Police steals more than actual thieves. Still, Jeff Sessions wants them to steal even more...

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year


Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.

Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture
. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.
One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.

For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.
Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.

One final caveat is that these are only the federal totals and don't reflect how much property is seized by state and local police each year. Reliable data for all 50 states is unavailable, but the Institute of Justice found that the total asset forfeiture haul for 14 states topped $250 million in 2013. The grand 50-state total would probably be much higher.

Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014. That represents something of a sea change in the way police do business — and it's prompting plenty of scrutiny of the practice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...urglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.08cabac3996e



Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens


Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said he'd be issuing a new directive this week aimed at increasing police seizures of cash and property.


We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners."

Asset forfeiture is a disputed practice that allows law enforcement officials to permanently take money and goods from individuals suspected of crime. There is little disagreement among lawmakers, authorities and criminal justice reformers that “no criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime.” But in many cases, neither a criminal conviction nor even a criminal charge is necessary — under forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level, mere suspicion of wrongdoing is enough to allow police to seize items permanently.
Additionally, many states allow law enforcement agencies to keep cash that they seize, creating what critics characterize as a profit motive. The practice is widespread: In 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more property from citizens than burglars did. State and local authorities seized untold millions more.

Since 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone has taken more than $3 billion in cash from people not charged with any crime, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General.

The practice is ripe for abuse. In one case in 2016, Oklahoma police seized $53,000 owned by a Christian band, an orphanage and a church after stopping a man on a highway for a broken taillight. A few years earlier, a Michigan drug task force raided the home of a self-described “soccer mom,” suspecting she was not in compliance with the state's medical marijuana law. They proceeded to take “every belonging” from the family, including tools, a bicycle and her daughter's birthday money.

In recent years, states have begun to clamp down on the practice.
“Thirteen states now allow forfeiture only in cases where there's been a criminal conviction,” said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that represents forfeiture defendants.

In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute.

These types of forfeitures amounted to a small total of assets seized by federal authorities, so the overall impact on forfeiture practices was relatively muted. Still, criminal justice reform groups on the left and the right cheered the move as a signal that the Obama administration was serious about curtailing forfeiture abuses.
In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”
“This is a federalism issue,” Johnson said. “Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would “circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying 'we're going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.'”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rom-american-citizens/?utm_term=.b092c32d9b47



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th amendment to the US Constitution

Isn't asset forfeiture a violation of the 4th Amendement ?
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
No, Pepe. Asset forfeiture is conducted after due process is done, in most instances. Usually the scumbags who lose their shit have gotten their property with the proceeds of illegal activities, and since they haven't paid taxes on their earnings, the man has to get paid somehow.

You suck. Your faggy new president sucks. France sucks. Eat a dick.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Oh, Federal guidelines. I don't really get into the feds business. I just know what departments I served with and their policies. France still sucks and your president is a fag, though.
 
No, Pepe. Asset forfeiture is conducted after due process is done, in most instances. Usually the scumbags who lose their shit have gotten their property with the proceeds of illegal activities, and since they haven't paid taxes on their earnings, the man has to get paid somehow.

You suck. Your faggy new president sucks. France sucks. Eat a dick.

And bingo was his name-o.

You really suck at this johan.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
I'm with Johan.
Anybody who thinks the GOV has the right to take somebodys property for committing a crime is a damn fool.

And anybody who thinks these laws are not a result of a country who has bled itself and its people so dry that they need to resort to stealing peoples land and homes is a damner fool.

I'm not talking about Tony Montana living in a Miami mansion with a coked out wife with a fffucked up wombbb.
We know how he paid for his assetts.
I'm talking about regular people who happen to be criminals.

Also it sets a bad precident.
Where does it end?
going 45 in a 40 they take your car?
Jaywalking they take your shoes?
Public masterbation they...........
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Anybody who thinks the GOV has the right to take somebodys property for committing a crime is a damn fool...

I'm talking about regular people who happen to be criminals.

Regular people who happen to be criminals. How do I get into this club?

How about Bernie Madoff as an example. The Doubleday family invested honestly with him and made a profit. Come to find out that Bernie was running a scam. Do you justify Doubleday keeping their profits while others lost everything.

Take it down a notch. Cops investigate illegal activity and get word that many will be gathering at a restaurant for a party. While busting the place they find many guests holding hundreds and even thousands of dollars of cash on them. Let them hold their money? No. Transactions are going to take place.
 
Top