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."
Asset seizures and forfeiture, especially without charges or conviction, are inherently unconstitutional.
Well see, yes and no. Asset forfeiture came about as a means of stopping organized crime - the same reason that RICO exists. The idea was to prevent the mafia from hiding all of its money, which was a legal seizure because it had come about as the result of criminal activity. Essentially, the police are using an anti-mafia law against regular people now that the mafia has largely been wiped out in the United States.
The entire reason asset forfeiture is still legal is because technically, you do have recourse if the police take your money. The problem is getting the proof together to do so.
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.
For the record, this is correct. The forfeiture and asst seizure programs were developed and launched under Bush.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
So local law enforcement agencies will now have big holes in their budgets.
From what I've read, proceeds from such forfeitures goes more towards 'toys' than actual law enforcement. We're talking about stuff like them replacing squad cars after 3 years, not 4, buying items like pop-corn machines and armored vehicles for their SWAT team that are never used.
I don't read AC A human right
They get used alright, just not in situations where they are really needed. When you have police with military units you get a military response to minor crimes just so they have something to do. For example, even a sig like yours (or the postings of many over decades from BBS on, I'm not picking on you, they'd react the same way to you if it was someone else with the sig) would be seen as enough to link extensive computer use to having enough guns for a Waco incident so the SWAT team comes in for even computer copyright stuff - madness! Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" (also available free online) still applies in full despite it's age.
When you are charged with a crime, it is true you are held for trial (unless you make bail). But before you even get that far, they must show good reason to believe you are guilty and convince a DA that he can likely secure a conviction. Presuming the DA indicts, you are not sentenced until after the trial. Were it handled like forfeiture. they'd put you in prison directly, tell you how long you would be there and would need nothing more than "he seemed a bit shifty" as a reason. If you wanted to argue innocence you'd have to petition for a trial and put up a bond for the cost of it.
Also, this says nothing about seizures by federal level law enforcement. FBI, DEA, DHS can still seize all they want. and I wouldn't be surprised if all this means is that the same assets will be seized by local law enforcement without due process, the Feds just keep it all.
Simple answer: is the asset one that the actual criminal owns (or controls, in the case of leases or mortgages)? No? Then the actual owner - not involved in the activity - gets the asset back. Id even go so far as to say that assets of the criminal's immediate family are also fair game (trying to claim that a wife didn't materially participate or benefit from the criminal actions of her husband would be a stretch).
Ah, there's a funny one. There was a man arrested for soliciting a prostitute in their jointly owned car, which happened to be illegal in that state. The courts seized the car for being used in a crime, the wife sued to get at least her half of the car back and lost. I'm really not making this shit up, see Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) if you want to fact check.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings