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."

Comments

AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[JoeyRox]

When the government steals they give it a nice sounding euphemism. When citizens steal they're called criminals and go to jail.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly doesn't. Go read the bill of rights. You won't make it halfway through before you've encountered multiple prohibitions on government taking things (outside of court procedures) from The People.

Re:AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even bother to read the article where it states that a citizen doesn't even have to be charged with a crime for the feds to take their property? So, if someone hasn't even been charged with a crime how the f**k can you say that the government has a right to take that person's property?

Re:AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[arth1]

The government's argument are that:
1: It's not them taking it, it's you forfeiting it, and
2: It's not yours until and unless you prove that it was obtained legally, and
3: Because it doesn't belong to you unless you prove it does, and they are under no obligation to find out who it really belongs to, it's their duty to assume ownership.

They're twisting the law with semantics, and shifting the burden of proof over to the accused. Sometimes not even accused, but merely suspected, or affiliated with a suspect.

Re:AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[Firethorn]

They're twisting the law with semantics, and shifting the burden of proof over to the accused. Sometimes not even accused, but merely suspected, or affiliated with a suspect.

Suspected? Hell, I've heard of them taking as small amounts as $200-500, found during a traffic stop, claiming that it was 'to buy drugs' when driving away from Colorado.

Mind you, as an old-fashioned sort, I consider those amounts to be pocket change for a long trip because I remember when credit cards weren't as much of an option and bank ATMs weren't as universal, and even if they'd take your card would charge outrageous fees.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[ShanghaiBill]

Go read the bill of rights.

If the Bill of Rights actually meant anything, this program would have never been allowed to exist. Even now, it is being suspended by administrative decree, not because the judicial branch decided to grow a backbone, stand up, and defend the Constitution. Although the program is being suspended, the stolen property is not being returned, and no one is going to jail or even getting a reprimand.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[killkillkill]

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.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[justthinkit]

Copper

Re:AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[Catbeller]

Ain't the first time. Hell, most of the country was stolen, by the light of our own laws. (Treaties have the force of the Constitution, so are supreme law). No one seems to sweat that. And outside, we've Puerto Rico, Guam, sorta Cuba (we viewed it as ours), the Phillipines (before the Japanese shook them loose by reconquering them).. all were stolen. Iraq and it's oil. Hawaii. Nothing new about our own people and our own government stealing what they want.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention huge army/airforce bases in Japan and Germany (and Cuba) still occupied even when asked to leave.

Or the huge German gold reserves stored in the US to which the owner, the federal reserve bank of Germany, was denied access to (just to look at its property) and was even refused a certificate/a list of the gold bouillons that they still exist.

To quote southpark: And it is gone.

The US are the biggest thief and the biggest bully thug the world has ever known. They are not evil like Daesh, granted and they have given the world a lot to be thankful for, but they are not exactly benign/lawful-good either.

Re:AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[AK Marc]

(Treaties have the force of the Constitution, so are supreme law)

If a treaty and the Constitution conflict, who wins? No, treaties are not supreme law. They are not even law at all. Separate laws must be written to code treaty requirements into law.

You heard a quip you don't understand. You shouldn't repeat it until you understand it.

Re: AKA "Stealing from citizens program"

[KGIII]

I'm gonna need to see some math. The Nazis killed something like 24,000,000 Russians during WWII.

The US lost something like 50,000 people during the Civil War. The Germans killed about that many English in the Battle of the Somme in one day.

This shit in the Middle East that everyone keeps trying to blame on the US? Heh... Let's just go back a bit further and see when those countries, as they exist (sort of) today, came from shall we? (The US did not participate in the League of Nations.)

I am not, of course, saying that the US is not a monster. No, we are. But, by my rough estimates, we're still an order of magnitude less a monster than many, many other areas.

About fucking time

[Anonymous Coward]

Now give the ill gotten gains back

The Fine Print

[PPH]

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.

Re:The Fine Print

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad being a stupid shit isn't illegal, then you wouldn't be one.

Re:The Fine Print

[PolygamousRanchKid]

They are still taking the money. Just not sharing it with local law enforcement.

So local law enforcement agencies will now have big holes in their budgets.

