10 ms·

DOJ defers payments to local police agencies through asset forfeiture program

155 points by scottshea 11y ago

njharman 11y ago
I really hate that our legal system has, to a large degree, decided to a very, very narrow and very literal implementation of the Bill or Rights rather than going with the Spirit of the law. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced by the government is very clearly contrary to 5th amendment. But since it's using a bullshit legal loophole of suing the property and not the owner and doesn't violate the literal words it's A-OK!
- nickff 11y ago
  If the courts interpreted the constitution more broadly, the 10th amendment would render most federal laws and regulations unconstitutional. Ever since the Wickard v. Filburn era (or arguably even before then), the courts have given the federal executive, legislature, and bureaucracy great deference.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - dantheman 11y ago
    And that would be great, as it would force constitutional processes for large legislation, e.g. the war on drugs.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    It's amazing what you can do when you threaten to pack the court. When the Supreme Court blocked a lot of New Deal and state-level regulations as unconstitutional, FDR threatened to appoint enough new justices to get the decisions he wanted (there is no limit to the number of justices in the Constitution). That was the end of the Lochner era of American jurisprudence and was a tragedy for freedom. We're still suffering the consequences today.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The legal system has not narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment has been construed to preclude lots of restrictions on conduct that is not literally "speech." Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant amendments to keep up. We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      A statement that a list of rights is non-exhaustive does not mean they are limitless. The purported right must be found somewhere else. E.g. Buying alcohol on Sundays is not prohibited in the Constitution, but you don't have a right to that because blue laws were accepted at the time. Your idea of limitless rights turns Constitutional democracy on its head. Rights are exceptions to the power of the majority to regulate society. Limitless rights curtails democracy to nothing.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        Your example about blue laws says nothing about rights. Blue laws regulate commerce but they don't prohibit anything outright. You can still drink on Sunday. If that restriction were to become too burdensome, a constitutional care could be made against it.
  - deleted 11y ago
- jwatte 11y ago
  The role of the legal system (and government) is to keep those worth the most, safe. As a consequence, it may sometimes also protect regular people because that makes the society that feeds and supports them safer. But make no mistake, 1 there is no real power other than the power of force, and 2 he who has the gold, makes the rules.
- ahallock 11y ago
  How can you sue property? That doesn't even make sense. It's like corporations are people. These are just "creative" ways to circumvent the constitution and rule of law.
desireco42 11y ago
This is legalized stealing. Targets were often not criminals but people with valuable assets.
lim_nick 11y ago
"the Department is deferring for the time being any equitable sharing payments from the Program" seems pretty explicitly to be a temporary suspension of payouts from the program, not a closure of the entire program. "We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing. ... Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible." Doesn't seem like they wanted it closed to me. How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?
- rubyfan 11y ago
  Yes, sounds like congress defunded because of journalism and constituent feedback not Department of Justice ended the abusive program. Current HN title is more accurate.
  - dang 11y ago
    If that's true, then it's odd that the article doesn't explain this. If anyone can suggest a more informative article, we can change the URL. Edit: The AP appears to frame the story more accurately: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-postpones-payments-to-police-in-asset-forfeiture-program http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-p.... Should we use this instead? It's rather short.
    - lim_nick 11y ago
      yeah this article pretty clearly states what I was trying to get across: "The Justice Department says it's not suspending or shutting down the program — just that it doesn't have the money to pay police departments right now."
      - dang 11y ago
        Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-just-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-and-keep-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-f..., and changed the title from 'Congress defunds DOJ Seized Asset sharing program' to that of this article.
dantheman 11y ago
This is really great news. Asset forfeiture should only happen after someone has been convicted of a crime.
- jMyles 11y ago
  ...but what's the great news part? It will be great news if this widespread official larceny is actually reduced, but that's yet to be seen.
  - dantheman 11y ago
    It will be reduced. There are states that already prohibit asset forfeiture, but the this was a loophole. The police could team up with the feds, the feds seize the assets and then give a percentage to the police. 5. That’s crazy!!! This can’t happen in my state. It might be crazy, but civil asset forfeiture happens in every state in the union. Even if the state has laws that limit it, state and local law enforcement authorities can still seize property by partnering with federal law enforcement officials in a system called “equitable sharing,” and payouts to state and local agencies have increased nearly 250% over a 12-year period. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset...
- codyb 11y ago
  They didn't shut down the asset forfeiture, they shut down the sharing of seized assets with local police forces. Their budget was cut, so they said "we need ours, pony up." Likely, police forces which relied on federal statute to get 80% of the seized resources will now resort to state statute to maximize what they can take from seized assets.
