Wonderful Asset Forfeiture News: Justice Department Temporarily Halts "Equitable Sharing" Program

Here at ATS there have been several threads discussing asset forfeiture and the problems it has caused. While there is no shortage of reasons to repeal the asset forfeiture laws, it was halted by budgetary woes. I see this as good in the sense that it has been halted, but I find it extremely frustrating the lawmakers failed to address the actual removal of our forfeiture laws.

Wonderful Asset Forfeiture News: Justice Department Temporarily Halts "Equitable Sharing" Program

Thanks to budget cuts, for a while local cops can't get federal payoffs for stealing property allegedly connected to drugs.

Budget cuts can be glorious things: the Department of Justice announces this week that, thanks to cuts in its budget of an initial $746 million in November's Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, followed up by a wondrous addition $458 million rescission in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 that became law law last week, it is temporarily halting its so-called "equitable sharing" program.

The "equitable sharing" program should, in the name of justice itself if not the Justice Department, be halted forever, because of its essential nature as organized theft mostly from people who have never actually committed a crime for which any punishment is warranted.

But this budget-driven temporary halt is a start. When the Republic doesn't fall if law enforcement isn't paid off via this particular program for a while for stealing things from citizens for indecent reasons, perhaps a new day of common sense will dawn at the very least for this federal incentive for local misbehavior. Then perhaps civil forfeiture in general could be reconsidered for its injustice if not its budgetary concerns.

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Ah assest forfeiture, the legalization of flat out armed robbery leading to further corruption of our police forces, what a gem of legislation this is!

Poice steal more than burglars in 2014! Go team!

Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I was thinking the same thing.

I will assume that if they are not going to get a cut from the Feds, they will find new inventive ways to take your crap with State or Local Ordinances / Laws to supplement or replace their "expected income" from annual seizure revenue.

a reply to: infolurker

You know that gets me thinking.

The number that was actually stolen is probably much higher than what is cited. The 4.5 billion is simply what was actually kept track of.

I wonder how many thought of the "inventive" tactic of I don't know lets say-

Step 1. Find Money you wish to acquire.
Step 2. Plant drugs
Step 3. Terrify individual with threats and coercion
Step 4. State that this does not have to be reported, yet the money has to be confiscated.
Step 5. Rinse and repeat

Nah I am sure that never happens!

Woah this is a big deal!!!! We need to get to the tallest roof top and let people know. I did not even realize cops were stealing on this level holy smokes.

A start indeed .

Could be the start of a major police Federalization plan.

a reply to: AlaskanDad


An election year ploy maybe?

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all.

Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem




I will believe it when I see it!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

While I agree with the abuse of these laws is widespread and they need repeal. The concept of puting 'ill-gotten' gains to good purpose is valid. Whenever possible - these gains should be returned to those they were 'stolen' from in the first place - as in the case of secrities fraud and so forth. In the case of drug assests - I would see those 'ill-gotten' gains go to treatment and remediation.

I don't think that any law enforcement, court or prison should benefit in any manner. We can clearly see the conflict of interest and abuse that has arisen from those policies.

Systemic conflict of interest must always be rooted out.

a reply to: FyreByrd

*Do you think that freezing a defendants assets before trial, so the defendant can not afford attorneys is acceptable?


While this destroys the average guy, those that are connected to crime syndicates are far more likely to have representation.

What a mess, how can a system like this serve justice?

*I really doubt you approve of this, just throwing it into the conversation

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: FyreByrd

*Do you think that freezing a defendants assets before trial, so the defendant can not afford attorneys is acceptable?


While this destroys the average guy, those that are connected to crime syndicates are far more likely to have representation.

What a mess, how can a system like this serve justice?

*I really doubt you approve of this, just throwing it into the conversation

Good question and a tough one. I don't know, I see two sides. One that asset can be hidden if not frozen to some extent. Then there are family issues - how much is the family responsibly for an alleged criminals 'ill-gotten' gains. Should a, just for the discussion, a drug kingpin be able to use his drug money to pay for a 'top-of-the-line' legal team with those assets or should he have to use a public defender or somewhere in-between.

Perhaps - a blind trust during the legal proceedings that provides for the well-being of family involved.

There must be justice - but not just for the defendant - for victims as well. This is a big question of our times.

First - we must get the incentives for abuse out of the system. But I do think there is a place for 'ill-gotten' gain forfeiture as a deterrent. I believe that was the initial 'spirit' of these laws, but they have been 'gamed' and perverted into 'black' funding for law enforcement across the country. I'd like to see how similar laws in other countries are practised.