Eric Holder Cuts Off Program That Helped Spur Police Asset Seizure 'Shopping Sprees'
from the good-move dept
Well, here's a bit of a surprise. For years we've been highlighting the ridiculousness of police asset seizure and asset forfeiture laws (and, actually, were working on another post on some new such laws that we may now need to revisit...). These laws have basically become a legalized way for local police to steal cars and money without ever charging anyone with a crime. And then... they get to keep the money and sell off the cars. Some have even admitted the process is basically the police going "shopping" for stuff they want. They can seize anything, claiming that it was used in a crime, even if no one is ever charged with a crime. Effectively, they're "charging the thing" which is why you get crazy case names like the (actual case): United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.However, on Friday, somewhat unexpectedly, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was massively limiting a federal program that helped make these seizures so valuable to police:
“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.There's still more to be done to fix bad asset seizure and forfeiture laws, but this is a really big step forward.
Holder’s decision allows some 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.
While 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. Many states require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.
Of course, just watch as police departments start to protest that they can no longer go "shopping" for "toys" that they can steal:
The policy will touch policing and local budgets in every state. Since 2001, about 7,600 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments and task forces have participated in Equitable Sharing. For hundreds of police departments and sheriff’s offices the seizure proceeds accounted for 20 percent or more of their annual budgets in recent years.Either way, kudos to Holder for making this move.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cars, doj, equitable sharing, eric holder, feds, money, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Boo hoo
Boo hoo, cry me a river.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The 4th makes it DAMN CLEAR! The entire idea of asset forfeiture is to trick people into thinking the 4th no longer applies... Sad that most Americans are stupid enough to believe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it also shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basically... Winston Churchill was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentives
Which is *exactly* the problem, of course, because it pretty much compels the cops to asset seize whether it's justified or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incentives
You have to go about these things in an intelligent manner. For example, I'm willing to bet that ending online "sting" programs, and routine SWAT team deployments, will result in some impressive budget savings for relatively minimal pay cuts and personnel reductions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, they'll just make up for it in ticket revenues....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make it up on ticket's
The willful ignorance of politician's that pass these kind of law's, make's beating you head against a brick wall, seem relatively sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make it up on ticket's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing that was important about Federal assistance in this program was it was a way to hide from accountability in city budgeting as to where the money came from. Instead of having to claim they got the money through selling one (description of item) they could say that participation in the federal confiscation program resulted in $X for the year. The feds took a percentage and sent the rest back, in essence doing money laundering to hide the source.
Talking of forfeiture in confiscations this article states:
http://www.communityradar.com/story.php?title=budget-review-does-dunwoody-need-a-narcotics- task-force-officer-and-a-swat-team
When cities start using confiscation income as part of the city budget years in advance, it is no longer about illegal goods but rather about a lottery of what citizen gets what stolen for the year to pay for the budget. It has become another abuse that the citizens of this nation are fed up with in police and government powers as it is a license to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Olfactory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I could hold my nose and clap at the same time, I would.
Mr. Holder still stinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I don't necessarily disagree with Holder's exceptions concerning illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, I do find it interesting that extra forfeiture/seizure laws aren't really necessary for those items, because in most in instances, it's illegal to possess those items anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most of that stuff is obtained from the military at little or no cost. Another program I'd like to see ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having cash is practically an admission of guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having cash is practically an admission of guilt.
That seems to be how police are thinking these days. Or maybe that's just their cover to steal people's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how about a rundown of which states do not require seizures to go into the 'general fund'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
put away the champagne (for now)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: put away the champagne (for now)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To be such he would have to be against such acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Craw, not crawl (apologies if that was just a typo - I'm an idiom Nazi, not a typo Nazi).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like the Holy Inquisition and Witchhunts.
I'm with AC here.
What is about to be associated with child pornography?
Everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Belt Tightening Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Military toys and booze
Asset Forfeiture money is spent on extra booze at the secret police balls and margarita machines.
And, I think a Zamboni for no explicable reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect?
What I am in doubt about is if I should be deeply respecting Holder for making this excellent law, or if I should be disgusted that it took so long to make such an obvious decision.
