3 ms·

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.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Lots of states no longer allowed this, and so an officer would get federally deputized and "cooperate" for some minimal definition of the word with a federal agency, and then local crime enforcement remained federal. This ends the loophole that allowed local police forces to seize assets even when their state prohibited it. Like my state.

...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.
merpnderp 11y ago
Lots of states no longer allowed this, and so an officer would get federally deputized and "cooperate" for some minimal definition of the word with a federal agency, and then local crime enforcement remained federal. This ends the loophole that allowed local police forces to seize assets even when their state prohibited it. Like my state.