can they do this to us? - asset forfeiture

Not anymore - at least not to the same degree. Two days ago, the US attorney general announced major change to asset forfeiture policy. This is a significant step in reducing a major source of abuse by law enforcement in the name of the 'war on drugs'. As Slate's Jamelle Bouie says, it is "a key step toward reforming a criminal justice system that—after three decades of a failed war on drugs—has done so much harm":

On Friday, Holder announced a new reform push aimed at asset forfeiture, a practice that lets authorities confiscate cash and property obtained through illegal means or used for illicit funds. While asset forfeiture has been legal for almost a century, it gained wide use during the 1980s in the war on drugs. As Dara Lind explains for Vox, state and federal asset forfeiture laws have been used to build police “slush funds” that get used for everything “from buying armored cars and military weapons to $600 coffeemakers and party clowns.”

...

Yes, state asset forfeiture laws still remain. But those are often less generous than the federal program, which sent funds back to police departments instead of to the state and local general funds. Which is to say that while Holder’s move isn’t a total victory, it’s still an important one, and a key step toward reforming a criminal justice system that—after three decades of a failed war on drugs—has done so much harm.

Source:
Delayed Justice: Attorney General Eric Holder’s reform of civil asset forfeiture is the newest example of Democrats fixing failed policies from the war on drugs

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.

Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. It allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said in a statement.

Holder’s decision allows limited exceptions, including illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, a small fraction of the total. This would eliminate virtually all cash and vehicle seizures made by local and state police from the program.

Source: Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local, state police
 
Department of Justice - Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Friday, January 16, 2015

Source: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...y-adoptions-assets-seized-state-and-local-law

Attorney General Prohibits Federal Agency Adoptions of Assets Seized by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Except Where Needed to Protect Public Safety
Today, Attorney General Eric Holder issued an order setting forth a new policy prohibiting federal agency forfeiture, or “adoptions,” of assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies, with a limited public safety exception. A federally adopted forfeiture – or “adoption” for short – occurs when a state or local law enforcement agency seizes property pursuant to state law and requests that a federal agency take the seized asset and forfeit it under federal law. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, which has its own forfeiture program, is issuing a policy consistent with the Attorney General’s order and that policy will apply to all participants of the Treasury forfeiture program, administered by the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture.

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” said Attorney General Holder. “This is the first step in a comprehensive review that we have launched of the federal asset forfeiture program. Asset forfeiture remains a critical law enforcement tool when used appropriately – providing unique means to go after criminal and even terrorist organizations. This new policy will ensure that these authorities can continue to be used to take the profit out of crime and return assets to victims, while safeguarding civil liberties.”

The Attorney General ordered that federal agency adoption of property seized by state or local law enforcement under state law be prohibited, except for property that directly relates to public safety concerns, including firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography. The prohibition on federal agency adoption includes, but is not limited to, seizures by state or local law enforcement of vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments. This order is effective immediately and applies to all Justice Department attorneys and components, and all participants in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program. The new policy will ensure that adoption is employed only to protect public safety, and does not extend to seizures where state and local jurisdictions can more appropriately act under their own laws.

Both the Justice and Treasury Departments regularly review their asset forfeiture programs to ensure that federal asset forfeiture authorities are used carefully and effectively to take the profit out of crime, combat organized crime groups, and enable victim compensation, while ensuring that laws are followed, civil liberties are protected, and our constitutional system is strengthened. Since 2000, the Justice Department has returned approximately $4 billion in forfeited funds to victims of federal crime. Both departments will be part of the Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, which will provide recommendations to the President regarding actions that can be taken to improve programs, like asset forfeiture, that help local law enforcement obtain equipment.

The Justice Department’s policy permitting federal agencies to adopt seizures dates from the inception of the Asset Forfeiture Program in the 1980s. The Treasury Department’s adoption policy has been part of its Asset Forfeiture Program since its inception in 1993. At the time that these policies were implemented, few states had forfeiture statutes analogous to the federal asset forfeiture laws. Consequently, when state and local law enforcement agencies seized criminal proceeds and property used to commit crimes, they often lacked the legal authority to forfeit the seized items. Turning seized assets over to federal law enforcement agencies for adoption was a way to keep those assets from being returned to criminals. Today, however, every state has either criminal or civil forfeiture laws, making the federal adoption process less necessary. Indeed, adoptions currently constitute a very small slice of the federal asset forfeiture program. Over the last six years, adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.

The new policy applies only to adoptions, not to seizures resulting from joint operations involving both federal and state authorities, or to seizures pursuant to warrants issued by federal courts. The policy does not limit the ability of state and local agencies to pursue the forfeiture of assets pursuant to their respective state laws. Law enforcement agencies working on joint task forces are required to follow the 2015 Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.
 
Wonder what brought this on? To bad it's not retroactive.
I'd like to think it reflects realization that the war on drugs is a failure and efforts should be taken to defund it. But maybe it's just a reaction to post-Ferguson discussion of police militarization...
 
I don't know but, I believe something like the latter probably. I don't see the government admitting any failures.
 
Back
Top