
Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with police - dthal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
======
clavalle
Good.

I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when we
have the right to due process.

For people who think it only happened to drug dealers who were difficult to
prosecute; it happened to my elderly parents.

My grandfather died suddenly in Georgia and we were the closest family at the
time. My parents packed up their car in a hurry and started from Texas down
I-10. In Mississippi they ran into a drunk driving checkpoint. They, being
elderly conservative Republican business owners driving a luxury sedan that
never conceived that the police would not be on their side, consented to a
search of their car. The police found an antique revolver (my dad is an avid
collector) locked in its case in the trunk. That plus the $800 he had in his
wallet as travel money was enough to get them thrown in jail for the weekend
and their property seized as suspected drug dealers.

$8000 in local lawyer fees later they got their car back but the antique gun
had 'gone missing' along with the cash. Their lawyer said they were lucky to
get the car back.

~~~
knodi123
> I really don't understand how this practice persisted for so long next when
> we have the right to due process.

Can someone clarify for me- I read the article, and it SEEMS to be saying "the
feds will no longer be participating in this process, which will of course
still be carried out by state and city police". It's more about where seized
money gets allocated, than about limiting the actual seizures.

Is that right?

~~~
ensignavenger
The Missouri Sate constitution requires that any proceeds from seizures go to
an education fund. In Missouri, not a penny should go to the local cops.
Unfortunately, local cops would frequently violate the state's constitution by
turning over the seizures to the feds, who would then keep a percent and give
the rest back to the local cops. Of course, the local cops should have turned
it over to education, as that is clearly what the state constitution requires,
but they would routinely violate the constitution and keep the proceeds for
themselves.

~~~
sigil
If true, then I know of at least one local police force in Missouri that's in
egregious violation of this. Can you drop a link to the relevant state code?

~~~
dllthomas
Well, parent said "Constitution", so the link would have to be this:
[http://www.sos.mo.gov/pubs/missouri_constitution.pdf](http://www.sos.mo.gov/pubs/missouri_constitution.pdf)

That said, I'm not finding it with a little searching and skimming. I do see
gaming revenues restricted to education...

------
WalterBright
> Police do not need evidence of a crime to use it, because it is a civil
> action against an object, such as currency or a car, rather than a person.

This is just so wrong. It essentially denies there's any such thing as
property rights.

~~~
r00fus
How can an enforcement action be made against an inanimate object? Sounds like
a loophole the size of solar system.

Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?

~~~
duaneb
> Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?

Holocaust denial is already illegal in many places.

~~~
saraid216
Not in America, land of the climate change denialists and fearers of sharia
law.

~~~
logicchains
>and fearers of sharia law

What is there not to fear about sharia law? Personally I'd be terrified of
living under a legal system in which many of the basic rights I take for
granted simply cease to exist, and in which my wife and any daughters I have
are considered second-class citizens.

~~~
saraid216
Specifically, there's an expectation that Obama will institute it.

Because he's Muslim, see?

------
ingler
> "Forfeiture has its basis in British admiralty law"

British admiralty law is the bane of the American legal system:

"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of
the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty
seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our
Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land.
It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any
matter on land was given to the admiralty."

\-- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

~~~
apsec112
This quote is not originally from 1852; it's from Boston in 1769, where the
colonists were complaining about the abuses of George III. It has nothing to
do with the modern American legal system; the US does not have separate
admiralty courts and all maritime cases fall under the jurisdiction of federal
district courts.

------
adwf
I remember seeing this on John Oliver and thinking that it was no different
than highway robbery.

I've literally seen shakedowns in third world countries that weren't as bad as
what the police have been doing in the US. They just take a bribe and move on,
you'd still have your car and most of your wallet.

The acts of the police in the US make me wonder why they even joined the
police force in the first place?

------
dthal
I think all of the cynics on here (including me) should pause for a moment and
reflect on what is happening in this case: the government is going to do
something that will cost it revenue, just because its the right thing to do
and the people wanted it.

~~~
300bps
They're shutting down a program that let them steal $3 billion without due
process. Hey that's great and all but I don't classify it as cynical to wonder
why it ever started in the first place.

~~~
HCIdivision17
If anything that makes me a bit better. Somehow a $3B industry has been
stalled somewhat by The Process. I mean, that is a hekuva lot of money to pull
the brakes on.

~~~
RIMR
Yeah, that money could pay for nearly a week's worth of Iraq War!

------
will_brown
>Holder said there is also less need for the Equitable Sharing program.

>“Today, however, every state has either criminal or civil forfeiture laws,
making the federal adoption process less necessary,” Holder’s statement said.

> ...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.

In other words, no longer will your rights be violated vis-a-vis the
forfeiture of assets - without proof of a crime - under Federal Law. Rather,
local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State Law.

Reading between the lines (e.g. following the money), it is clear the State's
are behind this change and not the outrage of law makers at the notion police
forces are strong-arm robbing ordinary citizens. Whereas under the Federal law
money goes direct to the police agency and under state laws the money goes to
a State fund where presumably the State law makers can get their greedy little
hands on the money.