  - dantheman 11y ago
    It removes the federal loophole and it makes it a state problem. In the past, police would team up with feds to get around state laws. Yes, it's still a problem but it's much more manageable now.
  - 11y ago
brockisbeast 11y ago
A great move by them
spikels 11y ago
Long overdue, this has been an obvious yet growing problem for decades. Asset forfeiture needs to be ended completely. This is only the first step.
rayiner 11y ago
I think you will see more of these moves going forward. As the hysteria of the 1990's starts subsiding and baby boomers start retiring, some of the worst police abuses are going to become politically untenable to defend.
- sahaj 11y ago
  Your comment caught my interest. Can you expand of the reasoning a bit further?
  - VeilEm 11y ago
    Post-vietnam war the US became a lot more conservative. 1980's saw "trickle down economics" (giving money to rich people would trickle down to everyone, seriously), increased mandatory jail times, three strikes laws, increased funding for war against drugs, white flight from the cities to gaited communities. A lot of these trends seem to be slowing or even reversing a bit, one can hope.
    - dawnbreez 11y ago
      On trickle-down economics: It is true that rich people tend to fund things like large businesses, which then pay middle-class workers. However, giving them free money gives them no reason to actually use that money to fund more businesses. Why invest when Uncle Sam gives you an allowance? Solid reasoning, terrible plan.
      - njharman 11y ago
        Cut out the middle man and just pay people directly.
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        I do like the Basic Income Guarantee, but have yet to do any math on how efficient it is compared to the US's welfare system. Ideally, the money would come in the form of a standardized cheque, to be handed out once a month to anybody who is 18 or older and can come to the local DMV and provide proof of citizenship. Unclaimed money goes toward funding the program, getting more workers into DMVs to handle traffic, and (again, ideally) could be sent to a charity of the recipient's choice.
pjene 11y ago
This is surprising good news. Took me three tries to read "defunds" properly, not as "defends".
- scottshea 11y ago
  To be fair when I posted it autocorrect changed it to "defends" and I had to change it back
jwally 11y ago
All police revenue should go in a pool at the national level, and be randomly distributed to all states. "Protect and Serve" not "Loot and Pillage".
- erpellan 11y ago
  "police revenue": that's terrifying. How is turning law enforcement into a legally protected extortion gang a good idea?
  - shawn-butler 11y ago
    Because that is what it is. There's nothing wrong with calling a duck a duck.
csense 11y ago
Why isn't asset forfeiture an issue in the presidential campaign?
ipsin 11y ago
The article didn't answer the question, and I very curious -- if you're basically taking people's property and keeping 20% of the rake, how do you manage to lose billions in the process? Is it that the 20% is actually allocated elsewhere, or that asset forfeiture is somehow more expensive than I'd granted?
vaadu 11y ago
How is civil forfeiture(cash register justice) not a constitutional violation? The 4th Amendment declares that citizens have a right to "their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and that no warrants may be issued without a statement of probable cause "particularly describing…things to be seized." The 5th Amendment says the accused criminals shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 6th Amendment ensures that people accused of crimes must be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," The 8th Amendment forbids the government to impose "excessive fines" or "cruel and unusual punishments." Opponents of the change have little more than 'the ends justify the means' as a counter argument.
- Jormundir 11y ago
  They're using a legal loophole, charging the property with being complicit in a crime, not the person. So the piles of money they seize aren't protected by the constitution. This is obviously absurd, corrupt, ridiculous, etc. We have a very corrupt justice system.
  - harryh 11y ago
    If the police catch you outside of an electronics store with a broken back door in the middle of the night walking away with a big screen TV do you think they should have to convict you of a crime before they take the TV from you? And if you say "no" to that then where exactly do you draw the line in between law enforcement taking obviously stolen property and law enforcement taking personal property? I don't ask this question rhetorically, I ask it because I'm honestly not sure.
    - BCM43 11y ago
      Yes, I think they should have to charge you with a crime. If they're sure enough that you took it, they should be able to get a conviction. If they're not, they shouldn't take it.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      To add to that much of the property in criminal cases isn't claimed to begin with. When they bust a drug stash no one in their right mind would claim ownership on neither the drugs nor the money seized. That money will get into evidence and will normally be returned the the federal reserve, the program allowed the DOJ to appropriate a portion of that money and distribute it to local law enforcement agencies to increase their funding. Money and other assets will still be seized and they will still not be returned to the criminals they were seized form even if they do not go to trial this might seem unfair but those assets are unclaimed if they claim them they need to prove ownership and that will get them into a sea of trouble. Where will this money go now, well most likely back to the fed or will be kept on the DOJ books, I really don't understand why people have trouble with this policy or why they hail the halt to it as some great achievement to civil rights.
awqrre 11y ago
The ratio of criminals is probably about the same in law enforcement and the general population.
marshray 11y ago
"This program was found to be corrosive to the integrity of our justice system, incompatible with American values, and thus we are terminating it immediately" vs. "We're keeping the money, LoL"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
Even if unintentional this is a step in the right directions because it removes the incentive for bogus civil asset forfeiture.

