
DOJ defers payments to local police agencies through asset forfeiture program - scottshea
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015-12-24/us-postpones-payments-to-police-in-asset-forfeiture-program
======
vaadu
How is civil forfeiture(cash register justice) not a constitutional violation?

The 4th Amendment declares that citizens have a right to "their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and
that no warrants may be issued without a statement of probable cause
"particularly describing…things to be seized."

The 5th Amendment says the accused criminals shall not be "deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The 6th Amendment ensures that people accused of crimes must be "informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation,"

The 8th Amendment forbids the government to impose "excessive fines" or "cruel
and unusual punishments."

Opponents of the change have little more than 'the ends justify the means' as
a counter argument.

~~~
ikeboy
The loophole relied on is that you aren't seizing "their" property, you're
seizing property of unknown ownership. The onus is on the purported owner to
prove it belongs to them so they can have Constitutional rights in it.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction),
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States)

Note that the government can admit the person used to own it. Under
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981),
property used in certain crimes belongs to the government, and so the
government takes it. It's then the person's job to prove it was not involved
in a crime. Courts have ruled this doesn't violate anyone's rights.

(I probably have some of this wrong, IANAL, but I gave sources so you can look
those up.)

~~~
jwatte
What I don't understand is how courts can assume it's used in a crime before a
crime has been proven in court.

Presumably, if I can prove I earned/bought something, and am not convicted of
a crime, turf the government seizure is wrongful and I should get restitution,
but from what I read, that doesn't work?

~~~
ikeboy
Only persons have the presumption of not being guilty. Not property. The
government can claim crimes all they want, they just can't claim a person
committed a crime (and punish them for it).

This is all about shifting the burden of proof to the accused. Allowing the
money to be charged separately does that, or so courts have ruled.

(Insert above disclaimer here.)

------
lim_nick
"the Department is deferring for the time being any equitable sharing payments
from the Program" seems pretty explicitly to be a temporary suspension of
payouts from the program, not a closure of the entire program.

"We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve
some form of meaningful equitable sharing. ... Unfortunately, the combined
effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible."
Doesn't seem like they wanted it closed to me.

How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?

~~~
nmjohn
> How is this not just positive spin on a doj money grab?

While the _best_ case scenario would be the entire notion of any asset sharing
program be made outright illegal [0] because it has been shown to be corrupt,
etc, etc - simply having it shut down is a good thing even if not for "good
reasons" because at the very minimum, it means that if and when the program is
reinstated, it will force conversation of the issue, something that has gone
largely un-discussed in the American political landscape.

[0]: I personally would argue it should be illegal regardless of conviction,
otherwise it incentivizes police forces and DAs to only go after high payout
crimes

~~~
lim_nick
"it means that if and when the program is reinstated"

I'm saying it was never cancelled

~~~
rhizome
Well now the argument can be made while the program is down. Why have the
program if it's not doing it's thing?

------
njharman
I really hate that our legal system has, to a large degree, decided to a very,
very narrow and very literal implementation of the Bill or Rights rather than
going with the Spirit of the law. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced by the
government is very clearly contrary to 5th amendment. But since it's using a
bullshit legal loophole of suing the property and not the owner and doesn't
violate the literal words it's A-OK!

~~~
rayiner
The legal system has not narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights. For example,
the First Amendment has been construed to preclude lots of restrictions on
conduct that is not literally "speech." Everything from contraception to
abortion to gay marriage has become a "right" even though nobody can point to
the specific amendment that guarantees it.

In the case of civil asset forfeiture, central to the Supreme Court's
upholding of those laws was the fact that laws providing for civil forfeiture
of contraband property were passed by the First Congress.

~~~
Zigurd
The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some
people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on
the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired
in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant
amendments to keep up.

We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those
rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the
constitution would be unmaintainable.

~~~
rayiner
A statement that a list of rights is non-exhaustive does not mean they are
limitless. The purported right must be found somewhere else. E.g. Buying
alcohol on Sundays is not prohibited in the Constitution, but you don't have a
right to that because blue laws were accepted at the time.

Your idea of limitless rights turns Constitutional democracy on its head.
Rights are exceptions to the power of the majority to regulate society.
Limitless rights curtails democracy to nothing.

