Let's talk about civil forfeiture and government abuses regarding that

[Dan Druff]

BUMP

In March 2015, Eric Holder ended federal cooperation regarding local civil forfeiture, which was basically the one good thing he did during his tenure as US Attorney General.

Now Jeff Sessions has brought it back. Ugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8cc_story.html

They supposedly have some restrictions in place to "prevent abuse", but I doubt it will matter much.

If you recall, Holder did NOT make civil forfeiture illegal, but instead removed the loophole which allowed local police departments to use federal law in order to supersede state laws against unreasonable seizure of property.

Most states already had laws against abuse of civil forfeiture, and had placed strict requirements upon the evidence required in order to perform such seizures. However, sleazy local governments and police departments were cooperating with federal agents to make federal-level seizures, thus allowing them to ignore these state laws.

Federal agents cooperated because the US government got half the proceeds -- a concept known as "equitable sharing".

Holder ended equitable sharing, thus also ending the federal government's cooperation in these matters, and returning the power to the states to control these abuses.

Sessions just reversed what Holder did.

Strangely, civil forfeiture is popular with NEITHER party.

Democrats hate it because it's a violation of civil rights and due process.

Republicans hate it because it's a violation of property rights and states rights.

The only ones who like civil forfeiture are small local governments and police departments.

Why is Sessions catering to them?

[Forum Wars]

This is somewhat interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b08a269cb0a9
.
In Chicago 10% of the seizures were for amounts less than $100. So they finds scales, and baggies (not even drugs) and take your pocket change.

[MumblesBadly]

BUMP

In March 2015, Eric Holder ended federal cooperation regarding local civil forfeiture, which was basically the one good thing he did during his tenure as US Attorney General.

Now Jeff Sessions has brought it back. Ugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8cc_story.html

They supposedly have some restrictions in place to "prevent abuse", but I doubt it will matter much.

If you recall, Holder did NOT make civil forfeiture illegal, but instead removed the loophole which allowed local police departments to use federal law in order to supersede state laws against unreasonable seizure of property.

Most states already had laws against abuse of civil forfeiture, and had placed strict requirements upon the evidence required in order to perform such seizures. However, sleazy local governments and police departments were cooperating with federal agents to make federal-level seizures, thus allowing them to ignore these state laws.

Federal agents cooperated because the US government got half the proceeds -- a concept known as "equitable sharing".

Holder ended equitable sharing, thus also ending the federal government's cooperation in these matters, and returning the power to the states to control these abuses.

Sessions just reversed what Holder did.

Strangely, civil forfeiture is popular with NEITHER party.

Democrats hate it because it's a violation of civil rights and due process.

Republicans hate it because it's a violation of property rights and states rights.

The only ones who like civil forfeiture are small local governments and police departments.

Why is Sessions catering to them?

Not the conservative Christian Republicans, who hate marijuana even more. Neither to racist white GOPers, who like being able to help fund their police departments by selectively target black communities to make drug busts and get federal grants from the DEA for doing so. Because most, if not all, of those forfeitures are justified by police claiming the money is related to illegal drug activity.

[Dan Druff]

Well, something good happened this time, and it occurred at the Republican-majority Supreme Court.

A man was arrested for trying to sell a small amount of heroin to undercover officers, and his $42k Land Rover was impounded and seized.

He took the case to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that this was an "excessive punishment", and he got his Land Rover back.

The maximum fine for the man's offense was $10k, according to that state's own law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Eight Amendment prevents excessive punishment for crime, and that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to apply these protections to state cases.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...lies-to-states

The man was apparently a drug addict selling the heroin for small profit to get his next fix, and not a major drug dealer.

This matters to the rest of us because it creates a precedent that state and local governments cannot seize items where the value greatly exceeds the maximum penalties for which the person is accused.

Civil forfeiture, which was started in order to seize large amounts of cash from drug dealers even in absence of catching a drug deal involving the money, was quickly perverted by police departments and local governments to become legalized stealing. It became common for small police departments to target out-of-the-area motorists, falsely accuse them of a crime, and seize their property or cash, which then would require a prohibitively expensive legal process to get back.

Oddly, this has continued despite overwhelming hatred for this practice by both major political parties and the populace in general.

[ftpjesus]

Well, something good happened this time, and it occurred at the Republican-majority Supreme Court.

A man was arrested for trying to sell a small amount of heroin to undercover officers, and his $42k Land Rover was impounded and seized.

He took the case to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that this was an "excessive punishment", and he got his Land Rover back.

