PDA

View Full Version : Trump Doesn't Get Civil Forfeiture



Ethereal
02-09-2017, 07:13 PM
Trump Does Not Know What Civil Forfeiture Is, but He Likes It (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur)

The president agrees there should be no restraint on a form of legalized theft he clearly does not understand.

Jacob Sullum | Feb. 9, 2017 8:00 am

In a meeting with county sheriffs from around the country on Tuesday, President Trump jokingly (we hope!) threatened to "destroy [the] career" of a Texas legislator who proposed requiring the government to obtain a conviction before taking property allegedly tied to crime. As Nick Gillespie noted, Trump's knee-jerk support for civil asset forfeiture is troubling, especially in light of a growing bipartisan consensus that the practice should be reformed or abolished because it hurts innocent property owners and warps law enforcement priorities. Worse, the White House transcript of the president's remarks about forfeiture shows he literally does not know what he is talking about, which suggests this "law and order" president is happy to go along with whatever cops want, even if he has no idea what it is...

Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seize a person's property without convicting or even charging them with a crime. The mere suspicion that a person's property is connected to criminal activity is deemed sufficient grounds for such seizure. And instead of placing the onus on the government to prove that a crime has been committed, the accused must prove their innocence if they want their property back. Moreover, the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are used to fund law enforcement agencies, creating a perverse incentive for them to confiscate ever-increasing amounts of property. The defenders of this odious practice usually claim that only criminals have their property seized, but that is merely an assumption on their part, and a self-serving one at that. Because until a court of law has made a determination of guilt, people in this country are PRESUMED INNOCENT. To characterize them as "criminals" is to invert the basic premise of our justice system. It's also worth noting that opposition to civil asset forfeiture is not really a partisan issue: Conservatives, progressive-liberals, and libertarians have all voiced strenuous objections to the practice. Trump should probably get the other side of the story instead of just taking law enforcement's word for it that this is a legitimate practice, because he's walking into a political buzz-saw.

Ethereal
02-09-2017, 07:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7TxYFxDf8E

Common Sense
02-09-2017, 07:19 PM
I'm always surprised when forfeiture issues don't get more attention and traction. I'm amazed that some don't have an issue with your property being taken (stolen) without due process.

valley ranch
02-09-2017, 07:32 PM
You're right he think Forfeiture is refers to an illegal or stolen item.(like confiscation of drug at the boarder) I'm sure if explained to him he would be against property confiscation, forfeiture of material.

That would be like one of his hotels being taken if he were accused of buying it with stolen money. Shashholes are accusing him all the time of one thing or another, No punishment, fees, fines or forfeiture until proven guilty.

Green Arrow
02-09-2017, 07:41 PM
Like on any other issue, it's amateur hour at the White House.

Green Arrow
02-09-2017, 07:45 PM
You're right he think Forfeiture is refers to an illegal or stolen item.(like confiscation of drug at the boarder) I'm sure if explained to him he would be against property confiscation, forfeiture of material.

That would be like one of his hotels being taken if he were accused of buying it with stolen money. Shashholes are accusing him all the time of one thing or another, No punishment, fees, fines or forfeiture until proven guilty.

He's the President of the United States, why does he need serious issues like civil forfeiture explained to him? Why didn't he do his homework?

valley ranch
02-09-2017, 07:51 PM
I'm always surprised when forfeiture issues don't get more attention and traction. I'm amazed that some don't have an issue with your property being taken (stolen) without due process.

Most people aren't aware of forfeiture until it impacts them, I read, a while back, a man and wife were traveling with a large amount of cash for a legal purchase in another state, their motorhome broke down, and the police took the money deciding it must be drug money. These people were having a hell of a time trying to get their money back.
I'm guessing this is the first time they heard of Forfeiture!

And most people Left or Right when they hear drugs are involved, unless they themselves are into it, think the persons involved are low lives, guilty and are getting what they deserve.

I'm speaking now about someone who votes Democrat no matter what, some think they are lefties, even though they aren't really. These people are very against drugs, even weed, I know people that fit this description. Smoking weed would make you less than a good person.

