Swamp The Drain: Trump Sees No Reason To Stop Cops From Stealing Citizens' Assets On Mere Suspicion
Emily Stephenson writes at Reuters:
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday there was "no reason" to curb law enforcement agencies that seize cash, vehicles and other assets of people suspected of crimes, a practice that some lawmakers and activists have criticized for denying legal rights....In 2016, a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill, which did not become law, that would have required the government to do more to show that seized property was connected to a crime. Critics have said suspects have few avenues to challenge the seizures and that forfeiture laws were sometimes abused. Police in some cases seize property from people who are never charged or convicted.
Trump, a Republican, asked acting U.S. Attorney General Dana Boente, who was at the gathering, whether executive orders or legislation were needed to support forfeiture. Boente said that was unnecessary but law enforcement agencies needed encouragement.
Actually, they have been doing just fine -- except in the states where asset forfeiture has been stopped by law -- in deeming citizens' money and assets guilty on mere suspicion, seizing them, and then requiring citizens to prove their money or goods were legally gotten. (Not how America is supposed to work.)
Of course, this often requires poor people to spend big on lawyers -- which they can't afford -- and to pay more money than they lost to get their money or goods back.
All without any conviction for any crime -- without any actual proof of wrongdoing.
And when the law enforcement creeps seizing their goods or money often have a vested interest in the seizures -- getting to keep all or some of the proceeds for their stations, etc.
Walter Olson writes at Overlawyered:
One reason reform of civil asset forfeiture has made rapid progress lately in legislatures around the country, including my own state of Maryland, is that the public strongly disapproves of the current state of the law when it is explained.In December Cato released a polling study on criminal justice issues, led by my colleague Emily Ekins. Among its findings: "Fully 84% of Americans oppose the practice of police taking 'a person's money or property that is suspected to have been involved in a drug crime before the person is convicted of a crime.' Only 16% approve."
The strong majority extends across all groups of respondents, including Republicans (76%) and those with a highly favorable attitude toward police (78%).
Asked what should happen with the proceeds of seizures upon conviction, only 24% of the public favored letting local police departments keep the seized goods or cash, while 76% said it should go instead to state-level coffers. which would reduce the incentive for zealous seizure.
via @Overlawyered
Dont really care what Trump thinks about this issue. I care somewhat more about what the justice department thinks, and what the various voters in the various states think.
Im sure Hillary was a fan. So it is a wash there.
Isab at February 8, 2017 8:08 AM
We'll have to wait and see what Sessions thinks.
Ultimately, this will come down to the Congress and the legislatures of the several states to restrict abuses of the system.
Which is why we have those layabouts.
Alternatively, we could try and get one of the blue cities to seize a Trump property under CF and see if that induces a change...
I R A Darth Aggie at February 8, 2017 8:16 AM
From a Libertarian Party press release I just got:
Amy Alkon at February 8, 2017 8:48 AM
Remember when Trump, and then Ivanka, promised to put their interests in blind trusts before the inauguration?
This man's understanding of property ownership is not sophisticated. Or meaningfully moral.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:15 AM
> Dont really care what Trump thinks
> about this issue.
Good to know.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:16 AM
> Dont really care what Trump thinks
> about this issue.
Nope, I cannot comprehend this.
If it wasn't for the naked, shameless an lawless profiteering, why DID you hate Hillary so much? What the fuck could the election have been about? What are you proving about yourself in your steadfast identification with this weasel?
We're underway: He is getting people killed, and that will likely include United States armed services very soon.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:37 AM
Immigration, because Moozlims.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:45 AM
Trump.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:49 AM
> Dont really care what Trump thinks
> about this issue.
Nope, I cannot comprehend this.
If it wasn't for the naked, shameless an lawless profiteering, why DID you hate Hillary so much? What the fuck could the election have been about? What are you proving about yourself in your steadfast identification with this weasel?
We're underway: He is getting people killed, and that will likely include United States armed services very soon.
Crid at February 8, 2017 9:37 AM
There is nothing that Trump can do or will do that won't have been done before shamlessly and with impunity and no oversight by the press, by Obama and Hillary.
The powers of the presidency are extremely limited when the giant federal bureaucracy doesn't have your back.
All I am saying here is Civil Asset forfeiture is a matter for the courts, and for the the state government,
It should be illegal, and it should be unconstitutional, but the bully pulpit of the presidency doesn't have much to do with it.
Im for returning power to the legislature, and the states. Not the unaccountable federal bureaucracy, and the presidency.
Electing Trump was a good start on getting people moving in the direction of really reining in the powers of the presidency.
