9 ms·

Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with police

306 points by dthal 12y ago

discardorama 12y ago
Of course, Holder does this as he is leaving, to score some brownie points. What was stopping him from doing this earlier? Nothing. The WaPo did a huge expose a few months back about the abuses in this system, but nobody cared. And others have been complaining about it for many years. So now that he doesn't need the backing of the LEO community, but wants to line up speaking engagements after he retires, he throws the people a bone.
epochwolf 12y ago
So... how long is this going to last? The article says Holder's leaving his office. When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this policy?
- psaintla 12y ago
  Nothing, but don't expect congress to do anything about this.
  - jacobolus 12y ago
    Congress has been feeling a ton of heat since the big newspaper exposés of a few months ago. Plenty of people are pissed, irrespective of political party. From the OP here: Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing. Grassley praised Holder’s decision on Friday. “We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.” He said he planned to continue pressing for legislative reforms. “I commend the department for this step and look forward to working with them on comprehensive forfeiture reform that protects Americans’ property rights,” Sensenbrenner said. “Equitable sharing has become a tool too often used to bypass state law. Forfeitures should be targeted and must have appropriate procedural protections.”
    - psaintla 12y ago
      Maybe I'm too cynical but laws get drafted with this congress and getting them past the house never happens.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        This seems reasonably bipartisan, but I'm not sure how broad the support is. Of course there's also the risk that even if it is bipartisan with broad support that singeing will overreach and use its popularity to get something else passed and that effort will kill the broader bill.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Not to mention the "Last Week Tonight" episode, 4.4 million views on YouTube, plus 600k on HBO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
- innguest 12y ago
  > When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this policy? You mean how to keep politicians from stealing from their constituents? I have been asking statists for an answer to that question for a long time. Don't hold your breath. It's a flawed system and you just found the core issue that has no solution inside statism. If anyone disagrees with this statement, instead of down-voting please kindly point to an existing example of a State that has solved the problem of corrupt politicians. Now that you found the core problem of statism, you owe yourself some reading. It's a fun journey. Good luck.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - contingencies 12y ago
    Radical transparency? Edit: Of course not: it's a 'publish everything' model, so people can real time audit government behaviors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Political_Transparency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Po... and http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html for some description.
    - woodman 12y ago
      Nope, circular logic. Who enforces the transparency? The state? edit: re: edit: The point is that the call for transparency as a solution presupposes the whole "consent of the governed" idea, which is laughable. Consider accident of birth and majority tyranny.
  - woodman 12y ago
    "Give us a king to judge us" :) It is an old problem [0] [0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&...
ingler 12y ago
> "Forfeiture has its basis in British admiralty law" British admiralty law is the bane of the American legal system: "Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  > to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land "Laws of the land" refers to English Common Law, and if that's what the battle was to save, it's already lost. We've already wrecked our own common law system pretty thoroughly with the proliferation of bodies of civil law. Legislators can't leave our court systems well-enough alone.
- masklinn 12y ago
  On the other hand Admiralty law is the basis for the freemen/sovcit kookery which is very funny (to watch from afar)
- pjc50 12y ago
  The only time I've heard admiralty law mentioned is in conjunction with "freemen of the land" and other weirdness; what is the issue with it? Is this anything to do with the Amistad case?
- jtlienwis1 12y ago
  Admiralty courts used to only have jurisdiction over the sea as far as the tides ran up the rivers. Somehow that all changed. I think it first got extended to the Great Lakes because of action during the war of 1812. Then they took it up river and then covering all land drained by rivers and all wetlands. It was one way of getting Fed jurisdiction over state jurisdiction land. The Feds used to have only jurisdiction over forts, magazines and post offices inside states. This is why the Fed owns so little land in the first 13 states.
kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
Won't change a thing. All it will take is the good old standby of "disorderly conduct" to determine that a crime has been committed as justification for a seizure. Look at a cop the wrong way and your cash is as good as gone.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Except "disorderly conduct" is not a federal charge, and thus can't be used to skirt around this decision. Holder's decision obviously does not affect state and local seizure laws.
clavalle 12y ago