So anyone want to guess how they will fill these holes? Raise local taxes . . . ? Raise the fines for traffic tickets, and hand out more tickets . . . ?

At any rate, they are not going to get by with less money.

Re:The Fine Print

[LynnwoodRooster]

Getting rid of their "SWAT" team would probably save a ton of cash as well...

Re:The Fine Print

[MightyMartian]

That will have the effect of reducing its use. It was the fact that state and local law enforcement got a cut of seized property that made it so popular with the police. That incentive is now removed, and the FBI and Federal prosecutors can keep using it against organized crime.

Re:The Fine Print

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:The Fine Print

[dbIII]

and armored vehicles for their SWAT team that are never used.

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.

Re:The Fine Print

[Firethorn]

They are still taking the money. Just not sharing it with local law enforcement.

Here's the deal: It's not like the feds were active participants in 99% of the seizures. Basically, some podunk jurisdiction would seize the stuff, usually cash. They'd 'charge' the money, not the individual, with the suspicion of being involved in interstate drug trafficking. Note - 'intended to purchase' was a 'good enough' excuse.

In exchange for naming the FBI(for example) as a cooperating agency, even though no FBI agents were involved, it became a federal case under federal jurisdiction, until the program this article is about. In exchange for a 10% cut, the 'arresting' agency got to keep 90% of the money, which is often more generous than what state statutes allowed. Some states don't allow forfeitures this easily. Many only let the agency keep half of the money, etc...

So many state agencies were using this federal program as an end-run around the rules of their own state.

By no longer sharing the money, that removes the desire to confiscate the money in all but the most gregarious of cases.

"local police departments to keep a large portion"

[turkeydance]

the feds want more of that portion. locals get less.

positive change but still distressing.

[Gravis Zero]

i find it quite distressing that this was ever considered legal.

Re:positive change but still distressing.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

Big deal...

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's just a violation of the 4th and 8th Amendments. After all, the Constitution doesn't mean anything, we can have a Federal Government willfully trample all over it whenever it likes...

Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[LynnwoodRooster]

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. - US Constitution, 4th Amendment

Asset seizures and forfeiture, especially without charges or conviction, are inherently unconstitutional. Of course, when Government gets to arbitrate what is Constitutional, it will naturally decide that a nice, open-ended income stream will always be constitutional - regardless of the actual fact.

If only more people remembered our rights existed before the Government was founded, our rights do not come from Government.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[timrod]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as you can own a personal firearm you are free."

Until you try to use it to prevent the government from trampling on your rights. Then you're worm food.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Too bad many States willfully (even gleefully) trample on the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[meerling]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[sjames]

It's still a problem. The due process of law doesn't happen until AFTER the assets are taken. The due process is to happen before. Filling out a form is NOT anything like due process.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[LynnwoodRooster]

See the first sentence of the preamble of the Declation of Independence that you quote - that answers it all, and is the basis for the creation of the US Constitution and general original approach to citizenship and Governance. Government is created by men to secure these rights - but the rights already exist prior to the creation - or even the operation - of Government. Unfortunately it's been corrupted over the centuries to your twisted view - that we get what we have from Government, we're but subjects to the bureaucracy in DC and your local State capital...

PS: the 1st Amendment deals with a LOT more than just establishment of an official church of the country; it's mainly about the right to free political speech and the freedom to petition the Government with your grievances. Of course, with attitudes like yours, we're just servants begging the master to not whip us so hard...

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[sjames]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[LynnwoodRooster]

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).

Here's a question for you. If I stop on your lawn and sell a rock of crack cocaine, should you lose your house because it was used for a drug deal? That's what happens when the rental car is used to transport illicit items, or a rental home is used for criminal activities. Unless you can show the owner of the asset had actual knowledge (and thus was an accomplice) of the crimes - how does it make any moral or even legal sense to penalize them? How about just penalizing the people who commit the crimes, not the innocent bystanders...

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well see, yes and no. Asset forfeiture came about as a means of stopping organized crime

Their purpose is irrelevant to their constitutionality.

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.

