California Dolphin: statewide California news

Editorial: Let’s be fair about the feds seizing assets

In an unfortunate turn, the U.S. Department of Justice has decided to soften relatively new rules restricting law enforcement’s use of asset forfeiture.
While Attorney General Jeff Sessions offers some helpful modifications to the stricter new policy, the net result is still a setback for Americans.
Related Articles





Editorial: Government’s seizure of property is out of control, needs reform









Gov. Brown signs bill that limits seizure of assets of many Medi-Cal recipients



Old asset forfeiture rules were inherently ripe for abuse that was often more to line pockets than it was to take away ill-gotten gains.
Sessions’ changes are part of a plan to walk back constraints on asset forfeiture imposed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder. Civil liberties groups had spearheaded a campaign against the way the law had allowed policing to become akin to a for-profit operation.
In those days, criminal asset forfeiture laws not only allowed police to seize property and cash belonging to those merely suspected of criminal activity, but allowed police to keep it. Worse, civil asset forfeiture laws allowed permanent seizures to extend to people not even charged with crimes.

var _informq = _informq || []; _informq.push(["embed"]); The Obama administration’s move to address that criticism by curtailing asset forfeiture cooled tempers to a degree, but the fundamental issue did not go away. Now it is back.
Reports indicate that Sessions intends to address the question of asset forfeiture excesses by issuing stricter requirements about how and when federal law applies.
Law enforcement will now need the approval of a federal prosecutor to seize under $10,000 in cash without a warrant, an arrest, a confession or the possession of contraband. Previously, the bar for such seizures was $5,000, and prosecutors infrequently entered into the process.
Authorities will be obliged to update people on the status of their seized property faster than the law currently mandates. And police will have to supply more robust accounts of probable cause to pass muster on asset seizures.
Those are well and good, but trouble remains. The new and improved deadline for informing property owners of what has become of their belongings, for example, is now 45 days, which is still an eternity for people whose savings or automobiles have been taken away without charge. Targets of seizures will still bear the burden of persuading police that their property was not related in any way to a crime — without the benefit of a right to legal counsel. The list goes on.
While Sessions has a strong and reasonable interest in enforcing standing laws against major drug traffickers, asset forfeiture turns on a legal principle — criminals should lose at least some property rights — that puts officials on a slippery slope they’re incentivized to slide down.
It’s too difficult to clearly delineate genuine traffickers from possible couriers under those circumstances and when officials make even well-meaning mistakes, people pay dearly with slim hopes of recovery.
Frustrating as it may be, the fight against excessive asset forfeiture practices must go on.

Top News

Ain't No God; don't even think about theism

UnFox News: not a propaganda arm of the Republican party