Trump's Choice For Attorney General Is A Fan Of "Civil Asset Forfeiture"
Robert Everett Johnson writes at Roll Call:
Civil forfeiture finally found a voice in GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Now we know what a full-throated defense of civil forfeiture sounds like. And that defense is unconvincing.It's not hard to see why champions of civil forfeiture are difficult to find. Consider the case of Russ Caswell, who testified at the recent Senate hearing. The government invoked civil forfeiture to take his family-owned motel, not because he did something wrong, but because some customers violated the law in the privacy of their own rooms. Caswell was forced to prove his own innocence to prevent the forfeiture of his business, which also happened to be his life-savings and retirement plan, all rolled into one.
Few are willing to go on record defending a practice that so blatantly disregards the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty -- to say nothing of the right to private property.
Enter Sessions. Midway through the committee hearing, he declared that he was "very unhappy" with criticism of civil forfeiture, because in his view "taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong." Apparently drawing a number from thin air, Sessions announced "95 percent" of forfeitures involve people who have "done nothing in their lives but sell dope."
Now, nobody disputes that government needs the power to punish criminal behavior. But first things first: Before government labels someone a "criminal," it has to secure a criminal conviction. The fact of the matter is, we have no way to know what portion of civil forfeitures involve genuine "criminals," as the whole point of civil forfeiture is that government can take property without convicting or even charging anyone with a crime.
Civil asset forfeiture is victimization by government -- removing any possibility of a defense. It's taking without any sort of proof of wrongdoing by the person whose money has been hoovered up by the government; it's the antithesis of our legal standard, "Innocent until proven guilty."
It turns citizens who have been convicted of nothing into victims of greedy law enforcement workers and officials, who typically get to keep the proceeds or part of the proceeds from stopping somebody on the road who's carrying some cash and declaring it the result of ill-gotten gains...sometimes simply because people who are in the drug trade use a road and sometimes without as much as a bullshit excuse like that.
Having an attorney general who supports this is having an attorney general who stands for an America with diminished constitutional rights.
There are a number of reasons the guy is not exactly Mr. Civil Liberties, let's just say. From Reason's Anthony L. Fisher:
Sessions voted in favor of a ban on "flag desecration" to be added to the Constitution.
via @MikeRiggs
I'm pretty sure every AG since Janet Reno has been, well maybe not an advocate but not bothered by the notion of civil forfeiture.
Had they been opposed, things might be a bit different now.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 18, 2016 8:33 AM
Civil asset forfeiture is gangster government. Most of the people targeted are poor or powerless. No big hotel chain ever had a hotel taken due to drugs used in their hotel. Virtually every single hotel has this problem. The entire Vegas enterprise is drug heaven--seize it all? No. Note that the guy repeatedly called the cops when he detected drug use in his hotel--he should have not I guess. The average cash taken in traffic stops is only a few hundred dollars--not exactly stopping the drug cartels, is it? And who loses their cash in traffic stops? Rich people? hahahahah no.
cc at November 18, 2016 8:56 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens. At the end of the day moving Sessions from congress to the AG may make it easier to repeal civil asset forfeiture. As IRA points out, his views on it are hardly unusual for the AG's office.
Ben at November 18, 2016 8:58 AM
Barry Donegan at Truth In Media summarized our 2014 A G situation thusly:
" . . .under President Obama, civil asset forfeitures have doubled. Now, as Eric Holder steps aside as US Attorney General, his potential replacement, nominee and US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch, recently announced that her office seized over $904 million in asset forfeitures in 2013 alone."
Our last shit sandwich was on whole wheat. Now we'll have one on white bread, again.
Canvasback at November 18, 2016 9:33 AM
It has been the legislature and the courts who have been responsible for civil asset forfiture, and that is the place to attack it, not in the attorney generals office.
Ideally the AG just enforces federal law, but it would be hard to top the abuses and corruption of the Obama justice department.
Isab at November 18, 2016 10:08 AM
It is a shame that advocates for improving the lives of Blacks did not aggressively go after Obama.
Of course, that would require MSM, ACLU, and the NAACP to ignore their cash cows.
Bob in Texas at November 18, 2016 10:23 AM
What annoys me more is when women on TV are constantly called/treated as unattractive pigs when they are played by someone hot.
I'm looking at you Liz Lemon.
NicoleK at November 18, 2016 1:06 PM
Oops. Wrong thread.
NicoleK at November 18, 2016 1:06 PM
So, is there a person who would make a better AG who is not from the Communist Democrat or RINO factions currently infesting DC?
mpetrie98 at November 18, 2016 3:54 PM
Well, we knew that Mr. Trump was going to do one dumb thing after another (as we know that Lefties are going to do one evil thing after another). There'll be some sorting out. I hope that they have erasers on their pencils.
Alan at November 18, 2016 8:38 PM
Leave a comment