No, they are not legal according to the US Constitution: taking away stuff from people without due process is not one of the enumerated powers. That by itself is sufficient to render it illegal, but this is explicitly reinforced by the 5th and 14th Amendments: nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. When police take your stuff and say "prove that you own it", that is not "due process of the law", it isn't "process of the law" of any form, it is entirely arbitrary.

Re:Err, no - Government does NOT have the right.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You also get your trial (due process) after your person has been seized (arrested), so I'm not really getting the basis of your argument.

Arrests are temporary leading up to the trial and require a judicial warrant; the trial must occur speedily, there is a presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof is on the government. Long term incarceration is only possible after a trial ("due process").

Asset forfeitures are indefinite and are not part of any judicial process, so there is no "due process". That makes them different from both pre-trial arrests and incarcerations.

You mean shakedown?

[gstoddart]

Asset forfeiture has become a program by which law enforcement can shake down citizens without and evidentiary standard, and steal that money for their own departments.

I'm sorry, but can you trust law enforcement when they profit from the misapplication of terrible laws?

For me, no way in hell ... it became a license to steal money like a bunch of crooks. And like a bunch of crooks, they stole everything which wasn't nailed down.

I bet the sheer amount of money which has essentially been stolen by a bunch of thugs with badges is vast. I mean, why wouldn't they steal money from every schmuck they encountered if they could just make shit up and claim they suspected a crime.

You want to see how corruptable police are? Give them free reign to take money without a court to decide, and you'll see exactly what we have now ... a fucking shakedown racket the mob would be proud of.

Re:InB4

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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.

Call it what is was

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Just call it what is was: Legalized Theft, backed by the power of law.

Re:Call it what is was

[swillden]

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.

Re:InB4

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

Re:InB4

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Did he really say this?

[sumdumass]

Not only is it wrong, it is unconstitutional. The 5th amendment has in it among other things, " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." IF there is no charges and conviction, I'm not sure how it can not run afoul of those statements.IF budgets are predicated on the confiscated monies. It certainly is taking property for public use and requires just compensation you would think.

John Oliver

[kbsoftware]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Does a good job of explaining and showing the police corruption related to this.

Re:John Oliver

[Maxo-Texas]

Also...

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv......
http://www.forbes.com/sites/in......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/......
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro......

In any case, glad this abusive, corrupting program was shut down.

A time article on John Oliver's influence including noting his show on civil forfeiture. Here's an article where you could read that he had an effect on CF...

http://time.com/3674807/john-o......

Quote:
After the increased exposure given to the issue by the (Washington) Post and Oliver, Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that he would enact major limitations on the law.

SCOTUS

[Tokolosh]

My question is, how in heaven's name can the courts tolerate this? By what twisted reasoning can such an obvious travesty upon the Constitution be allowed to stand? Surely at least one case has come before a court in which the judge ruled that the assets must be returned within 20 minutes or the sheriff has to lock himself up for contempt?

The Judicial branch of government has proved itself completely useless and devoid of a spine. All three branches of government are revealed as thieving despots. Civil forfeiture is only one item of evidence in this assertion. It makes the population lose all respect for the law. Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost. For shame, judges and other officers of the court!

Re:SCOTUS

[Tokolosh]

Not tolerating it? The feds are asset-forfeiting the assets that have been forfeited.to the state and local authorities! Although this is amusing in a perverse way, and the feds are scaling back on their own seizures, they have done nothing to stop the states' actions. In fact, they are probably encouraging them because now they get to keep their cut.

And as a said before, the courts still smile on all of this with amusement. How is it possible that SCOTUS has not accepted a case on this?

Re:SCOTUS

[qeveren]

Typically the person who's assets are seized can't sue, because they're found to have no standing, since the assets themselves are 'charged' with the crime. If you can't get into a lower court, the SCOTUS can't hear a case about it and it can't be ruled unconstitutional.

Re:SCOTUS

[Kjella]

My question is, how in heaven's name can the courts tolerate this? By what twisted reasoning can such an obvious travesty upon the Constitution be allowed to stand? Surely at least one case has come before a court in which the judge ruled that the assets must be returned within 20 minutes or the sheriff has to lock himself up for contempt?