It only seems to be popular during Republican adminstrations.
And you are right. I despise Hillary and everything about the Clintons. The fact that a vicious lying alchoholic harpy had a locked in path to the nomination tells you everything you need to know about today's Democratic party.
Mattis is going to be the best Secretary of Defense the US has seen in more than a generation.
And yes, his policies and Trumps policies are going to directly and indirectly get some people killed, but the alternative wasn't and isn't a null set.
Valerie Jarrett was a fucking disaster as POTUS.
The *alternative* is the standard, not perfection.
Isab at February 8, 2017 10:05 AM
There is nothing that Trump can do or will do that won't have been done before shamlessly and with impunity and no oversight by the press, by Obama and Hillary.
Of course there is. Many things, in fact — good and bad.
Kevin at February 8, 2017 10:23 AM
This family seriously believes that the point of being elected to the highest office of the land is to exploit marketing opportunities. They believe voters have presented this to them as a gift, collected for one minimal expense...
The Trumps think all they're expected to do is lie about it first.
Crid at February 8, 2017 10:31 AM
Isab at February 8, 2017 10:05 AM: Others are nasty, too,
Hillary!
Crid at February 8, 2017 10:32 AM
Hitchens cited Czeslaw Milosz: "Irony is the consolation of slaves.”
These fuckers belong in jail. Barron can visit on Sundays, once a month.
Crid at February 8, 2017 10:43 AM
well underway.
Crid at February 8, 2017 11:49 AM
President Harry Truman took it personally when a critic savaged his daughter's singing and piano playing, even firing off a less-than-polite letter to WaPo music critic, Paul Hume.
So Trump took it personally when his daughter was dropped by Nordstrom and tweeted a complaint. He didn't order the National Guard to storm the stores. He didn't urge Americans to boycott Nordstrom. He merely tweeted that she was treated unfairly, and who knows, maybe she was. Move along, nothing to see here.
As far as property seizure and asset forfeiture go, Trump has to this point expressed no philosophical view of the role of government beyond how he has used it in the past to further his business objectives. Why does anyone expect that he's given asset forfeiture any more thought than that?
Yes, Sessions and Congress will have to carry the burden of reforming that aspect of government overreach, and many other aspects as well. That's why we have Congressmen.
Most asset forfeiture occurs at the local law enforcement level, so real reform will have to be at that level. Trump's job will be to rein in government spending on entitlements and defense spending, a job that he appears to be willing to take on, and maybe even have a modicum of understanding of how to go about it.
Sometimes presidents have to send troops in harm's way. And sometimes they do so on missions their predecessors would have rejected.
Did the Yemen raid further US interests? I don't know. Has anything we've done in the Middle East in the past decade actually furthered US interests?
Conan the Grammarian at February 8, 2017 12:01 PM
"well underway."
Well, well. So says our resident war expert who gets his knowledge from a tweet. Some have a problem with Trump's tweets.
Crid, you used to look at the bigger picture. Now, you react to snapshots. We'll see how this turns out. Trump has been in office how long? Has he had his cabinet in place yet? Why not?
I'm a bitter war vet - so I say "fuck you." Breitbart is here.
Dave B at February 8, 2017 12:03 PM
1st, and perhaps most importantly, Breitbart is dead. The enterprise besmirching the gentleness and kindness of his name in this hour is not to be forgiven.
2nd, I don't know how much bigger a picture needs to be than to acknowledge that the (robotic; amoral) choices being made my this orange game show host are costing American servicemen their lives.
3rd, other stuff.
Crid at February 8, 2017 4:37 PM
1st, and perhaps most importantly, you are not aware of the movement of Andrew Breitbart it appears. His posters are everywhere in the Midwest. I even got the t-shirt - two in fact. Many who call the supporters of Trump the Movement, most of the Movement is in fact supporters of Andrew. So please view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YthG-MeKcbQ
You might recognize points I've made many times. Andrew is not dead.
2nd, "are costing American servicemen their lives" - what is your point Leonard? Cousin Dave has explained this much better than I can. Perhaps you missed it. Or, maybe it was Conan. Tell me the the war Pres. Trump has started, after you get over your vapors of course.
3rd, We'll see in about a year what will transpire. I do not have a crystal ball.
4th, Mad Dog Mattis
Dave B at February 8, 2017 7:28 PM
> you are not aware of the movement
> of Andrew Breitbart
I was impressed with the man, never the movement, at least not the part in which he took no part for having departed our mortal coil. He's dead.
> Tell me the the war Pres. Trump
> has started
Wut?
> We'll see in about a year
> what will transpire.
