
House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture - jseliger
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/
======
lsiebert
For those who aren't aware, civil asset forfeiture is a process by which law
enforcement, local, state or federal, could claim a particular item, amount of
cash, vehicle, piece of real estate, on the basis of a suspicion that it was
involved in criminal activity, and then sell or use that item, even if the
individuals suspected of criminal activity were never charged, much less
convicted.

Further, since this was a civil matter, there was no right to an attorney, and
it is often more costly to seek recompense, return or reimbursement then to
simply let the matter go. As well, some individuals have had their child
custody threatened as a way to get them to agree to give up items, though to
be clear, they don't have to agree, cash or whatever can just be taken.

There is a perverse incentive in that the law enforcement department often was
the recipient of the item or some of the proceeds of the sale of the item, and
there have been numerous cases of provably innocent people getting stuff taken
without ever being charged for a crime.

------
bsimpson
If I'm reading the article correctly, they didn't abolish the procedure, just
Jeff Sessions's attempted expansion of it.

Why hasn't the whole thing just been banned outright? It contorts any notions
of fairness and sensibility in our legal system that an item can have charges
brought against it, and that there is no due process or other recourse for the
owner.

~~~
rayiner
The problem is that it's got a very solid legal pedigree. One of the first
things the founding fathers did is to provide for forfeiture of contraband (in
the customs context). It's also incorrect to say that there is no due process
or other recourse--the government still bears the burden of proving that the
property is the proceeds of a crime:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983).

~~~
Camillo
The legal pedigree matters if you want to get the law abolished or changed by
the Supreme Court. But in theory it is also possible to have representatives
vote on new laws, exercising the legislative power in what is its nominal
seat.

~~~
rayiner
Oh I agree. But unfortunately a lot of stuff that’s bad (e.g. how criminal
defendants were treated before the 1980s) gets fixed only because it’s also
unconstitutional. If you’re a middle class American you’ve probably never had
to carry a large amount of cash around because you’ve got a bank
account/PayPal. So it doesn’t affect your vote if cops are going around
seizing cash from drug dealers and lower class people are getting caught up in
the net.

------
pfarnsworth
Can someone please explain to me how this is still legal? Has this not been
challenged through to the Supreme Court? The idea that the police can just
steal money like this without a trial seems like textbook unconstitutional
behavior. How has this been allowed to continue for so long?

~~~
rgbrenner
There was a civil forfeiture case in 1827[0] where a ship was seized for
piracy without convicting the owner of the crime... the supreme court upheld
that action. It also lays out a couple of things: that the property is
considered the offender; and that the property's offense and the owners
criminal offense are two separate issues.

That's the basis for civil forfeiture laws.

There was a recent case that came up: Leonard v Texas[1].. where 200k in cash
was seized that police said was from narcotics sales. She had a bill of sale
for a home for the same amount. The problem is, she didn't raise the due
process issue until it reached the supreme court.. which is a procedural
error.. so the court denied it.

So I think we're still waiting for a more modern ruling from the supreme court
on it.

0\.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.ht...](https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/palmyra.htm)

1\. [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-
texas/](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/leonard-v-texas/) 1a
(ruling): [http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-...](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/16-122-respecting-cert-denial.pdf)

~~~
BrianSkog
_that the property is considered the offender_

Did the court just have its head way up its ass?

------
protomyth
I’m not sure what the surprise was. This was an election question to a lot of
reps of both parties. There is a lot of resentment and fear out in the
country. Sessions is at odds with a lot of his own party. The Democrats have a
similar split between reps and mayors.

~~~
jmcgough
For me, I'm surprised that the house was able to do something good for a
change.

------
aaronbrethorst

        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.
    

I'm nothing less than delighted to be represented by Pramila Jayapal. She's
been a fantastic representative for Seattle, and I look forward to seeing how
her career in Congress develops.

Interestingly, she was also the first sitting member of congress to speak at
PAX.
[https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/305179/PAX_Report_Rep_Ja...](https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/305179/PAX_Report_Rep_Jayapal_speaks_on_players_and_political_consciousness.php)

------
SHAKEDECADE
How well would this work for an affluent entity (legal or otherwise) in the
wake of being charged with crimes?

With the ability to jump through many of hoops without substantial loss of
personal effort/time/income, I would see this as advantages.

While not in those big of shoes, I do enjoy the principle, 'If you know the
rules to a T, you can play the game to a T.

------
ChoGGi
Couldn't they shift the burden of proof to the entity making the seizure, and
also add a penalty of say credit card interest (coming out said police
district's yearly budget) for the time the asset is seized?

Seems like that would at least help to reduce the incentive to seize whatever
is shiny?

------
rebuilder
What was the rationale provided for the expansion of forfeiture this vote
rolls back? I'm guessing it wasn't "we need to be able to steal"?

~~~
KGIII
Drugs. Specifically dealers and extended to people who were theoretically
going to go buy drugs. It kinda blossomed out from there and became a free for
all theft fest by impoverished police departments. It was frequently used as a
punishment for DWB.

------
yeukhon
This asset forfeiture is a controversy even in simple citation like Berkeley
officer seizing illegal street vendor's earning.

------
PhasmaFelis
Will this pass the Senate?

~~~
craftyguy
Even if it did, would it get signed into law by Donald?

~~~
yeukhon
He can either sit on it and 10 days later becomes law automatically, or veto
the bill. Then up to Congress to override the veto.

Q: I forgot, is it the Senate or HoR, or both have to override the veto?

~~~
kevin_b_er
Both

