DOJ to Restart Seizing of Americans' Private Property

What’s the story?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reinstating ‘adoptive seizure’ programs, which allow local and state law enforcement to seize assets under federal guidelines as opposed to more restrictive state guidelines. AG Sessions argues that this program will allow law enforcement to convert the assets of criminals into funds for law enforcement. The programs were halted under former-Attorney General Eric Holder amid investigations that forfeiture efforts often target poorer communities instead of criminals.

The new policy does institute requirements that are supposed to protect citizen’s rights, but critics maintain that the program provides a "perverse incentive" to cover funding shortfalls with seized assets.

Why does it matter?

Asset forfeiture is the confiscation of assets by the government. The purpose is supposed to be to disrupt criminal activity by confiscating assets that potentially could have been beneficial to the individual or organization. "Adoptive forfeiture" is where the federal government claims, or “adopts” the assets and then shares them with local jurisdictions. Typically the local jurisdictions get approximately 80 percent of the value and the federal government no more than 20 percent.

The Washington Post cites a report by the Institute of Justice, a libertarian non-profit law firm, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture":

"13 states have passed laws requiring prosecutors to obtain a criminal conviction before authorities can permanently seize an individual's property. Under federal law, however, authorities can take cash, vehicles, homes and any other property and keep it for themselves, without ever charging the suspect with a crime."

The constitutional concerns around civil forfeiture have even united the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has stated:

"This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses...These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings."

The Court has left the legal door open to future cases that could narrow the scope of forfeiture.

Supporters of forfeiture, like Attorney General Sessions, maintain that civil asset forfeiture programs turn bad money into good:

"Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels. Even more importantly, it helps return property to the victims of crime. Civil asset forfeiture takes the material support of the criminals and instead makes it the material support of law enforcement, funding priorities like new vehicles, bulletproof vests, opioid overdose reversal kits, and better training. In departments across this country, funds that were once used to take lives are now being used to save lives."

The new DOJ policy would not allow the federal government to seize property without justifiable cause documented by local law enforcement. Additionally, they must make the decision and notify the affected parties more quickly. Local officials must request the adoption within 15 days of seizure and the federal government must notify the asset owners within 45 days.

For assets totaling less than $10,000 in value local law enforcement must meet one of the following conditions: getting a state warrant, making an arrest related to the seizure, seizing contraband such as drugs along with the money, or when the owner of the property has confessed to a crime.

Still, the larger issue of incentive remains. Civil forfeiture accounts for billions of dollars of law enforcement "funding" a year. Following the 2015 changes to the adoption programs under the direction of then-Attorney General Holder the Washington Post notes the Institute of Justice analysis, which found that “adoptions dropped from $65 million the prior year to just $15,000.”

What can you do?

Do you support the reinstitution of adoptive seizure by the Department of Justice? Do you think the new protections in the policy go far enough to protect citizens’ rights?

Use the Take Action button to tell your reps what you think!

Take Action

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia / Creative Commons)