House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion
from the LOAD-LAST-SAVE? dept
Trump's pick for attorney general unsurprisingly holds the same ideals as his boss. He also holds the same misconceptions and misplaced nostalgia for tough-on-crime policing that went out of vogue as soon as it became apparent it wasn't doing anything but filling up prisons.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been going hot and heavy on a 1980s-esque law enforcement policy revival. He booted the DOJ off the civil rights beat, telling states and cities to solve their own police misconduct problems -- something they were clearly unwilling to do on their own, hence the DOJ's intercession. He told cops they're getting back their access to war gear, rolling back the Obama administration's minimal 1033 program reforms.
He's been touting tougher policing and tougher sentencing, using a false narrative of a country under siege by drug dealers and criminal border-jumpers. In a time of historic lows -- both in violent criminal activity and violence towards police officers -- AG Sessions is acting like a street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse to anyone who will listen.
Sessions is also peeling away federal reforms to asset forfeiture. He's opened the federal safety valve for civil forfeitures, allowing local PDs to dodge state laws limiting the amount of property they can take from uncharged citizens.
Given the makeup of Congress, one would assume Sessions' ongoing effort to raise US law enforcement to "a law unto itself" level would ride on rails, at least up until midterm elections. Instead, Sessions is facing a literal House divided -- not against itself exactly -- but against him.
In a stunning move, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture.
Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
If this passes the Senate untouched, the amendment will roll things back to 2015 -- once again prohibiting federal adoption of local forfeitures. It would make state and local agencies play by the rules set for them by their legislatures, rather than allow them to bypass protections put in place to discourage abuse of programs loaded with the most perverted of incentives.
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, civil asset forfeiture, congress, house, jeff sessions
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Bye, partisan!
It's amazing what can happen when you look beyond the labels "Democrat" and "Republican".
made the First Word by Ninja
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bye, partisan!
It's amazing what can happen when you look beyond the labels "Democrat" and "Republican".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye, partisan!
Obama tried unsuccessfully to get bipartisan approvement. Trump is considerably more successful at garnering bipartisan disapprovement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Link?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Link?
From the article above:
Following that link, it's amendment 126 in the second set of amendments to H.R. 3354, made in order under H.Res. 504. Adopted by voice vote, so no roll call.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better, but not the best.
I guess I will take what I can get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Link?
H.Amdt. 391
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Full text [was Re: Re: Re: Link?]
The amendment is short enough that here's the full text from 163 CR H7272—
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blockquote link
I don't see a link in Cushing's article above for the two blockquoted paras. Maybe I'm just blind today. But via Google—
“In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture”, by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, Sep 12, 2017
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If you're talking about the one that restricted refugees from certain countries: if it was "banning Muslims" it would have included Saudi Arabia, at the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a joke right?
1. Heroine use and other opiate abuses is at an all-time high.
2. 11 million+ are working illegally as indentured servants, prostitutes, day laborours at less than minimum wage rates that boarders penal labour conditions in mostly far left so-called sanctuary cities.
3. Anyone that bashes the character of another person using such exaggerations such as: "street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse" is the spitting definition of projection.
I don't support Jeff Sessions but when people say stupid things, you can't help but defend the one's you don't support.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bye, partisan!
But Jeff Sessions was a Republican senator eight months ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you arguing that because it didn't ban all Muslims, that somehow means it didn't intentionally target Muslims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The recent Brennan Center for Justice report by Ames Grawert and James Cullen, “Crime in 2017: A Preliminary Analysis” (Sep 6, 2017), in Table 1 on p.3 (p.8 in doc) shows that the violent crime rate in Boston is down 9.7% from last year.
Is it possible you should have been happier to live in Québec?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The increase in crime rates since Boston became a sanctuary city is spot on.
Yes, it has dropped over the decades but the increase in crime rates this past year has grown greatly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, really?
Moreover, according to http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html, crime has been steadily trending downward for at least the past decade. That site only has data from 2001 - 2015, as the 2016 data isn't widely published yet, but it shows the trend.
Given your inability to get the crime rate correct I have grave doubts about your assertion of illegal immigrant activity and, for that matter, about your claim to be a legal immigrant from France.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
For every 100,000 people, there are 8.28 daily crimes that occur in Boston.
Boston is safer than 13% of the cities in the United States.
In Boston you have a 1 in 34 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.
The number of total year over year crimes in Boston has decreased by 10%.
http://www.areavibes.com/boston-ma/crime/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Table 1 on p.3 (p.8 in doc). The row for Boston. Columns showing percent change in crime rate from 2016 (down 1.6%) and percent change in violent crime rate from 2016 (down 9.7%).
Everyone can read the report.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with when Boston became a sanctuary city in 2017...what the hell does 2016 have anything to do with what I'm talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/11/14/tito-jackson-trump-boston-sanctuary-city/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that crime rates have risen "this past year" and "over the past year."
If not 2016 (i.e. a year ago), what are we supposed to be comparing 2017's (i.e. this past year's) stats to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't seem to know what "projecting" means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Statistics can rise and fall from year to year. The long-view look at crime statistics—that is, whether crime rates are trending down or up across a longer period of time than a year—offers a more accurate view of whether crime rates are getting better or worse. Judging by all available statistics, crime rates in Boston have dropped steadily over the past decade. A spike in crime during a given year means next-to-nothing unless that trend continues in the following year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fixed that for ya
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye, partisan!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asylee vs TPS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lies, damned lies.
This is the same way the climate can be warming even if you're having lower than average temperatures where you're at.
Stats also depend on reporting. I could very well see crime under-reported in high crime areas. People may not simply see the point in bothering. (been there, done that)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Link?
Fwiw (actually very little), here's a convenient link for House Report 115-297, which accompanies H.Res. 504.
But don't bother clicking, unless you need to verify that the report contains no substantive discussion of the amendments. It does indeed have the text of amendment 126, which text is also available at 163 Cong. Rec. H7272 (daily ed. Sep 12, 2017).
Incidentally, the “sponsored” hyperlink — the one that's blockquoted without attribution in Cushing's article above — that hyperlink sucks already.
It points to dynamic content for the “Daily Schedule”. Today, the content has already changed for next week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Racism is alive and well, and living in Boston
This sounds a lot like "Well, there goes the neighbourhood".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had cited statistical sources instead of anecdotal data, I might have cared about your assertion of fact. Also: Even if we assume businesses hire undocumented immigrants at greater rates than legal citizens of any race, you have not expressed a motive for doing so.
Come up with a stronger argument than “this is true around the country because I saw it happen in one part of one state of the entire United States” next time. It might just save you from being mocked for making empty declarative statements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Asylee vs TPS
That's not exactly true. Refugees are defined by US law as "people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion." While in many cases that will mean they're members of minority groups, that need not be the case; it's entirely possible for a minority to persecute a majority. Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a good example; that was an instance where a Sunni minority oppressed a Shiite majority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bye, partisan!
It's my experience that those who use "Democrat" as an adjective usually carry a distinct right-wing bias, but it looks like the usage may be spreading to the point that that may be becoming a less reliable indicator...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asset forfeiture
[ link to this | view in thread ]