Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Shuts Down Huge Asset Forfeiture Program
HughPickens.com writes: Christopher Ingraham reports at the Washington Post that the Department of Justice has announced that it's suspending a controversial asset forfeiture program that allows local police departments to keep a large portion of assets seized from citizens under federal law and funnel it into their own coffers. Asset forfeiture has become an increasingly contentious practice in recent years. It lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted — and in many cases, never charged with wrongdoing. Recent reports have found that the use of the practice has exploded in recent years, prompting concern that, in some cases, police are motivated more by profits and less by justice. Criminal justice reformers are cheering the change. "This is a significant deal," says Lee McGrath, legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice. "Local law enforcement responds to incentives. And it's clear that one of the biggest incentives is the relative payout from federal versus state forfeiture. And this announcement by the DOJ changes the playing field for which law state and local [law enforcement] is going to prefer."
From TFA:
the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program announced that it would defer all equitable sharing payments for forfeitures, both civil and criminal, to state, local, and tribal partners for the foreseeable future.
They are still taking the money. Just not sharing it with local law enforcement.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, this whole asset forfeiture thing was an invention of George H.W. Bush's War On Drugs, but don't let facts get in your way.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's still legal. The difference appears to be that the local cops won't get to keep any of the profits- it just all goes to the feds now. They can still seize whatever they like without any real evidence of any illegal activity or laws being broken.
My guess is that they'll just find some new way to err, "compensate" local police departments that seize stuff, some sort of "reimbursement" or kick back under a fancy new title.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Actually I've seen info on several cases where no, you never get any legal recourse because the cops charge the seized assests instead of the owner so the judges ruled that the owner is not the (forgot the legal term so I'll try to reword it) harmed victim and so has no standing to sue or otherwise make claims for it's return.
Yes, I'm dead serious here, it's the common scam they use, especially when it's cash they steal.
For the REAL record, it started with RICO back in 1970 with Congress passing a veto-proof RICO bill. It's grown out of that, reaching full-swing back in the 1970s - and not stopping since then.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Just call it what is was: Legalized Theft, backed by the power of law.
Is, not was. The headline is wrong. They didn't shut it down, they just decided not to share the proceeds with local and state law enforcement. That probably will reduce the amount of civil forfeiture that happens since those agencies now have less incentive to do it (except as allowed by the -- generally less lucrative -- stat civil asset forfeiture laws), but it's not going away.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Does a good job of explaining and showing the police corruption related to this.
Now TFA says "...Department of Justice has announced that it's suspending a controversial asset forfeiture program..". And some people are stupid enough to believe that means that the local Leos will just stop doing it.
The trick is that it now enables the states to do something about it. I write my state legislatures, they're more likely to listen. Something like 15 states have already voted in laws to restrict LE profits from asset forfeiture, but their departments simply switched to using the Federal program, and passing legislature to block that is more difficult.
And yes, the departments are blatant about using it for profit.
I don't read AC A human right
Unfortunately, many assets are seized and kept without charges even being brought. Seizing assets should only be accompanied by an actual criminal charge (per the 4th Amendment), and kept by the Government only if a conviction is upheld (8th Amendment). Any other seizure and retention is patently unconstitutional.
That would be a start, but it wouldn't come close to solving the real issue. The real issue is if your property is unknowingly or unwillingly - assuming we give you the presumption of innocence - used in relation to a crime, does your private property rights go before the victim's or government's right to compensation. Like say you own a rental car shop, all is nice and dandy and the paperwork in order and you're not in any way being accused of being an accessory or accomplice to crime. But your car was used in smuggling drugs And for the sake of argument, we have convictions and confessions to that effect. Should the car be returned to you? I think most people would say yes. But the law says no. The cops have seized motels because of one guest. Taken the whole family's home because the son was selling drugs. Ceased a whole sail boat because those who rented it had one joint.
They built the law this way because there are items that are considered "close" to the crime, like pirate ships, moonshine stills or meth labs. It would get rather odd if the police had to return all the chemicals and equipment to make meth, short of the actual product. And the owner would of course rent it out again, not knowing to what purpose *wink wink nudge nudge*. The other part would be about seizing the profits of the crime. But rather than proving the crime and seizing assets in proportion, the way it actually works is that they seize all your assets and claims it's the result of a crime, you prove otherwise.
I have a friend who was nabbed for a small drug conviction, so much was true. Granted he was a little bit more than a user, also supplying a few friends that also liked the stuff though they never proved that but it crossed a size threshold that let them assume it was for sale. The cops pretended he was some sort of drug kingpin, stole everything he couldn't trace with paychecks and receipts to legal money. And when there's no lower limit on the items you need bookkeeping for, no statute of limitations and the courts refuse to accept anything bought with cash as genuine, he was well and truly fucked. They stole far, far more from him than he ever earned, it was grand theft and as far from justice as you can come.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings