Jeff Sessions and civil forfeiture
The topic is way outside of my field of expertise, but this position of Jeff Sessions sounds like a bad, bad idea:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions should reconsider his plan to expand the use of civil asset forfeiture in the service of the so-called war on drugs. If he fails to do so, Congress should reconsider it for him ”” indeed, Congress ought to act on asset-forfeiture reform irrespective of the attorney general’s views on the matter.
Asset forfeiture is a constitutionally questionable practice whereby property ”” often cash ”” is taken from citizens by police agencies who suspect, or at least say they suspect, that the property may have been come by illegally, often through the drug trade. Cash seized through asset forfeiture can be used by police departments, as can cash generated through the sales of seized property such as vehicles. The fact that police personnel can materially benefit from forfeiture proceedings creates a conflict of interest that would render forfeiture problematic even if it were used with discretion in accordance with the highest degree of procedural protections for the rights of the accused.
It isn’t…
The specific issue here mainly touches on Sessions’s plan to revoke certain Obama-era restrictions on asset forfeiture. In response to the general unjustness of asset forfeiture and specific cases of abuse associated with it, many states have limited the use of the process, and 13 of them require an actual criminal conviction before seizing assets. But the federal government offered police agencies operating under more restrictive state rules an out in the form of cooperative seizures ”” “equitable sharing,” they call it ”” under which federal authorities accepted seized assets in a cooperative capacity and then shared them with local agencies. Which is to say, the federal government set up a program of official money-laundering in order to make an end run around state laws. Cute, that. The Obama-era reforms cut back on that, and Sessions means to return to the status quo ante as part of an aggressive new campaign to expand the use of forfeiture against drug traffickers.
Which is to say, conservatives should object to this on due-process grounds and on Tenth Amendment grounds ”” if the states wish to restrict the use of asset forfeiture, then Washington has no business interfering.
Sessions appears to be letting his determination to fight drug traffic cloud his vision considerably. He needs to drop this particular crusade.
This is not something new for Sessions, either. He was singing the same song in December of 2016, against much the same negative reaction from all sides.
Agree with Neo. From what I have read, civil forfeiture has gone too far.
The standard needs to be changed to a Felony conviction at the minimum.
The other change … seized funds or property not allowed into budgets. Budgets = seizure quota’s.
Until those changes are made … theatre for public consumption.
Just say no to asset forfeiture.
A simple bright line should be you have to be convicted of a criminal act that is directly related to the purchase financial assets themselves- i.e. you used proceeds from the criminal act to purchase said assets.
In addition to that, however, it should be a simple bright line that no forfeited assets go to the agency that went to court to seize them- none.
assemblerhead m
The standard needs to be changed to a Felony conviction at the minimum.
Connecticut Now Requires a Felony Conviction for Civil Forfeiture.
There is little good that the Solons of the state of Connecticut have done in the years since I left Connecticut, but here is an example where they have done the right thing. The article points out there are now 14 states that require a conviction “for most or all forfeiture cases.”
The Associated Press has more on this — US restoring asset seizures, with safeguards:
I agree that I do not like the civil forfeiture law, but it is law that was first enacted in 1986 and has many changes. See the bottom for the years of change – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981 .
So, the correct course of action is to go back to the law and change it. That takes Congress. Call your representatives.
The new policy may give some safeguards, but it can be easily changed again.
I am against the very concept of asset forfeiture unless the circumstances fall under the RICO act.
Civil asset forfeiture as it is currently employed is basically a forced fundraiser for law enforcement agencies. It’s unAmerican. It’s so obviously a due process violation that I find it hard to believe that it has gone on as long as it has. But I guess money talks. Yes, I’ve gotten cynical.
Count me against it as well. I’ve long admired Jeff Sessions but on this issue he’s in the wrong. I can’t imagine he’s unaware of the negatives, so essentially he’s saying the end justifies the means. But this law does far more harm than good.
This is one more example of having the cart before the horse. America doesn’t have a drug problem that destroys individuals and families. It has dysfunctional families whose members use drugs as palliative medication.
No amount of incarceration and asset forfeiture can cure that ailment. Societal “drug problems” are symptomatic not causative. A focus upon treatment of the symptom is indicative of a refusal to face the heart of the matter.
Lessen demand and supply will naturally lessen as well.
A 2015 in-depth look at civil asset forfeiture by the Heritage Foundation concludes:
The full piece is here.
America doesn’t have a drug problem that destroys individuals and families. It has dysfunctional families whose members use drugs as palliative medication.
GB: That’s what I’ve seen.
Civil forfeiture is a serious worm in the apple of law enforcement.
I’m conservative these days but when I’m dealing with LEOs one-on-one, I have had enough experience that I don’t believe they are on my side.
Which doesn’t mean they are against me, but they have their own agenda and I won’t forget that.
Some 20 years ago or so, there was a case in CA where a mansion and a very large estate was seized in a marijuana growing bust. The plants were spotted by a LEO helicopter and a SWAT home invasion executed.
Months later, in the process of the owners proving that they were not involved in pot growing, the audio tape from the helicopter was obtained. The tape made it clear that the investigative process being used was one where high dollar value properties were being targeted for investigation and potential seizure.
AG Sessions and company can tart these rules up all they want, but the law is rotten at its core. The law is not constitutionally questionable , it is completely unconstitutional.
,LEO agencies get lazy and greedy. Build a case or simply admit you are just another criminal organization.
Another purpose of civil asset forfeiture to to reverse the burden of proof: the alleged malefactor must prove that the property was not the fruit of crime, rather than the state being required to prove that it was.
That being said, there is a legitimate concern that the alleged malefactor will take his ill-gotten gains and flee the jurisdiction. I would suggest a procedure used in tax administration, levy and lien: a state lien would prevent real estate and secured property from being sold, but the lien would be removed if the state fails to make its case (and yes, the burden of proof should be the same as in a criminal proceeding). Similarly, cash and other intangible property, stocks, bonds, etc. can be levied and held by the court, and businesses placed in receivership, with the court allowing release of funds for living expenses and legal defense.
Ann,
I have to wonder if these new safeguards will be as efffective as the safeguards that protect us from domestic surveillance.
KRB
It is kind of funny that humans in the US actually think they have a clue what is going on and that they even have a hope of fixing it.