~~~
kelnos
_Rather, local police will be violating rights and taking assets under State
Law._

Fortunately, it's less attractive for local police now: a good number of
states apparently have laws on the books that require the proceeds of asset
seizure to go to the state's general fund (or in some cases something specific
like the state education fund), rather than allowing police to pocket it for
their own uses. The federal "sharing" program allowed police to skirt around
this and keep the assets themselves. I suspect there will be far fewer
instances of seizures once the police realize they aren't going to see any of
it.

------
nekopa
This quote is why I will never go back to the USA unless somethings radically
change:

“It seems like a continual barrage against police,” said John W. Thompson,
interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. “I’m not
saying there’s no wrongdoing, but there is wrongdoing in everything.”

This is the head of a police organisation basically saying stop picking on us
because other people rob citizens too. By the way I am an American and left in
the years after 9/11 because shit like this was starting to become more and
more common. It was bad for me there because I had a strange accent - I was
raised in London, and I am half black.

Before 9/11 conversations would be like "Where are you from? Oh, Europe! Why I
you here? I've always heard wonderful things about the place?" Afterwards it
turned to "WHERE ARE YOU FROM AND WHY ARE YOU HERE!?!

It was sad to see a lot of Americans I met go from a totally open, inquisitive
nature to closed paranoia. Really makes me depressed about the future of my
country.

------
rayiner
Republicans are going to blow this because they hate Obama and Holder. Police
departments and their unions are a huge component of the pension liability
blowing a hole in state budgets. With all the blowback recently, now is the
perfect time to knock them down a peg or two in a way that's going to get
bipartisan support if the message is crafted right.

~~~
josefresco
Plus, who's going to buy all that nifty "war on drugs" gear when the police no
longer have "free money" to purchase? Republicans will definitely shoot this
down for the reasons you mentioned, and I'm sure will also hear from local
constituents concerned that they're neighborhood will now be overrun with drug
dealers due to this policy change.

~~~
wiredfool

      Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in  
      Congress are working together to craft legislation to 
      overhaul civil asset forfeiture. Last Friday, Sens. Charles 
      E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with 
      Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers 
      Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end 
      Equitable Sharing.
    

It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now.

~~~
Amezarak
> It actually seems to be a bipartisan thing right now.

Virtually everything these past few years has been bipartisan, up to the point
it became higher-profile and associated with Obama who (rightly or wrongly) is
an incredibly polarizing figure.

It goes all the way back to Obamacare, which was solidly bipartisan (I mean in
Congress, not merely in concept) and which Republicans in committee had a veto
pen over, particularly in the Senate.

Until it fell directly into the spotlight and became too associated with
Obama's platform.

This has happened over and over and over since 2008.

------
mhuffman
Obama is killing it as a lame duck President. If he would have nutted up and
acted this way throughout his Presidency, Democrats would be golden right not
and not fighting for their political lives.

~~~
dredmorbius
I've been noting this dynamic for a ways now, the earliest reference I can
find is last May, though I thought I'd mentioned it earlier (on G+).

Throughout his presidency, Obama has been constrained by a legislature he at
best could only partially rely on -- his initial filibuster-proof Senate
lasted less than three months as I recall. His initial approach was working
_with_ the Republic party, though that failed. He was then concerned with both
midterm and his own re-election, with very narrow margins to preserve.

With his final mid-terms out of the way, he's in an interesting place: not
empowered (his party controls _neither_ house of Congress), but neither
impotent. He has a Senate which can either filibuster or uphold a veto, he has
veto authority himself, and can act to impose regulatory measures within his
Executive authority. I predicted, and he seems to be acting, with great
conviction _since_ the last election than in the six years prior.

I anticipate another two years of this. Not smooth sailing, but far more
decisive action.

~~~
sp332
I wonder if this explains the Republican candidates starting their campaigns
so early?

------
briandh
I am happy about this, but note that besides the (fairly narrow) "public
safety" exception mentioned in the article the order also exempts joint task
forces and joint federal-state investigations [1]. I don't know how those
work, but my cynical expectation is for those activities to increase to make
up for some of the lost revenue.

[1]
[http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.p...](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AGassetforfetureorder.pdf)

------
epochwolf
So... how long is this going to last? The article says Holder's leaving his
office. When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating
this policy?

