this could be a good indication of what members of the GOP should be de-elected by conservatives.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
If you don't change the law to block this theft then it will keep coming back. What happens if (when) the man who replaces Holder changes the rules back? The burden of proof in civil forfiture should be on the police, just as in criminal law.
One thing it does do, is to take the wind out of the GOP's sails if they want to themselves pursue a change the asset forfeiture laws. If this has been contentious in the Republican Party (the law-and-order types against stopping it, the small-government times for stopping it) then not only does it deny the small-government side from being able to claim a victory over the incumbent position, but it opens a window to possibly see ugly GOP infighting. In such infighting, the law-and-order types will look bad because the excesses in asset forfeiture will be front and center, and the small-government types will be smeared for agreeing with the President.
This was a masterful move, politically.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Years ago a private towing company in the city where I lived stole my car from my own contract parking spot and held it for ransom. The police outright refused to get involved, and the city towing inspector wouldn't touch it. The court system utterly failed me on it as well as the civil courts insisted it was a criminal matter so they would refuse to pass judgment even when I laid out all the information in front of them. Those assholes had a decades-long reputation for stealing cars at will and raping their owners in the same way and nothing ever changed.
Sure, a lot of money is lost through the civil forfeiture that this story is discussing, but it doesn't impact that many people. Legalized car theft hits a much larger number of individuals.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Civil forfeiture shouldn't even exist. All property seizure should be PART of the criminal trial as either proceeds of the crime or restitution or fines for the crime.
Under absolutely no circumstance should the government be able to go into a civil court and take your money outside a debt owed. These forfeitures are supposed to be criminal forfeiture and they should be handled in the criminal side where the defendant has rights and assumption of innocence. I'm horrified you would suggest that the government should be able to prevail in anything on the standard of most believable instead of without a reasonable doubt.
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/
True enough, and in this case he probably will have earned it.
On the face of it, it sounds like a good move. If applied evenly, and without ulterior motives, I am unabashedly for this one and will give credit where it is due. The administration isn't calling for a change in the law here (and neither are any Republicans) which might indicate they wanted a restoration of our rights. That means they simply want to use this law to further their agenda. I suspect the status quo would be better than what they plan.
The current administration is choosing not to enforce some existing laws, notably immigration, and wants to preclude other entities from enforcing those same laws - I don't believe any reasonable person would dispute that statement. There is little they can do currently about Joe Arapaio enforcing Federal Laws, except choose not to prosecute the cases.
I expect at least two abuses to be in the works:
It will be used as a tool to increase Federal presence/control/"cooperation" in local law enforcement through funding controls/incentives/inducements. We all know how well that has worked out in Education. It will mean more shared data about us being available to the Federal Government.
Currently the Federal Government cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations because of the10th Amendment. This will be used as an end run around that, since the Commerce Clause has never worked very well in compelling the states in law enforcement (drinking age being a notable exception). Laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which had enforcement provisions that were ruled unconstitutional will get their enforcement at the state level because of this type of financial leveraging. It will be used selectively to punish those localities that are not compliant with the wishes of the Federal Government in some regard, and reward those that are aligned with the administration's agendas. Expect Chicago, DC and NYC to be rewarded for their gun controls and Maricopa County, AZ to be punished for its enforcement of immigration laws. Expect the reverse under the next Republican President.
This is a bad law that we need to have repealed, and not made worse by politically selective application.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.