Good. I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. For people who think it only happened to drug dealers who were difficult to prosecute; it happened to my elderly parents. My grandfather died suddenly in Georgia and we were the closest family at the time. My parents packed up their car in a hurry and started from Texas down I-10. In Mississippi they ran into a drunk driving checkpoint. They, being elderly conservative Republican business owners driving a luxury sedan that never conceived that the police would not be on their side, consented to a search of their car. The police found an antique revolver (my dad is an avid collector) locked in its case in the trunk. That plus the $800 he had in his wallet as travel money was enough to get them thrown in jail for the weekend and their property seized as suspected drug dealers. $8000 in local lawyer fees later they got their car back but the antique gun had 'gone missing' along with the cash. Their lawyer said they were lucky to get the car back.
- civilian 12y ago
  Huh. Hopefully they are now elderly libertarians? Have their political views changed since that experience?
  - clavalle 12y ago
    Not really. To be libertarian you have to be pretty idealistic. They don't qualify. Now they are just Republicans that don't trust the police.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      Well, that's some progress anyway. All it will take to fix our police problem is sufficient public will. There isn't any other barrier.
      - wickedlogic 12y ago
        There are people with the will, attempting to fix it in NH: "Reform Asset Forfeiture!" - http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc39db1af2c9f9c#.VLl4gorF82I http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc... https://freestateproject.org https://freestateproject.org
rayiner 12y ago
Republicans are going to blow this because they hate Obama and Holder. Police departments and their unions are a huge component of the pension liability blowing a hole in state budgets. With all the blowback recently, now is the perfect time to knock them down a peg or two in a way that's going to get bipartisan support if the message is crafted right.
- josefresco 12y ago
  Plus, who's going to buy all that nifty "war on drugs" gear when the police no longer have "free money" to purchase? Republicans will definitely shoot this down for the reasons you mentioned, and I'm sure will also hear from local constituents concerned that they're neighborhood will now be overrun with drug dealers due to this policy change.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > Plus, who's going to buy all that nifty "war on drugs" gear when the police no longer have "free money" to purchase? FWIW it's generally gifted/granted to local police, though they do have to pay ownership costs.
  - wiredfool 12y ago
    Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing. It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now.
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      > It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now. Virtually everything these past few years has been bipartisan, up to the point it became higher-profile and associated with Obama who (rightly or wrongly) is an incredibly polarizing figure. It goes all the way back to Obamacare, which was solidly bipartisan (I mean in Congress, not merely in concept) and which Republicans in committee had a veto pen over, particularly in the Senate. Until it fell directly into the spotlight and became too associated with Obama's platform. This has happened over and over and over since 2008.
WalterBright 12y ago
> Police do not need evidence of a crime to use it, because it is a civil action against an object, such as currency or a car, rather than a person. This is just so wrong. It essentially denies there's any such thing as property rights.
- r00fus 12y ago
  How can an enforcement action be made against an inanimate object? Sounds like a loophole the size of solar system. Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    You mean a copyright?
  - innguest 12y ago
    > Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next? They already do. Free speech is curbed in much of Europe and several are in jail for holding unpopular opinions.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    > Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next? Holocaust denial is already illegal in many places.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      Not in America, land of the climate change denialists and fearers of sharia law.
      - innguest 12y ago
        Right, in the US instead of going to jail you get death threats and bomb parcels sent to you for holding those opinions.
      - 12y ago
carrja99 12y ago
This is a big deal!
knowtheory 12y ago
Steve Rich posted all the documents on DocumentCloud and all the data on Github too. The post about the documents (which you can search) and the data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/01/16/how-police-spent-billions-seized-from-americans/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/01/1...
bluedino 12y ago
To see both sides of this issue, you have to understand the thinking that brought this sort of legislation into use. Let's say you have some bad guy, whether he/she's a low-level crack dealer that sells on the streets or a gang leader who has all kinds of stuff going on. When you arrest this person, what happens to their assets that they've (assumingly) illegally obtained? The hundred thousand in drug money? The guns, high end electronics, luxury cars, etc? You weaken the individual criminal and their gangs by taking their money away. It's far to easy to just pass those assets on to another person and they can simply assume the role. And after the person does their 5-10 years in prison should they be released back to what they had obtained through illegal activity?
- ta75757 12y ago
  You hold the assets until the accused is either found guilty or innocent. If they are innocent you return the assets. (Never mind that they are now doing exactly that to prevent people from using their own money to pay for their own defense.) When we grant law enforcement authority, we are extending them trust not to abuse it. They have failed to not abuse it, therefore the authority should be revoked. So yes, drug dealers should keep their money, so that random people don't get robbed by the police. If the police whine, tell them it's their own fault for abusing their power. (Of course this is idealistic garbage, the police are politically entrenched and rarely ever lose any power.)
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  Leaving aside the specific laws in question (to avoid derailing this into a discussion on the sanity of drug laws), it seems completely reasonable to seize assets generated by illegal activity, if such activity has been proven in a court of law. The accused remains innocent until proven guilty, and the seizure should be tied directly to a guilty verdict and included as part of sentencing. (In the case of a crime involving one or more victims, most notably theft, the proceeds should go directly to those victims.) Today however, the processes for property seizure occur almost independently from the procedures of the criminal justice system; seizures can occur without any guilty verdict, and there's no guarantee that property will be returned to innocent people.
- 12y ago
dthal 12y ago
I think all of the cynics on here (including me) should pause for a moment and reflect on what is happening in this case: the government is going to do something that will cost it revenue, just because its the right thing to do and the people wanted it.
- 300bps 12y ago
  They're shutting down a program that let them steal $3 billion without due process. Hey that's great and all but I don't classify it as cynical to wonder why it ever started in the first place.
  - marincounty 12y ago
    I think it started out with good intentions, but like so many great ideas it was abused. I am very leary of any new law because they take years to get off the books, and many innocent people are punished. Three strikes--great, until guys are put away for stealing a candy bar. Seat belt laws--great, until cops actively looked for any violations, and the fees went up. Drunk driving crackdown--fine until cops started pulling over everyone(profiling) who is out past 10 p.m. on a friday--looking for that rare person over .10%. Even building code statues should be throughly reviewed before making them standard practice.(The average person has no idea just how any codes are involved in building a structure.) Yes, there was a time I could get in my car and not worry about getting pulled over, or having to go over a check list( insurance, lights working, licence plate light working, right time of night, checking Trapster before a long trip, right people(yes-it's what you think) in my car; and it was beautiful!
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    If anything that makes me a bit better. Somehow a $3B industry has been stalled somewhat by The Process. I mean, that is a hekuva lot of money to pull the brakes on.
    - RIMR 12y ago
      Yeah, that money could pay for nearly a week's worth of Iraq War!
adwf 12y ago
I remember seeing this on John Oliver and thinking that it was no different than highway robbery. I've literally seen shakedowns in third world countries that weren't as bad as what the police have been doing in the US. They just take a bribe and move on, you'd still have your car and most of your wallet. The acts of the police in the US make me wonder why they even joined the police force in the first place?
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
I'll have to watch to make sure that this isn't something sneaky, but if he's really putting a stop to it this could be significant. Some states have already legislated to prohibit this, but the federal program allowed their own police forces to sidestep the prohibitions... effectively making it impossible to fix at the state level. Don't get me wrong, Obama and Holder are both shitbags, but this makes them slightly less shitbaggish, even in my own eyes. Two or three more things like this, I might even be forced to change my opinion of them.
will_brown 12y ago
>Holder said there is also less need for the Equitable Sharing program. >“Today, however, every state has either criminal or civil forfeiture laws, making the federal adoption process less necessary,” Holder’s statement said. > ...police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. In other words, no longer will your rights be violated vis-a-vis the forfeiture of assets - without proof of a crime - under Federal Law. Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. Reading between the lines (e.g. following the money), it is clear the State's are behind this change and not the outrage of law makers at the notion police forces are strong-arm robbing ordinary citizens. Whereas under the Federal law money goes direct to the police agency and under state laws the money goes to a State fund where presumably the State law makers can get their greedy little hands on the money.
- Terr_ 12y ago
  > Whereas under the Federal law money goes direct to the police agency Which is bad, because it directly incentivizes individual groups of cops to take as much as possible. > and under state laws the money goes to a State fund Which is good, because it removes the "personal benefit" aspect of the police taking assets. > where presumably the State law makers can get their greedy little hands Only if the police have an incentive to put it into their hands.
- kelnos 12y ago
  Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. Fortunately, it's less attractive for local police now: a good number of states apparently have laws on the books that require the proceeds of asset seizure to go to the state's general fund (or in some cases something specific like the state education fund), rather than allowing police to pocket it for their own uses. The federal "sharing" program allowed police to skirt around this and keep the assets themselves. I suspect there will be far fewer instances of seizures once the police realize they aren't going to see any of it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In other words, no longer will your rights be violated vis-a-vis the forfeiture of assets - without proof of a crime - under Federal Law. Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. The reason local police have been using federal law to do this is that seizures under federal law belong to the feds, but federal law has a proceeds-sharing system which gives most of it back to the seizing agency, where state laws usually reserve seizure proceeds under state law to the state general fund. Without the agency-specific revenue enhancement provided by federal seizure rules, there is far less incentive for police to pursue seizure. (That doesn't mean they won't still when they have other motivations, like "punishing" a target that they don't have sufficient evidence to criminally charge. But by removing the federal option, a powerful incentive for the use of seizure has also been removed.)
briandh 12y ago
I am happy about this, but note that besides the (fairly narrow) "public safety" exception mentioned in the article the order also exempts joint task forces and joint federal-state investigations [1]. I don't know how those work, but my cynical expectation is for those activities to increase to make up for some of the lost revenue. [1] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.pdf http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.p...
mhuffman 12y ago
Obama is killing it as a lame duck President. If he would have nutted up and acted this way throughout his Presidency, Democrats would be golden right not and not fighting for their political lives.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  I've been noting this dynamic for a ways now, the earliest reference I can find is last May, though I thought I'd mentioned it earlier (on G+). Throughout his presidency, Obama has been constrained by a legislature he at best could only partially rely on -- his initial filibuster-proof Senate lasted less than three months as I recall. His initial approach was working with the Republic party, though that failed. He was then concerned with both midterm and his own re-election, with very narrow margins to preserve. With his final mid-terms out of the way, he's in an interesting place: not empowered (his party controls neither house of Congress), but neither impotent. He has a Senate which can either filibuster or uphold a veto, he has veto authority himself, and can act to impose regulatory measures within his Executive authority. I predicted, and he seems to be acting, with great conviction since the last election than in the six years prior. I anticipate another two years of this. Not smooth sailing, but far more decisive action.
  - sp332 12y ago
    I wonder if this explains the Republican candidates starting their campaigns so early?
- forgotAgain 12y ago
  Agree completely with th exception that it was the whole Democratic party and not just Obama. For six years they kept on putting things off until "after the election" so as not to hurt their chances for winning. In the end it made it obvious that they were guided by self interest and not by serving the people.
tempVariable 12y ago
I remember a radio show on Canadian CBC, which talked about the danger of having goods, cash or otherwise being confiscated by less savoury deputies of the law in U.S. It aired just last year, but I don't remember the exact name of the broadcast.
nekopa 12y ago
This quote is why I will never go back to the USA unless somethings radically change: “It seems like a continual barrage against police,” said John W. Thompson, interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. “I’m not saying there’s no wrongdoing, but there is wrongdoing in everything.” This is the head of a police organisation basically saying stop picking on us because other people rob citizens too. By the way I am an American and left in the years after 9/11 because shit like this was starting to become more and more common. It was bad for me there because I had a strange accent - I was raised in London, and I am half black. Before 9/11 conversations would be like "Where are you from? Oh, Europe! Why I you here? I've always heard wonderful things about the place?" Afterwards it turned to "WHERE ARE YOU FROM AND WHY ARE YOU HERE!?! It was sad to see a lot of Americans I met go from a totally open, inquisitive nature to closed paranoia. Really makes me depressed about the future of my country.
tomohawk 12y ago
This is good news, but I hope it doesn't take the wind out of the sails of the effort to actually change the law. Executive decisions such as this are a poor substitute for settled law.
toyg 12y ago
I know this is good news, but when I read it, the first thing I thought was "this would have saved quite a bit of trouble for Clay Davis' driver in The Wire". Which is not actually true, to be fair -- it could still happen in the same way, the only thing changing is what happens to the money after it's seized (well, the bits that Herc and Carver won't stuff in their pockets, at least).
ck2 12y ago
The whole problem with this is when he is gone, it could be back again, ie. 2016 Justice for all is such an complete illusion in this country and the worst part is the people who breathlessly defend police until suddenly one day they get an eye opener and then it is too late.

306 points by dthal 12y ago

Of course, Holder does this as he is leaving, to score some brownie points. What was stopping him from doing this earlier? Nothing. The WaPo did a huge expose a few months back about the abuses in this system, but nobody cared. And others have been complaining about it for many years. So now that he doesn't need the backing of the LEO community, but wants to line up speaking engagements after he retires, he throws the people a bone.

epochwolf 12y ago

So... how long is this going to last? The article says Holder's leaving his office. When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this policy?

psaintla 12y ago
Nothing, but don't expect congress to do anything about this.
- jacobolus 12y ago
  Congress has been feeling a ton of heat since the big newspaper exposés of a few months ago. Plenty of people are pissed, irrespective of political party. From the OP here: Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing. Grassley praised Holder’s decision on Friday. “We’re going to have a fairer justice system because of it,” Grassley said. “The rule of law ought to protect innocent people and civil asset forfeiture hurt a lot of people.” He said he planned to continue pressing for legislative reforms. “I commend the department for this step and look forward to working with them on comprehensive forfeiture reform that protects Americans’ property rights,” Sensenbrenner said. “Equitable sharing has become a tool too often used to bypass state law. Forfeitures should be targeted and must have appropriate procedural protections.”
  - psaintla 12y ago
    Maybe I'm too cynical but laws get drafted with this congress and getting them past the house never happens.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      This seems reasonably bipartisan, but I'm not sure how broad the support is. Of course there's also the risk that even if it is bipartisan with broad support that singeing will overreach and use its popularity to get something else passed and that effort will kill the broader bill.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Not to mention the "Last Week Tonight" episode, 4.4 million views on YouTube, plus 600k on HBO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
innguest 12y ago
> When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this policy? You mean how to keep politicians from stealing from their constituents? I have been asking statists for an answer to that question for a long time. Don't hold your breath. It's a flawed system and you just found the core issue that has no solution inside statism. If anyone disagrees with this statement, instead of down-voting please kindly point to an existing example of a State that has solved the problem of corrupt politicians. Now that you found the core problem of statism, you owe yourself some reading. It's a fun journey. Good luck.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- contingencies 12y ago
  Radical transparency? Edit: Of course not: it's a 'publish everything' model, so people can real time audit government behaviors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Political_Transparency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Po... and http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html for some description.
  - woodman 12y ago
    Nope, circular logic. Who enforces the transparency? The state? edit: re: edit: The point is that the call for transparency as a solution presupposes the whole "consent of the governed" idea, which is laughable. Consider accident of birth and majority tyranny.
- woodman 12y ago
  "Give us a king to judge us" :) It is an old problem [0] [0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&...

ingler 12y ago

> "Forfeiture has its basis in British admiralty law" British admiralty law is the bane of the American legal system: "Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

vinceguidry 12y ago
> to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land "Laws of the land" refers to English Common Law, and if that's what the battle was to save, it's already lost. We've already wrecked our own common law system pretty thoroughly with the proliferation of bodies of civil law. Legislators can't leave our court systems well-enough alone.
masklinn 12y ago
On the other hand Admiralty law is the basis for the freemen/sovcit kookery which is very funny (to watch from afar)
pjc50 12y ago
The only time I've heard admiralty law mentioned is in conjunction with "freemen of the land" and other weirdness; what is the issue with it? Is this anything to do with the Amistad case?
jtlienwis1 12y ago
Admiralty courts used to only have jurisdiction over the sea as far as the tides ran up the rivers. Somehow that all changed. I think it first got extended to the Great Lakes because of action during the war of 1812. Then they took it up river and then covering all land drained by rivers and all wetlands. It was one way of getting Fed jurisdiction over state jurisdiction land. The Feds used to have only jurisdiction over forts, magazines and post offices inside states. This is why the Fed owns so little land in the first 13 states.

kevin_thibedeau 12y ago

Won't change a thing. All it will take is the good old standby of "disorderly conduct" to determine that a crime has been committed as justification for a seizure. Look at a cop the wrong way and your cash is as good as gone.

vonmoltke 12y ago
Except "disorderly conduct" is not a federal charge, and thus can't be used to skirt around this decision. Holder's decision obviously does not affect state and local seizure laws.

clavalle 12y ago

Good. I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we have the right to due process. For people who think it only happened to drug dealers who were difficult to prosecute; it happened to my elderly parents. My grandfather died suddenly in Georgia and we were the closest family at the time. My parents packed up their car in a hurry and started from Texas down I-10. In Mississippi they ran into a drunk driving checkpoint. They, being elderly conservative Republican business owners driving a luxury sedan that never conceived that the police would not be on their side, consented to a search of their car. The police found an antique revolver (my dad is an avid collector) locked in its case in the trunk. That plus the $800 he had in his wallet as travel money was enough to get them thrown in jail for the weekend and their property seized as suspected drug dealers. $8000 in local lawyer fees later they got their car back but the antique gun had 'gone missing' along with the cash. Their lawyer said they were lucky to get the car back.

civilian 12y ago
Huh. Hopefully they are now elderly libertarians? Have their political views changed since that experience?
- clavalle 12y ago
  Not really. To be libertarian you have to be pretty idealistic. They don't qualify. Now they are just Republicans that don't trust the police.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    Well, that's some progress anyway. All it will take to fix our police problem is sufficient public will. There isn't any other barrier.
    - wickedlogic 12y ago
      There are people with the will, attempting to fix it in NH: "Reform Asset Forfeiture!" - http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc39db1af2c9f9c#.VLl4gorF82I http://schedule.nhlibertyforum.com/event/de3f714a09d0089b2fc... https://freestateproject.org https://freestateproject.org

rayiner 12y ago

Republicans are going to blow this because they hate Obama and Holder. Police departments and their unions are a huge component of the pension liability blowing a hole in state budgets. With all the blowback recently, now is the perfect time to knock them down a peg or two in a way that's going to get bipartisan support if the message is crafted right.

josefresco 12y ago
Plus, who's going to buy all that nifty "war on drugs" gear when the police no longer have "free money" to purchase? Republicans will definitely shoot this down for the reasons you mentioned, and I'm sure will also hear from local constituents concerned that they're neighborhood will now be overrun with drug dealers due to this policy change.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Plus, who's going to buy all that nifty "war on drugs" gear when the police no longer have "free money" to purchase? FWIW it's generally gifted/granted to local police, though they do have to pay ownership costs.
- wiredfool 12y ago
  Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing. It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now.
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    > It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now. Virtually everything these past few years has been bipartisan, up to the point it became higher-profile and associated with Obama who (rightly or wrongly) is an incredibly polarizing figure. It goes all the way back to Obamacare, which was solidly bipartisan (I mean in Congress, not merely in concept) and which Republicans in committee had a veto pen over, particularly in the Senate. Until it fell directly into the spotlight and became too associated with Obama's platform. This has happened over and over and over since 2008.

WalterBright 12y ago

> Police do not need evidence of a crime to use it, because it is a civil action against an object, such as currency or a car, rather than a person. This is just so wrong. It essentially denies there's any such thing as property rights.

r00fus 12y ago
How can an enforcement action be made against an inanimate object? Sounds like a loophole the size of solar system. Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  You mean a copyright?
- innguest 12y ago
  > Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next? They already do. Free speech is curbed in much of Europe and several are in jail for holding unpopular opinions.
- duaneb 12y ago
  > Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next? Holocaust denial is already illegal in many places.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Not in America, land of the climate change denialists and fearers of sharia law.
    - innguest 12y ago
      Right, in the US instead of going to jail you get death threats and bomb parcels sent to you for holding those opinions.
    - 12y ago

carrja99 12y ago

This is a big deal!

knowtheory 12y ago

Steve Rich posted all the documents on DocumentCloud and all the data on Github too. The post about the documents (which you can search) and the data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/01/16/how-police-spent-billions-seized-from-americans/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/01/1...

bluedino 12y ago

To see both sides of this issue, you have to understand the thinking that brought this sort of legislation into use. Let's say you have some bad guy, whether he/she's a low-level crack dealer that sells on the streets or a gang leader who has all kinds of stuff going on. When you arrest this person, what happens to their assets that they've (assumingly) illegally obtained? The hundred thousand in drug money? The guns, high end electronics, luxury cars, etc? You weaken the individual criminal and their gangs by taking their money away. It's far to easy to just pass those assets on to another person and they can simply assume the role. And after the person does their 5-10 years in prison should they be released back to what they had obtained through illegal activity?

ta75757 12y ago
You hold the assets until the accused is either found guilty or innocent. If they are innocent you return the assets. (Never mind that they are now doing exactly that to prevent people from using their own money to pay for their own defense.) When we grant law enforcement authority, we are extending them trust not to abuse it. They have failed to not abuse it, therefore the authority should be revoked. So yes, drug dealers should keep their money, so that random people don't get robbed by the police. If the police whine, tell them it's their own fault for abusing their power. (Of course this is idealistic garbage, the police are politically entrenched and rarely ever lose any power.)
JoshTriplett 12y ago
Leaving aside the specific laws in question (to avoid derailing this into a discussion on the sanity of drug laws), it seems completely reasonable to seize assets generated by illegal activity, if such activity has been proven in a court of law. The accused remains innocent until proven guilty, and the seizure should be tied directly to a guilty verdict and included as part of sentencing. (In the case of a crime involving one or more victims, most notably theft, the proceeds should go directly to those victims.) Today however, the processes for property seizure occur almost independently from the procedures of the criminal justice system; seizures can occur without any guilty verdict, and there's no guarantee that property will be returned to innocent people.
12y ago

dthal 12y ago

I think all of the cynics on here (including me) should pause for a moment and reflect on what is happening in this case: the government is going to do something that will cost it revenue, just because its the right thing to do and the people wanted it.

300bps 12y ago
They're shutting down a program that let them steal $3 billion without due process. Hey that's great and all but I don't classify it as cynical to wonder why it ever started in the first place.
- marincounty 12y ago
  I think it started out with good intentions, but like so many great ideas it was abused. I am very leary of any new law because they take years to get off the books, and many innocent people are punished. Three strikes--great, until guys are put away for stealing a candy bar. Seat belt laws--great, until cops actively looked for any violations, and the fees went up. Drunk driving crackdown--fine until cops started pulling over everyone(profiling) who is out past 10 p.m. on a friday--looking for that rare person over .10%. Even building code statues should be throughly reviewed before making them standard practice.(The average person has no idea just how any codes are involved in building a structure.) Yes, there was a time I could get in my car and not worry about getting pulled over, or having to go over a check list( insurance, lights working, licence plate light working, right time of night, checking Trapster before a long trip, right people(yes-it's what you think) in my car; and it was beautiful!
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  If anything that makes me a bit better. Somehow a $3B industry has been stalled somewhat by The Process. I mean, that is a hekuva lot of money to pull the brakes on.
  - RIMR 12y ago
    Yeah, that money could pay for nearly a week's worth of Iraq War!

adwf 12y ago

I remember seeing this on John Oliver and thinking that it was no different than highway robbery. I've literally seen shakedowns in third world countries that weren't as bad as what the police have been doing in the US. They just take a bribe and move on, you'd still have your car and most of your wallet. The acts of the police in the US make me wonder why they even joined the police force in the first place?

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

I'll have to watch to make sure that this isn't something sneaky, but if he's really putting a stop to it this could be significant. Some states have already legislated to prohibit this, but the federal program allowed their own police forces to sidestep the prohibitions... effectively making it impossible to fix at the state level. Don't get me wrong, Obama and Holder are both shitbags, but this makes them slightly less shitbaggish, even in my own eyes. Two or three more things like this, I might even be forced to change my opinion of them.

will_brown 12y ago

>Holder said there is also less need for the Equitable Sharing program. >“Today, however, every state has either criminal or civil forfeiture laws, making the federal adoption process less necessary,” Holder’s statement said. > ...police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. In other words, no longer will your rights be violated vis-a-vis the forfeiture of assets - without proof of a crime - under Federal Law. Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. Reading between the lines (e.g. following the money), it is clear the State's are behind this change and not the outrage of law makers at the notion police forces are strong-arm robbing ordinary citizens. Whereas under the Federal law money goes direct to the police agency and under state laws the money goes to a State fund where presumably the State law makers can get their greedy little hands on the money.

Terr_ 12y ago
> Whereas under the Federal law money goes direct to the police agency Which is bad, because it directly incentivizes individual groups of cops to take as much as possible. > and under state laws the money goes to a State fund Which is good, because it removes the "personal benefit" aspect of the police taking assets. > where presumably the State law makers can get their greedy little hands Only if the police have an incentive to put it into their hands.
kelnos 12y ago
Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. Fortunately, it's less attractive for local police now: a good number of states apparently have laws on the books that require the proceeds of asset seizure to go to the state's general fund (or in some cases something specific like the state education fund), rather than allowing police to pocket it for their own uses. The federal "sharing" program allowed police to skirt around this and keep the assets themselves. I suspect there will be far fewer instances of seizures once the police realize they aren't going to see any of it.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In other words, no longer will your rights be violated vis-a-vis the forfeiture of assets - without proof of a crime - under Federal Law. Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law. The reason local police have been using federal law to do this is that seizures under federal law belong to the feds, but federal law has a proceeds-sharing system which gives most of it back to the seizing agency, where state laws usually reserve seizure proceeds under state law to the state general fund. Without the agency-specific revenue enhancement provided by federal seizure rules, there is far less incentive for police to pursue seizure. (That doesn't mean they won't still when they have other motivations, like "punishing" a target that they don't have sufficient evidence to criminally charge. But by removing the federal option, a powerful incentive for the use of seizure has also been removed.)

briandh 12y ago

I am happy about this, but note that besides the (fairly narrow) "public safety" exception mentioned in the article the order also exempts joint task forces and joint federal-state investigations [1]. I don't know how those work, but my cynical expectation is for those activities to increase to make up for some of the lost revenue. [1] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.pdf http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.p...

mhuffman 12y ago

Obama is killing it as a lame duck President. If he would have nutted up and acted this way throughout his Presidency, Democrats would be golden right not and not fighting for their political lives.

dredmorbius 12y ago
I've been noting this dynamic for a ways now, the earliest reference I can find is last May, though I thought I'd mentioned it earlier (on G+). Throughout his presidency, Obama has been constrained by a legislature he at best could only partially rely on -- his initial filibuster-proof Senate lasted less than three months as I recall. His initial approach was working with the Republic party, though that failed. He was then concerned with both midterm and his own re-election, with very narrow margins to preserve. With his final mid-terms out of the way, he's in an interesting place: not empowered (his party controls neither house of Congress), but neither impotent. He has a Senate which can either filibuster or uphold a veto, he has veto authority himself, and can act to impose regulatory measures within his Executive authority. I predicted, and he seems to be acting, with great conviction since the last election than in the six years prior. I anticipate another two years of this. Not smooth sailing, but far more decisive action.
- sp332 12y ago
  I wonder if this explains the Republican candidates starting their campaigns so early?
forgotAgain 12y ago
Agree completely with th exception that it was the whole Democratic party and not just Obama. For six years they kept on putting things off until "after the election" so as not to hurt their chances for winning. In the end it made it obvious that they were guided by self interest and not by serving the people.

tempVariable 12y ago

I remember a radio show on Canadian CBC, which talked about the danger of having goods, cash or otherwise being confiscated by less savoury deputies of the law in U.S. It aired just last year, but I don't remember the exact name of the broadcast.

nekopa 12y ago

This quote is why I will never go back to the USA unless somethings radically change: “It seems like a continual barrage against police,” said John W. Thompson, interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. “I’m not saying there’s no wrongdoing, but there is wrongdoing in everything.” This is the head of a police organisation basically saying stop picking on us because other people rob citizens too. By the way I am an American and left in the years after 9/11 because shit like this was starting to become more and more common. It was bad for me there because I had a strange accent - I was raised in London, and I am half black. Before 9/11 conversations would be like "Where are you from? Oh, Europe! Why I you here? I've always heard wonderful things about the place?" Afterwards it turned to "WHERE ARE YOU FROM AND WHY ARE YOU HERE!?! It was sad to see a lot of Americans I met go from a totally open, inquisitive nature to closed paranoia. Really makes me depressed about the future of my country.

tomohawk 12y ago

This is good news, but I hope it doesn't take the wind out of the sails of the effort to actually change the law. Executive decisions such as this are a poor substitute for settled law.

toyg 12y ago

I know this is good news, but when I read it, the first thing I thought was "this would have saved quite a bit of trouble for Clay Davis' driver in The Wire". Which is not actually true, to be fair -- it could still happen in the same way, the only thing changing is what happens to the money after it's seized (well, the bits that Herc and Carver won't stuff in their pockets, at least).

ck2 12y ago

The whole problem with this is when he is gone, it could be back again, ie. 2016 Justice for all is such an complete illusion in this country and the worst part is the people who breathlessly defend police until suddenly one day they get an eye opener and then it is too late.