The maximum fine for the man's offense was $10k, according to that state's own law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Eight Amendment prevents excessive punishment for crime, and that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to apply these protections to state cases.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...lies-to-states

The man was apparently a drug addict selling the heroin for small profit to get his next fix, and not a major drug dealer.

This matters to the rest of us because it creates a precedent that state and local governments cannot seize items where the value greatly exceeds the maximum penalties for which the person is accused.

Civil forfeiture, which was started in order to seize large amounts of cash from drug dealers even in absence of catching a drug deal involving the money, was quickly perverted by police departments and local governments to become legalized stealing. It became common for small police departments to target out-of-the-area motorists, falsely accuse them of a crime, and seize their property or cash, which then would require a prohibitively expensive legal process to get back.

Oddly, this has continued despite overwhelming hatred for this practice by both major political parties and the populace in general.

Even more was this was a slam dunk UNANIMOUS decision 9-0 by SCOTUS... Shouldve happened sooner as yes the law and principle as designed to nail and seize massive dollar items from big drug dealers etc but it was abused and legal armed robbery was ongoing by several police agencies across the country.. The couple in WV who had $10k stolen by police near Charles Town WV was a recent example and they had PROOF on them at the time of the stop regarding the winnings yet the police literally left them $2 in their pockets in cash.. They did recover their funds finally.. but again never should've happened..

[Dan Druff]

Interestingly, this wasn't even your typical civil forfeiture abuse.

In this case, the guy really WAS committing a crime, and that is not in dispute.

The issue here was whether the police had the right to permanently seize his $42k Land Rover over a small drug deal.

In most civil forfeiture abuses, there is no crime involved, and the police know it. It's actually legalized stealing.

This one was more of a grey area, since a real drug deal did occur, albeit a small one. Still, I agree that an expensive vehicle should not be forfeited given the circumstances.

[MumblesBadly]

Some states are worse than others re civil forfeiture. For example, when driving along I-95 in South Carolina, almost always just across the border from Georgia, I routinely see people getting their vehicles searched by a Po-Po. And I’m not talking about gangers in pimped out Honda Civics or Navigators. Regular looking folks in ordinary vehicles. Sometimes the Po-Po be searching through their belongings in the trunk, other times on hands and knees looking in the crevices of the backseat. I likely wouldn’t notice this as much if driving a regular vehicle, but the viewing angle from the seat of big truck is excellent, and we’re supposed to move over, or slow down quite a bit, when passing a police car on the shoulder that has its lights flashing.

[Dan Druff]

Some states are worse than others re civil forfeiture. For example, when driving along I-95 in South Carolina, almost always just across the border from Georgia, I routinely see people getting their vehicles searched by a Po-Po. And I’m not talking about gangers in pimped out Honda Civics or Navigators. Regular looking folks in ordinary vehicles. Sometimes the Po-Po be searching through their belongings in the trunk, other times on hands and knees looking in the crevices of the backseat. I likely wouldn’t notice this as much if driving a regular vehicle, but the viewing angle from the seat of big truck is excellent, and we’re supposed to move over, or slow down quite a bit, when passing a police car on the shoulder that has its lights flashing.

Correct.

South Carolina is one of the worst states for this, as they basically have zero standard regarding the suspicion level of a crime required in order to search and seize.

If you go to this Wikipedia article and scroll down to the "States" section, you can see a state-by-state list.

The worst states are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

Second worst are George, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington.

The states with the most protection from search and seizure are Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico. Interestingly, New Mexico has abolished all seizure entirely.

The "equitable sharing" controversy allowed certain localities to bypass state law by bringing federal agents into the mix, where (weak) federal law would then supersede the state protections. Then the locality and federal government would split the proceeds.

Eric Holder ended this (one of the few positive things he did), and Jeff Sessions put it back.

However, again this only affected states with tough laws against abuse of search and seizure. States like South Carolina weren't affected, as they didn't need the federal government's help, as their laws already had little protection for the citizen being searched.

Equitable sharing took place in states like Nevada, which has a fairly high "clear and convincing evidence of a crime" standard for seizure. This would allow local authorities to bypass that standard and seize money and other property without the clear and convincing evidence otherwise required.

[JohnCommode]

Kind of shocked that left wing law enforcement suspicious Massachusetts is a "1" along with Alaska and its strong libertarian movement. Maybe, because this law ultimately involves such a small % Of the population, nobody cares. People seem to believe that they must be drug dealers.