~~~
innguest
> When he leaves, what stops the next person from simply reinstating this
> policy?

You mean how to keep politicians from stealing from their constituents? I have
been asking statists for an answer to that question for a long time. Don't
hold your breath. It's a flawed system and you just found the core issue that
has no solution inside statism. If anyone disagrees with this statement,
instead of down-voting please kindly point to an existing example of a State
that has solved the problem of corrupt politicians.

Now that you found the core problem of statism, you owe yourself some reading.
It's a fun journey. Good luck.

~~~
contingencies
Radical transparency?

Edit: Of course not: it's a 'publish everything' model, so people can real
time audit government behaviors. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Po...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency#Radical_Political_Transparency)
and
[http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html](http://www.davidbrin.com/radicaltransparency.html)
for some description.

~~~
woodman
Nope, circular logic. Who enforces the transparency? The state?

edit: re: edit:

The point is that the call for transparency as a solution presupposes the
whole "consent of the governed" idea, which is laughable. Consider accident of
birth and majority tyranny.

------
knowtheory
Steve Rich posted all the documents on DocumentCloud and all the data on
Github too.

The post about the documents (which you can search) and the data:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-
eye/wp/2015/01/1...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-
eye/wp/2015/01/16/how-police-spent-billions-seized-from-americans/)

------
tempVariable
I remember a radio show on Canadian CBC, which talked about the danger of
having goods, cash or otherwise being confiscated by less savoury deputies of
the law in U.S.

It aired just last year, but I don't remember the exact name of the broadcast.

------
discardorama
Of course, Holder does this as he is leaving, to score some brownie points.
What was stopping him from doing this earlier? Nothing. The WaPo did a huge
expose a few months back about the abuses in this system, but nobody cared.
And others have been complaining about it for many years.

So now that he doesn't need the backing of the LEO community, but wants to
line up speaking engagements after he retires, he throws the people a bone.

------
toyg
I know this is good news, but when I read it, the first thing I thought was
"this would have saved quite a bit of trouble for Clay Davis' driver in The
Wire". Which is not actually true, to be fair -- it could still happen in the
same way, the only thing changing is what happens to the money after it's
seized (well, the bits that Herc and Carver won't stuff in their pockets, at
least).

------
ck2
The whole problem with this is when he is gone, it could be back again, ie.
2016

Justice for all is such an complete illusion in this country and the worst
part is the people who breathlessly defend police until suddenly one day they
get an eye opener and then it is too late.

------
bluedino
To see both sides of this issue, you have to understand the thinking that
brought this sort of legislation into use. Let's say you have some bad guy,
whether he/she's a low-level crack dealer that sells on the streets or a gang
leader who has all kinds of stuff going on.

When you arrest this person, what happens to their assets that they've
(assumingly) illegally obtained? The hundred thousand in drug money? The guns,
high end electronics, luxury cars, etc?

You weaken the individual criminal and their gangs by taking their money away.
It's far to easy to just pass those assets on to another person and they can
simply assume the role. And after the person does their 5-10 years in prison
should they be released back to what they had obtained through illegal
activity?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Leaving aside the specific laws in question (to avoid derailing this into a
discussion on the sanity of drug laws), it seems completely reasonable to
seize assets generated by illegal activity, _if such activity has been proven
in a court of law_. The accused remains innocent until proven guilty, and the
seizure should be tied _directly_ to a guilty verdict and included as part of
sentencing. (In the case of a crime involving one or more victims, most
notably theft, the proceeds should go directly to those victims.)

Today however, the processes for property seizure occur almost independently
from the procedures of the criminal justice system; seizures can occur without
any guilty verdict, and there's no guarantee that property will be returned to
innocent people.

------
tomohawk
This is good news, but I hope it doesn't take the wind out of the sails of the
effort to actually change the law.

Executive decisions such as this are a poor substitute for settled law.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
I'll have to watch to make sure that this isn't something sneaky, but if he's
really putting a stop to it this could be significant.

Some states have already legislated to prohibit this, but the federal program
allowed their own police forces to sidestep the prohibitions... effectively
making it impossible to fix at the state level.

Don't get me wrong, Obama and Holder are both shitbags, but this makes them
slightly less shitbaggish, even in my own eyes. Two or three more things like
this, I might even be forced to change my opinion of them.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Won't change a thing. All it will take is the good old standby of "disorderly
conduct" to determine that a crime has been committed as justification for a
seizure. Look at a cop the wrong way and your cash is as good as gone.

~~~
vonmoltke
Except "disorderly conduct" is not a federal charge, and thus can't be used to
skirt around this decision. Holder's decision obviously does not affect state
and local seizure laws.

------
carrja99
This is a big deal!

