Sort of. It was not banned federally at any point.Originally Posted by MrTickle
Eric Holder, one of the worst Attorneys General ever, did one good thing during his term, ending what was known as "equitable sharing" at the federal level. This was what allowed shady small towns to circumvent state laws prohibiting frivolous civil forfeiture, by partnering with federal authorities, and making it a federal bust instead of a state-level bust. The "equitable sharing" agreement allowed the fed to keep 50% and the local jurisdiction to keep the other 50%, even though the locals did most of the work. Everyone won in this arrangement... except the innocent people who were being stolen from by the government!
Trump then reinstated this in 2017. It's not clear why he did it. I think he didn't understand the whole thing, and was talked into believing that civil forfeiture was important an important tool used for thwarting major drug dealers. That's how it began, but over time it got perverted into a legalized stealing operation, and thus should have been eliminated a long time ago.
While it's easy to blame all Republicans for this, that's not really the story here. Civil forfeiture is widely hated by all political parties, yet it somehow persists. To show you how it's not politically biased to one side, the states with the strongest laws against it are New Mexico (blue), Nebraska (red), and Montana (red). The states with the weakest laws against it include ones like Massachusetts (blue), Alaska (red), Alabama (red), and Rhode Island (blue). The states with the biggest civil forfeiture problems historically have been Iowa, Nevada, and Arizona -- all purple!
Republicans hate it because it involves the state trampling on individual rights.
Democrats hate it because it involves violation of civil liberties.
Libertarians despite it because.... well, do I even have to say?
There's actually a simple way to reform civil forfeiture to where it can still be used to target the bad guys (drug dealers, smugglers, black market salesmen) while making it impossible to abuse the innocent.
First, set a floor of $200,000 as the minimum amount which can be seized. This will prevent almost all targeting of innocent people carrying cash to/from casinos or to/from legitimate transactions.
Second, ban all forms of waivers or any other documents where the accused agree to forfeit the money in exchange for no prosecution. This will prevent the blackmail where innocent people are threatened with 20 years in prison if they don't sign away the assets seized.
Third, provide a quick and easy hearing process where the people with the seized money can appear before a judge and explain where the money came from. And if the state loses that hearing, it has to pay for all of the court and travel expenses for the accused. Furthermore, the accused can appeal it to a state-level court to hear their reasoning, if they feel they were railroaded by a corrupt local court.
Fourth, require clear and convincing evidence of the money or assets having been obtained illegally, in order to seize it. This means there would have to either be clear evidence in the vehicle or on the person when they're stopped, or they would have had to have been the subject of an existing investigation. A drug sniffing dog indicating a drug scent in the car wouldn't count, nor would the discovery of a recreational amount of drugs. This would prevent random people from being targeted in places like airports or on highways.
QED
SFO
Reply With Quote