155 points by scottshea 11y ago

I really hate that our legal system has, to a large degree, decided to a very, very narrow and very literal implementation of the Bill or Rights rather than going with the Spirit of the law. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced by the government is very clearly contrary to 5th amendment. But since it's using a bullshit legal loophole of suing the property and not the owner and doesn't violate the literal words it's A-OK!

nickff 11y ago
If the courts interpreted the constitution more broadly, the 10th amendment would render most federal laws and regulations unconstitutional. Ever since the Wickard v. Filburn era (or arguably even before then), the courts have given the federal executive, legislature, and bureaucracy great deference.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dantheman 11y ago
  And that would be great, as it would force constitutional processes for large legislation, e.g. the war on drugs.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  It's amazing what you can do when you threaten to pack the court. When the Supreme Court blocked a lot of New Deal and state-level regulations as unconstitutional, FDR threatened to appoint enough new justices to get the decisions he wanted (there is no limit to the number of justices in the Constitution). That was the end of the Lochner era of American jurisprudence and was a tragedy for freedom. We're still suffering the consequences today.
rayiner 11y ago
The legal system has not narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment has been construed to preclude lots of restrictions on conduct that is not literally "speech." Everything from contraception to abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to the specific amendment that guarantees it. In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant amendments to keep up. We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    A statement that a list of rights is non-exhaustive does not mean they are limitless. The purported right must be found somewhere else. E.g. Buying alcohol on Sundays is not prohibited in the Constitution, but you don't have a right to that because blue laws were accepted at the time. Your idea of limitless rights turns Constitutional democracy on its head. Rights are exceptions to the power of the majority to regulate society. Limitless rights curtails democracy to nothing.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Your example about blue laws says nothing about rights. Blue laws regulate commerce but they don't prohibit anything outright. You can still drink on Sunday. If that restriction were to become too burdensome, a constitutional care could be made against it.
- deleted 11y ago
jwatte 11y ago
The role of the legal system (and government) is to keep those worth the most, safe. As a consequence, it may sometimes also protect regular people because that makes the society that feeds and supports them safer. But make no mistake, 1 there is no real power other than the power of force, and 2 he who has the gold, makes the rules.
ahallock 11y ago
How can you sue property? That doesn't even make sense. It's like corporations are people. These are just "creative" ways to circumvent the constitution and rule of law.

desireco42 11y ago

This is legalized stealing. Targets were often not criminals but people with valuable assets.

lim_nick 11y ago

"the Department is deferring for the time being any equitable sharing payments from the Program" seems pretty explicitly to be a temporary suspension of payouts from the program, not a closure of the entire program. "We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing. ... Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible." Doesn't seem like they wanted it closed to me. How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?

rubyfan 11y ago
Yes, sounds like congress defunded because of journalism and constituent feedback not Department of Justice ended the abusive program. Current HN title is more accurate.
- dang 11y ago
  If that's true, then it's odd that the article doesn't explain this. If anyone can suggest a more informative article, we can change the URL. Edit: The AP appears to frame the story more accurately: http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-postpones-payments-to-police-in-asset-forfeiture-program http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-p.... Should we use this instead? It's rather short.
  - lim_nick 11y ago
    yeah this article pretty clearly states what I was trying to get across: "The Justice Department says it's not suspending or shutting down the program — just that it doesn't have the money to pay police departments right now."
    - dang 11y ago
      Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-just-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-and-keep-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-f..., and changed the title from 'Congress defunds DOJ Seized Asset sharing program' to that of this article.

dantheman 11y ago

This is really great news. Asset forfeiture should only happen after someone has been convicted of a crime.

jMyles 11y ago
...but what's the great news part? It will be great news if this widespread official larceny is actually reduced, but that's yet to be seen.
- dantheman 11y ago
  It will be reduced. There are states that already prohibit asset forfeiture, but the this was a loophole. The police could team up with the feds, the feds seize the assets and then give a percentage to the police. 5. That’s crazy!!! This can’t happen in my state. It might be crazy, but civil asset forfeiture happens in every state in the union. Even if the state has laws that limit it, state and local law enforcement authorities can still seize property by partnering with federal law enforcement officials in a system called “equitable sharing,” and payouts to state and local agencies have increased nearly 250% over a 12-year period. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset...
codyb 11y ago
They didn't shut down the asset forfeiture, they shut down the sharing of seized assets with local police forces. Their budget was cut, so they said "we need ours, pony up." Likely, police forces which relied on federal statute to get 80% of the seized resources will now resort to state statute to maximize what they can take from seized assets.
- dantheman 11y ago
  It removes the federal loophole and it makes it a state problem. In the past, police would team up with feds to get around state laws. Yes, it's still a problem but it's much more manageable now.
- 11y ago

brockisbeast 11y ago

A great move by them

spikels 11y ago

Long overdue, this has been an obvious yet growing problem for decades. Asset forfeiture needs to be ended completely. This is only the first step.