~~~
Zigurd
Your example about blue laws says nothing about rights. Blue laws regulate
commerce but they don't prohibit anything outright. You can still drink on
Sunday. If that restriction were to become too burdensome, a constitutional
care could be made against it.

------
rayiner
I think you will see more of these moves going forward. As the hysteria of the
1990's starts subsiding and baby boomers start retiring, some of the worst
police abuses are going to become politically untenable to defend.

~~~
sahaj
Your comment caught my interest. Can you expand of the reasoning a bit
further?

~~~
VeilEm
Post-vietnam war the US became a lot more conservative. 1980's saw "trickle
down economics" (giving money to rich people would trickle down to everyone,
seriously), increased mandatory jail times, three strikes laws, increased
funding for war against drugs, white flight from the cities to gaited
communities. A lot of these trends seem to be slowing or even reversing a bit,
one can hope.

~~~
dawnbreez
On trickle-down economics:

It is true that rich people tend to fund things like large businesses, which
then pay middle-class workers. However, giving them free money gives them no
reason to actually use that money to fund more businesses. Why invest when
Uncle Sam gives you an allowance?

Solid reasoning, terrible plan.

~~~
njharman
Cut out the middle man and just pay people directly.

~~~
dawnbreez
I do like the Basic Income Guarantee, but have yet to do any math on how
efficient it is compared to the US's welfare system.

Ideally, the money would come in the form of a standardized cheque, to be
handed out once a month to anybody who is 18 or older and can come to the
local DMV and provide proof of citizenship. Unclaimed money goes toward
funding the program, getting more workers into DMVs to handle traffic, and
(again, ideally) could be sent to a charity of the recipient's choice.

------
desireco42
This is legalized stealing. Targets were often not criminals but people with
valuable assets.

------
dantheman
This is really great news. Asset forfeiture should only happen after someone
has been convicted of a crime.

~~~
codyb
They didn't shut down the asset forfeiture, they shut down the sharing of
seized assets with local police forces.

Their budget was cut, so they said "we need ours, pony up."

Likely, police forces which relied on federal statute to get 80% of the seized
resources will now resort to state statute to maximize what they can take from
seized assets.

~~~
dantheman
It removes the federal loophole and it makes it a state problem. In the past,
police would team up with feds to get around state laws.

Yes, it's still a problem but it's much more manageable now.

------
spikels
Long overdue, this has been an obvious yet growing problem for decades. Asset
forfeiture needs to be ended completely. This is only the first step.

------
marshray
"This program was found to be corrosive to the integrity of our justice
system, incompatible with American values, and thus we are terminating it
immediately"

vs.

"We're keeping the money, LoL"

------
pjene
This is surprising good news.

Took me three tries to read "defunds" properly, not as "defends".

~~~
scottshea
To be fair when I posted it autocorrect changed it to "defends" and I had to
change it back

------
ipsin
The article didn't answer the question, and I very curious -- if you're
basically taking people's property and keeping 20% of the rake, how do you
manage to lose billions in the process? Is it that the 20% is actually
allocated elsewhere, or that asset forfeiture is somehow more expensive than
I'd granted?

------
csense
Why isn't asset forfeiture an issue in the presidential campaign?

------
jwally
All police revenue should go in a pool at the national level, and be randomly
distributed to all states. "Protect and Serve" not "Loot and Pillage".

~~~
erpellan
"police revenue": that's terrifying. How is turning law enforcement into a
legally protected extortion gang a good idea?

~~~
shawn-butler
Because that is what it is. There's nothing wrong with calling a duck a duck.

------
dsfyu404ed
Even if unintentional this is a step in the right directions because it
removes the incentive for bogus civil asset forfeiture.

------
awqrre
The ratio of criminals is probably about the same in law enforcement and the
general population.