It has, all the way to the top and upheld. This is from the 1974 Supreme Court judgement, which is the start of forfeiture for drugs.

Appellants next argue that the District Court erred in holding that the forfeiture statutes unconstitutionally authorized the taking for government use of innocent parties' property without just compensation. They urge that a long line of prior decisions of this Court establish the principle that statutory forfeiture schemes are not rendered unconstitutional because of their applicability to the property interests of innocents (...) We agree. The historical background of forfeiture statutes in this country and this Court's prior decisions sustaining their constitutionality lead to that conclusion.
(...)
But '(l)ong before the adoption of the Constitution the common law courts in the Colonies - and later in the states during the period of Confederation - were exercising jurisdiction in rem in the enforcement of (English and local) forfeiture statutes (...) And almost immediately after adoption of the Constitution, ships and cargoes involved in customs offenses were made subject to forfeiture under federal law, as were vessels used to deliver slaves to foreign countries, and somewhat later those used to deliver slaves to this country. The enactment of forfeiture statutes has not abated; contemporary federal and state forfeiture statutes reach virtually any type of property that might be used in the conduct of a criminal enterprise.

Despite this proliferation of forfeiture enactments, the innocence of the owner of property subject to forfeiture has almost uniformly been rejected as a defense. Thus, Mr. Justice Story observed in The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827), that a conviction for piracy was not a prerequisite to a proceeding to forfeit a ship allegedly engaged in piratical aggression in violation of a federal statute:
(...)
But this doctrine never was applied to seizures and forfeitures, created by statute, in rem, cognizable on the revenue side of the Exchequer. The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing; (...) (T)he practice has been, and so this Court understand the law to be, that the proceeding in rem stands independent of, and wholly unaffected by any criminal proceeding in personam.'

Examples listed:
Palmyra, pirate vessel (1829)
Brig Malek Adhel, pirate vessel (1844)
Dobbins's Distillery, production of moonshine (1878)
Goldsmith-Grant, taxicab for moonshine (1921)
Van Oster, car used by wrongdoer (1926)
... and a few more.

The worst is actually this part:

But in this case appellee voluntarily entrusted the lesses with possession of the yacht, and no allegation has been made or proof offered that the company did all that it reasonably could to avoid having its property put to an unlawful use.

And from the dissenting opinion:

(...) Moreover, the owner had included in the lease a prohibition against use of the yacht for an unlawful project. If the yacht had been notoriously used in smuggling drugs, those who claim forfeiture might have equity on their side. But no such showing was made; and so far as we know only one marihuana cigarette was found on the yacht. We deal here with trivia where harsh judge-made law should be tempered with justice. I realize that the ancient law is founded on the fiction that the inanimate object itself is guilty of wrongdoing. (...) But that traditional forfeiture doctrine cannot at times be reconciled with the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

One. Fucking. Marihuana. Cigarette.

Re:John Oliver on civil forfeiture

[proto]

This was the link I was looking for. John Oliver's take on the subject of civil forfeiture is funny but poignant. "Its not you that stands trial, its your stuff!" If I had some mod points I would give them to kbsoftware.... Cheers.

Who thinks up this shit?

[dbIII]

The obvious is going to happen once you start forcing the people who make the seizures to earn their living from it no matter how honest 99% of them are.

Re:Constitution (and logic) plainly states otherwi

[dryeo]

That's so true. The government couldn't interfere with you tar and feathering your neighbour for his speech, or in the case of Mr Lynch, hanging them. The government couldn't interfere with your right to buy people and infringe on their rights. The government would actually help you steal other peoples property as those savages weren't actually people so you had a right to their stuff.
Obviously for the entitled, rights pre-existed, including the right to infringe on others rights, but only as private citizens instead of the traditional aristocracy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yep...

[Wakko Warner]

So this is basically just theft. The police are just like the Crips and Bloods, except they're taxpayer funded.

Comments here miss the pint

[whistlingtony]

So, I'm reading this story, and reading the comments. Everyone's piling on the "Gubmint bad! They steal from us!" bandwagon... Uhm. Guys? This story is the Gubmint STOPPING a horrible practice. Why aren't there more cheers?

The DOJ was right to stop this. They did. Hooray!