by vaadu on 12/27/15, 7:48 PM
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.
by lim_nick on 12/27/15, 5:12 PM
"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?
by njharman on 12/27/15, 7:12 PM
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!
by rayiner on 12/27/15, 5:58 PM
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.
by desireco42 on 12/27/15, 5:10 PM
This is legalized stealing. Targets were often not criminals but people with valuable assets.
by dantheman on 12/27/15, 5:13 PM
This is really great news. Asset forfeiture should only happen after someone has been convicted of a crime.
by spikels on 12/27/15, 5:58 PM
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.
by marshray on 12/28/15, 1:19 AM
"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"
by pjene on 12/27/15, 6:37 PM
This is surprising good news.
Took me three tries to read "defunds" properly, not as "defends".
by ipsin on 12/27/15, 7:37 PM
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?
by csense on 12/27/15, 7:06 PM
Why isn't asset forfeiture an issue in the presidential campaign?
by jwally on 12/27/15, 6:44 PM
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".
by dsfyu404ed on 12/28/15, 6:11 AM
Even if unintentional this is a step in the right directions because it removes the incentive for bogus civil asset forfeiture.
by awqrre on 12/27/15, 8:47 PM
The ratio of criminals is probably about the same in law enforcement and the general population.