Not understanding the insanity of Forfeiture does't follow party lines.

valley ranch
02-09-2017, 07:58 PM
Quote: He's the President of the United States, why does he need serious issues like civil forfeiture explained to him? Why didn't he do his homework?
---------------------------

I'll bet he knows now!

Why do you know about forfeiture? What happened to you or someone you know? When did you first become aware?

There are still things that both you and I don't know.

Most people don't know this is happening.

I just found out what's it called, "forfeiture"

Captain Obvious
02-09-2017, 07:59 PM
He's the President of the United States, why does he need serious issues like civil forfeiture explained to him? Why didn't he do his homework?

It's not on his priority list, unless it's a tool to curb illegal immigration or Muslim imports.

I don't think he's concerned with rights and liberties of voters, he's not a libertarian. I think he's more concerned with this from an immigration standpoint and who cares about the domestic impact.

Captain Obvious
02-09-2017, 08:00 PM
Why do you know about forfeiture? What happened to you or someone you know?

Most people don't know this is happening.

If it didn't happen to me, I'm safe.

If I didn't break any laws, why worry?

Wash, rinse, repeat...

Safety
02-09-2017, 08:02 PM
Like on any other issue, it's amateur hour at the White House.

He sure didn't buy a copy of "POTUS for dummies". It's mildly amusing to watch this play out.

Common Sense
02-09-2017, 08:05 PM
He sure didn't buy a copy of "POTUS for dummies". It's mildly amusing to watch this play out.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Obama_President_for_dummies.jpg

Crepitus
02-09-2017, 08:19 PM
He's the President of the United States, why does he need serious issues like civil forfeiture explained to him? Why didn't he do his homework?

No.

Newpublius
02-09-2017, 08:35 PM
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seize a person's property without convicting or even charging them with a crime. The mere suspicion that a person's property is connected to criminal activity is deemed sufficient grounds for such seizure. And instead of placing the onus on the government to prove that a crime has been committed, the accused must prove their innocence if they want their property back. Moreover, the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are used to fund law enforcement agencies, creating a perverse incentive for them to confiscate ever-increasing amounts of property. The defenders of this odious practice usually claim that only criminals have their property seized, but that is merely an assumption on their part, and a self-serving one at that. Because until a court of law has made a determination of guilt, people in this country are PRESUMED INNOCENT. To characterize them as "criminals" is to invert the basic premise of our justice system. It's also worth noting that opposition to civil asset forfeiture is not really a partisan issue: Conservatives, progressive-liberals, and libertarians have all voiced strenuous objections to the practice. Trump should probably get the other side of the story instead of just taking law enforcement's word for it that this is a legitimate practice, because he's walking into a political buzz-saw.
Much like wrongful convictions, the abuse of in rem jurisdiction is also problematic, but we don't suggest eliminating the criminal justice system entirely because it makes errors. The reason of course is that the vast majority of people convicted really are guilty. The problem is that judgment about this process is made on the sliver of cases that reach public scrutiny. Of course they do, these are the genuinely problematic cases.

You're seeing the tip of the iceberg though. What you're not seeing are the bulk of uncontroversial cases where the government is actually doing you a MAJOR FAVOR by deciding to assert in rem jurisdiction over the drugs and money versus in personam jurisdiction over YOU, the drugs AND the money.

The typical case is the police come across YOU, the DRUGS and the MONEY.

Hmmmm.....

What do the vast majority of people say here, "Not mine, didn't know it was there, my cousin gave me this bag, really, trust me, I really had no idea"

The government says, "OK, fair enough, sign this form then"

And this form is YOU DISCLAIMING the property.

And when you get this deal, you kiss me (I've done this twice) because its the second happiest day of your life.

Because you walking away was an option, you walking away WITH THE DRUGS AND MONEY. That was NEVER an option.

That being said, it should just be legal. I'm done with the drug war, but


Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seize a person's property without convicting or even charging them with a crime.

Think a little harder about that. The government knows there are mules, they know this, they don't want to convict you.

Just please do not labor under the belief that somehow the government couldn't do that because trust me, if that's the only option you give them, then they'll do it.

