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...
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.
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.
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?
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."
Here are some people that might disagree:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
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.
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.