rayiner 11y ago

I think you will see more of these moves going forward. As the hysteria of the 1990's starts subsiding and baby boomers start retiring, some of the worst police abuses are going to become politically untenable to defend.

sahaj 11y ago
Your comment caught my interest. Can you expand of the reasoning a bit further?
- VeilEm 11y ago
  Post-vietnam war the US became a lot more conservative. 1980's saw "trickle down economics" (giving money to rich people would trickle down to everyone, seriously), increased mandatory jail times, three strikes laws, increased funding for war against drugs, white flight from the cities to gaited communities. A lot of these trends seem to be slowing or even reversing a bit, one can hope.
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    On trickle-down economics: It is true that rich people tend to fund things like large businesses, which then pay middle-class workers. However, giving them free money gives them no reason to actually use that money to fund more businesses. Why invest when Uncle Sam gives you an allowance? Solid reasoning, terrible plan.
    - njharman 11y ago
      Cut out the middle man and just pay people directly.
      - dawnbreez 11y ago
        I do like the Basic Income Guarantee, but have yet to do any math on how efficient it is compared to the US's welfare system. Ideally, the money would come in the form of a standardized cheque, to be handed out once a month to anybody who is 18 or older and can come to the local DMV and provide proof of citizenship. Unclaimed money goes toward funding the program, getting more workers into DMVs to handle traffic, and (again, ideally) could be sent to a charity of the recipient's choice.

pjene 11y ago

This is surprising good news. Took me three tries to read "defunds" properly, not as "defends".

scottshea 11y ago
To be fair when I posted it autocorrect changed it to "defends" and I had to change it back

jwally 11y ago

All police revenue should go in a pool at the national level, and be randomly distributed to all states. "Protect and Serve" not "Loot and Pillage".

erpellan 11y ago
"police revenue": that's terrifying. How is turning law enforcement into a legally protected extortion gang a good idea?
- shawn-butler 11y ago
  Because that is what it is. There's nothing wrong with calling a duck a duck.

csense 11y ago

Why isn't asset forfeiture an issue in the presidential campaign?

ipsin 11y ago

The article didn't answer the question, and I very curious -- if you're basically taking people's property and keeping 20% of the rake, how do you manage to lose billions in the process? Is it that the 20% is actually allocated elsewhere, or that asset forfeiture is somehow more expensive than I'd granted?

vaadu 11y ago

How is civil forfeiture(cash register justice) not a constitutional violation? The 4th Amendment declares that citizens have a right to "their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and that no warrants may be issued without a statement of probable cause "particularly describing…things to be seized." The 5th Amendment says the accused criminals shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 6th Amendment ensures that people accused of crimes must be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," The 8th Amendment forbids the government to impose "excessive fines" or "cruel and unusual punishments." Opponents of the change have little more than 'the ends justify the means' as a counter argument.

Jormundir 11y ago
They're using a legal loophole, charging the property with being complicit in a crime, not the person. So the piles of money they seize aren't protected by the constitution. This is obviously absurd, corrupt, ridiculous, etc. We have a very corrupt justice system.
- harryh 11y ago
  If the police catch you outside of an electronics store with a broken back door in the middle of the night walking away with a big screen TV do you think they should have to convict you of a crime before they take the TV from you? And if you say "no" to that then where exactly do you draw the line in between law enforcement taking obviously stolen property and law enforcement taking personal property? I don't ask this question rhetorically, I ask it because I'm honestly not sure.
  - BCM43 11y ago
    Yes, I think they should have to charge you with a crime. If they're sure enough that you took it, they should be able to get a conviction. If they're not, they shouldn't take it.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    To add to that much of the property in criminal cases isn't claimed to begin with. When they bust a drug stash no one in their right mind would claim ownership on neither the drugs nor the money seized. That money will get into evidence and will normally be returned the the federal reserve, the program allowed the DOJ to appropriate a portion of that money and distribute it to local law enforcement agencies to increase their funding. Money and other assets will still be seized and they will still not be returned to the criminals they were seized form even if they do not go to trial this might seem unfair but those assets are unclaimed if they claim them they need to prove ownership and that will get them into a sea of trouble. Where will this money go now, well most likely back to the fed or will be kept on the DOJ books, I really don't understand why people have trouble with this policy or why they hail the halt to it as some great achievement to civil rights.

awqrre 11y ago

The ratio of criminals is probably about the same in law enforcement and the general population.

marshray 11y ago

"This program was found to be corrosive to the integrity of our justice system, incompatible with American values, and thus we are terminating it immediately" vs. "We're keeping the money, LoL"

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

Even if unintentional this is a step in the right directions because it removes the incentive for bogus civil asset forfeiture.