We are not compelled to be patient.
> Mad Dog Mattis
Yeah?
> when a critic savaged his
> daughter's singing
Was she selling tickets to concerts on the WH lawn?
> He didn't order the National
> Guard to storm the stores.
I'm starting to think you guys are attuned to no lawlessness short of substantial loss of life.
> maybe even have a modicum
> of understanding of how
Modicum. Your faith does not inspire.
Crid at February 9, 2017 1:06 AM
"We are not compelled to be patient."
Nobody is asking you to be patient - I'm well aware you are just a whiner. I can see you crying just like Chuck Schumer. We need sheepdogs and you are just a pussy cat. You have really turned into a Californian - sad that.
"Wut?"
Is someone pretending to be Crid? I don't remember him being so obtuse. President Trump has not started a war. But he has to end the ones we have and he with his staff - and Mad Dog - will. Will soldiers die, sure. We always do with no help or respect from you and your ilk. And just as sure you will whine. As a Vietnam combat vet I dislike those like you and toss you in with fonda and kerry.
I am Breitbart.
Dave B at February 9, 2017 1:40 AM
> I am Breitbart.
I would describe that as a thing that is not true. About you. Or about him.
Y'know, this is kinda what we expect out of lefties... All sorts of sloppy, emotional Identification, Man... 'Cause when a person really FEELS the power, their name is just a LABEL. It's not necessarily WHO THEY ARE.
And then you drop all these other names with respect to me, and I'm all like whatever.
This is fantasy hour for orangely Trumpanoid wackjobs. They can ignore abject corruption. They can ignore thundering incompetence. They can ignore everything they claimed to hate Hillary for. They're following their hearts and they won't be dissuaded!
Okay, but no tears.
Crid at February 9, 2017 5:27 AM
Isab is correct. This is an issue for the courts and Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court is opposed to civil asset forfeiture. That is the appointment you should be looking at. Tests of ideological purity rarely yield satisfactory results and on balance I believe Sessions is a great choice, as is Gorsuch. They will balance each other out and Gorsuch will have the longer reach. I am no Trump fan, but I am not so full of hatred for the guy that I can't appreciate when he makes a good choice.
Sheep Mom at February 9, 2017 6:03 AM
No, but she was pursing an opera career. And a savaging like the one Hume laid upon her was a setback to that career.
It's almost certain that were her name not Truman, her inclusion in the concert in question would not have happened; nor would she have been included in the concert series that led to that appearance.
Margaret eventually got the last laugh. She continued on as a radio host, actress, and finally, a best-selling author of a biography of her father and a series of murder mysteries set in Washington landmarks.
Lawlessness?
He sent a tweet (in Truman's case, a letter). Not presidential? Perhaps. Intemperate? Almost certainly. But lawless?
A parent commenting that he thinks his child was treated unfairly is not a scandal. Truman threatened his daughter's offender with physical violence. Trump merely tweeted that he thought his daughter was ill-treated by a business partner.
Let's wait until he actually does something illegal to lay a charge of lawlessness on him. Given Trump's lack of normal human filters, you may not have long to wait.
Conan the Grammarian at February 9, 2017 6:58 AM
> a savaging like the one Hume
> laid upon her was a setback
> to that career.
That is a thing that happens to young opera careers... Hell, it's what happened to mine.
Has any daughter (or son, for that matter) been so intimately & publicly involved in Administration policy? Have any used their position has a marketing cudgel? Have any pledged to surrender their business interests, then had their Daddy complain that people were interfering with that selfsame commerce?
Donald Nixon, no intimate in White House affairs, tried to sell Nixonburgers. Nobody cared, especially since it didn't work out. And the taste of Billy Beer, well....
Will future executive aspirants feel any need to disguise their personal avarice? Why should they?
Crid at February 9, 2017 10:24 AM
I was totally never an opera singer.
Crid at February 9, 2017 11:41 AM
I was totally never an opera singer.
Crid at February 9, 2017 11:41 AM
Me neither, but I play the banjo, and that drives them screaming out of the room even quicker.
Isab at February 9, 2017 12:18 PM
The banjo, whatever its dynamic limitations, is an instrument of authentic American timbre.
A middle-aged TV engineer with an amplified fuzztone electric with no bother of sincerity.
Crid at February 10, 2017 3:29 AM
Typo.... Just sayin', I can clear out a cocktail party faster than you.
Crid at February 10, 2017 3:30 AM
Jens Kruger is amazing isn't he? Last time I heard him in person was several years ago at Rockygrass.
Isab at February 10, 2017 4:59 AM
Leave a comment