Green Arrow
02-09-2017, 08:57 PM
Quote: He's the President of the United States, why does he need serious issues like civil forfeiture explained to him? Why didn't he do his homework?
---------------------------

I'll bet he knows now!

Why do you know about forfeiture? What happened to you or someone you know? When did you first become aware?

There are still things that both you and I don't know.

Most people don't know this is happening.

I just found out what's it called, "forfeiture"

As far as I know it's never happened to anyone I know. I learned about it in 2009 in government class in high school.

Ethereal
02-09-2017, 09:08 PM
Much like wrongful convictions, the abuse of in rem jurisdiction is also problematic, but we don't suggest eliminating the criminal justice system entirely because it makes errors. The reason of course is that the vast majority of people convicted really are guilty. The problem is that judgment about this process is made on the sliver of cases that reach public scrutiny. Of course they do, these are the genuinely problematic cases.

You're seeing the tip of the iceberg though. What you're not seeing are the bulk of uncontroversial cases where the government is actually doing you a MAJOR FAVOR by deciding to assert in rem jurisdiction over the drugs and money versus in personam jurisdiction over YOU, the drugs AND the money.

The typical case is the police come across YOU, the DRUGS and the MONEY.

Hmmmm.....

What do the vast majority of people say here, "Not mine, didn't know it was there, my cousin gave me this bag, really, trust me, I really had no idea"

The government says, "OK, fair enough, sign this form then"

And this form is YOU DISCLAIMING the property.

And when you get this deal, you kiss me (I've done this twice) because its the second happiest day of your life.

Because you walking away was an option, you walking away WITH THE DRUGS AND MONEY. That was NEVER an option.

That being said, it should just be legal. I'm done with the drug war, but



Think a little harder about that. The government knows there are mules, they know this, they don't want to convict you.

Just please do not labor under the belief that somehow the government couldn't do that because trust me, if that's the only option you give them, then they'll do it.
Civil asset forfeiture is problematic by its very nature. It removes the presumption of innocence by allowing law enforcement to seize property based on mere suspicion. This is fundamentally wrong.

Ethereal
02-09-2017, 09:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhAa2vep1z0

Ethereal
02-09-2017, 09:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Newpublius
02-09-2017, 09:24 PM
Civil asset forfeiture is problematic by its very nature. It removes the presumption of innocence by allowing law enforcement to seize property based on mere suspicion. This is fundamentally wrong.

You're missing the disclaimer and why people are willfully signing them. The average case sees a 'hot potato' with respect to the property being seized, NOBODY wants to be associated with the property because to be associated with the property is itself a crime. The average case is uncontested. The cases you hear about are contested. Of course, we should be cognizant of those in the same way we would be horrified if prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence in criminal cases against people.

Again, that case walks in my door I am HOPING BEYOND HOPE TO GET THIS INSTEAD OF THE ALTERNATIVE.

You're taking issue with the government for doing something I'm BEGGING them to do.

valley ranch
02-09-2017, 09:29 PM
As far as I know it's never happened to anyone I know. I learned about it in 2009 in government class in high school.

OK, you can be President next! I wonder, when did it become, law, legal for property, not evidence, to be confiscated? Do you remember that?
You were in high school that recently?

Captain Obvious
02-09-2017, 09:35 PM
http://scaredmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Obama_President_for_dummies.jpg
http://az705044.vo.msecnd.net/20141029/Canadian-fail-meme.png

valley ranch
02-09-2017, 09:39 PM
Let's see if we all are thinking about the same thing here~ You and I are accused of the crime of~Say a pound and a half of Kif (weed) Is it right or fair that our car, house or bank account be taken? Remember we are accused not convicted!

And were we to be convicted should the property above or any of it be taken?

Chris
02-09-2017, 09:40 PM
I'm always surprised when forfeiture issues don't get more attention and traction. I'm amazed that some don't have an issue with your property being taken (stolen) without due process.

Agree. I've raised the issue several times in the past, especially where states are making progress eliminating it, but only a few respond.

Chris
02-09-2017, 09:46 PM
Let's see if we all are thinking about the same thing here~ You and I are accused of the crime of~Say a pound and a half of Kif (weed) Is it right or fair that our car, house or bank account be taken? Remember we are accused not convicted!