Shouldn't we expect our politicians to prevent such obvious "legal" robberies? It says much about our current state of affairs that this seems like such a huge thing... it should be an obvious thing to do, and should have been done the second there was event a hint of a whisper of this behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect?
There's your problem right there.
Should our representatives do something about it? Of course.
Will they? Not very likely.
Should we expect them to in our current established system? No.
Should we endeavor to change the system so that we could realistically expect representatives of the people to act quickly and decisively when such events come to light? Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you sure?
I wish Holder had simply said that a conviction was required.
I also wish he had said that people don't have to sue to get their property back. Nor do people have to settle for less than 100%. If they fail to prove a crime, then they have to return ALL the property immediately. Right now they make you sue them and fight it for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you sure?
I also wish he had said that people don't have to sue to get their property back.
I think you're ascribing to him more power than he has. He can't do anything about state and local seizure laws, all he can control is the federal program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you sure?
The local cops are allowed to seize stuff quite easily. But in order for them to keep it, forfeiture, you usually have to be convicted of the crime the seizure was associated with. The federal forfeiture law has no requirement for a conviction at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Bollaert
Might want to write a post detailing how your "this is bad, but plea bargain" post was completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kevin Bollaert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kevin Bollaert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost, but not quite
Sigh. Since "drug-related" seizures could just base their claims on the officer smelling something funny or being able to hold a dog leash, I'll expect to see a whole lot of child pornography charges for officers pouncing on an adult in the process of changing a diaper before it is justifiably soiled. Or seizing the assets of people who bought baby powder without plausible explanation.
Or collect dolls as an adult (remember that collections of Japanese manga comics involving sex acts where an assignment of age to the rather unrealistic body shapes is rather tricky might get you charged with child pornography) that are naked beneath their clothes.
Of course, child "protection" services will be like a hawk after any such seizure pretense in order to make sure that the victims do not just lose their money but also their children and normal life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been going on for a while.
Then again, most (if not all) major criminal organizations emerge as a result of either abuse or negligence of law-enforcement bodies. The Mafia itself was shielding people from the holy inquisition when it got started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This has been going on for a while.
Do you have a link to some history on this:
"The Mafia itself was shielding people from the holy inquisition when it got started."
Would love to learn more on this topic.
Was that when they were called the Black Lantern or something similar?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police seizures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOLDER & OBAMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Whatever they can think of at the time, knowing full well whatever they come up with doesn't need to be even remotely reasonable or even sane.
2. Forever, or some length thereof.
3. 'AHAHAHHAHA' or 'None whatsoever', depending on whether or not you were being serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its PR time!
Hmmm.... could Florida's "Every Horny Male Is A Child Molester" property confiscation program be going nation-wide??
Are we soon to be witness to 500,000+ un-convicted, but publicly shamed and property bereft horny single males being "pulled in" for NOT molesting the imaginary children offered up for clandestine sex, by the social media entrapment police forces??
Looks like its a really good time to forgo the social media coupling route and go back to simple one hand clapping masturbation sessions boys, if you happen to own a car or a house you'd like to keep.
If there is one thing that never changes, it is that once a crook gets used to a certain "method" of "easy cash", they will do everything in their power to insure that nothing comes between them and that method, including murder, extortion and manufacturing false documentation.
Today's Cowboy Cops are NOT going to take kindly to the idea that they can no longer steal millions of dollars a year from the general public, at will, legally. If they don't put up a huge fight against this legislation, then that just means they have already figured out a way to circumvent it and keep on stealing legally.
Ways like using the child molestation loophole and taking the Florida entrapment process nation-wide.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. Holder is attempting to make Loretta Lynch's past reliance upon the program less of a sticking point during her upcoming confirmation hearing by eliminating the possibility of any future usage. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the current piece of shit nominee stole heavily from American citizens in her past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should be fun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should be fun
Considering that this would make the process even more lucrative for the city cops, I see it as the obvious solution to the financial problems the police will soon be facing without the old "you keep what you steal" laws.
After all, as you said, they will be facing budget shortfalls without the Reverse Robin-Hood revenue, so it will behoove their local politicians to write new legislation to insure the Cops get to keep the cash, houses, computers, boats, jewelry, clothing and cars they steal from the public, just like the old days and that the budget needs are fulfilled.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]