And were we to be convicted should the property above or any of it be taken?


It is not right unless you've been tried.

It is not right even after you've been tried if the property wasn't used to commit the crime, perhaps not even then.

Only reason I can see for forfeiting property is if it's done as restitution to victims. Say someone burglarizes your home and fences your property, gets caught, but your property cannot be recovered, OK, so take the criminal's property to make up for your loss.

But in civil forfeiture, seized goods got to the government, the police when they suffered no loss.

Green Arrow
02-09-2017, 09:51 PM
OK, you can be President next! I wonder, when did it become, law, legal for property, not evidence, to be confiscated? Do you remember that?
You were in high school that recently?

In the U.S., you mean? The concept has been around since the mid-1600s and the British Navigation Acts, but in the U.S. the first congress allowed civil forfeiture. The practice didn't attain prevalence until the Prohibition Era though.

Ethereal
02-09-2017, 09:54 PM
You're missing the disclaimer and why people are willfully signing them.

That's just a generalization based on an assumption.

Firstly, standards and practices vary between states and localities, so a generalization in that regard is impossible to make.

Secondly, many people are not "willfully" signing their property over. Rather, they are signing it over under duress. From the Institute for Justice:


Shakedown in Tenaha, Texas (http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-first-edition/part-ii-grading-the-states/texas/shakedown-in-tenaha-texas/)

In October 2007, law enforcement officials in Tenaha, Texas, pulled Roderick Daniels over for allegedly traveling 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. Upon discovering $8,500 in cash that the Tennessee man had planned to use to buy a new car, the officers took Daniels to jail and threatened to charge him with money-laundering unless he turned over the cash. Daniels surrendered his property. “To be honest, I was five, six hundred miles from home. I was petrified,” he said.

Daniels’ experience was far from unusual in Tenaha. Between 2006 and 2008, local officials stopped more than 140, mostly black, out-of-state drivers, including a grandmother from Akron, a black family from Maryland and an interracial family from Houston. Once arrested, officers took them to jail and threatened to file charges unless they signed pre-notarized statements relinquishing any claim to their valuables. Officers seized cash, cars, cell phones, jewelry and even sneakers. In most cases, criminal charges were never filed and there was no evidence to conclude the motorists were engaged in illicit activity.

A federal lawsuit filed in July 2008 accuses authorities of targeting minorities driving rental cars or vehicles with out-of-state plates. “My take on the matter is that the police in Tenaha, Texas, were picking on and preying on people that were least likely to fight back,” said David Guillory, who represents eight plaintiffs.

Although law enforcement alleges that the stretch of road on which the stops are made is a major drug corridor between Shreveport, La., and Houston, Texas, none of the plaintiffs has been arrested for, much less convicted of, violating drug laws.

Jennifer Boatright and her husband Ronald Henderson relinquished more than $6,000 after police and the Shelby County District Attorney threatened to charge them with money-laundering and put their two children in foster care. “I said, ‘If it’s the money you want, you can take it, if that’s what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,’” said Boatright.

Maryland resident Amanee Busbee was traveling to Houston with her son, fiancé and business partner to complete the purchase of a restaurant. “The police officer would say things to me like, ‘Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,’” said Busbee.

Guillory says of the 40 motorists he contacted, 39 were black. He estimates officials seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008 from improper seizures. Public records requests revealed that the District Attorney used some of the money to buy a $524 popcorn machine, $195 for candy and $400 for catering. Seized funds also went to the local Chamber of Commerce, a youth baseball league and a local church.

Officials have denied any wrongdoing but have returned Roderick Daniels’s possessions as well as Boatright and Henderson’s. The civil rights lawsuit is currently in discovery.


The average case is uncontested.

Because most people have neither the means nor the wherewithal to contest anything. In many cases, the costs of contesting the seizure is greater than the value of the seized property. Moreover, the threat of criminal prosecution is often used to discourage people from contesting the seizure.


The cases you hear about are contested. Of course, we should be cognizant of those in the same way we would be horrified if prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence in criminal cases against people.

Again, that case walks in my door I am HOPING BEYOND HOPE TO GET THIS INSTEAD OF THE ALTERNATIVE.

You're taking issue with the government for doing something I'm BEGGING them to do.

I'm taking issue with the government for violating the basic principles of justice.

Newpublius
02-09-2017, 10:02 PM
Because most people have neither the means nor the wherewithal to contest anything.

No, they don't contest it because to contest it means to admit possession of the DRUGS.


Officers seized cash, cars, cell phones, jewelry and even sneakers. In most cases, criminal charges were never filed and there was no evidence to conclude the motorists were engaged in illicit activity.

{emphasis supplied}

We're DYING for this to walk in. We'll take that case on contingency and I'll be in federal court on a section 1983 claim.

Except the 20 pounds of marijuana....but whatever....I'm just saying you do have some cases where a large sum of JUST money is taken.

99.9% of these cases is DRUGS + MONEY.

My client is claiming "NOT MINE"

Nobody believes him, I don't even believe him and he's my client.

BUT its really the ONLY defense there even POSSIBLY CAN BE.

In the case you are discussing in this town of Tenaha the issue is law enforcement abusing their law enforcement authority. Sadly this is always going to exist in some form, which is not to defend the practice. Police can fabricate things of course. This transcends civil asset forfeiture because there's no good faith belief that what you are doing is even illegal. The people I dealt with were arrested and stood charged.

https://cashseizurelaw.com/under-civil-forfeiture-laws-you-can-lose-everything-even-if-you-are-not-charged-with-a-crime/

"
He asked the driver, Ron Henderson, if he knew he was driving in the left lane without doing any passing. He told the officer that he was in the left lane so that the officer could get on the highway.
The police officer asked if there were drugs in the car, and the officer asked to search the car.
The officers then found the cash and a glass pipe that the woman in the car, Jennifer Boatright, said was a gift."

Know how many glass pipes my wife and I have?

None.

Know how many cars I bought with 6k in CASH.

None. I buy cars with bank checks.

I agree, that's still controversial because the evidence of drug trafficking is still circumstantial, cash + one piece of drug paraphernalia.....(the deal had probably already gone down)

Usually the evidence of drug traffiking is much stronger though.....

"Maryland resident Amanee Busbee was traveling to Houston with her son, fiancé and business partner to complete the purchase of a restaurant. “The police officer would say things to me like, ‘Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,’” said Busbee"

She had 50k to complete the deal for the restaurant.

That's believable ONLY in the context of tax evasion, ie the seller doesn't want to pay capital gain and so demands a sum of cash. Other than that.....

valley ranch
02-10-2017, 03:18 AM
In the U.S., you mean? The concept has been around since the mid-1600s and the British Navigation Acts, but in the U.S. the first congress allowed civil forfeiture. The practice didn't attain prevalence until the Prohibition Era though.

Mother had 10 brothers each had 20 or more acres of grape. Uncle John had the warehouse. Father said there were trucks in and out a busy place.
One fine day the feds dropped by the sheriffs house told him to get in the car and left a man at the house so his wife couldn't make a call. The fed showed up at Uncles warehouse with a fleet of trucks and loaded every case of Brandy without spilling a drop, you know how in the movies the smash all the bottles, You know what year/era this took place.

They told the sheriff "There's your prisoner, by! This all happened in Yettem, California close to Visalia in Tulare County~ Folks named it Yettem after Garden of Eden. Saint Mary's Armenian Church still there, service every Sunday~on the wall in the hall is a map with fathers house written in. God I miss him!

Moma was Uncle Johns sister by the way.

What do you think they did with all that wonderful Armenian Brandy? Did they smash the bottles and pour it down the drink?

Government and police theft is nothing new. I let them do it to you and you let them do it to me and some of us haven't seen it happen.

Scrounger
02-10-2017, 08:34 AM
Like on any other issue, it's amateur hour at the White House.

In all due honesty here, don't you think the American people have been a bit amateurish about this principle as well?

I'm, perhaps, THE most hated man in America because I understand precedents and what the courts are saying. When we deny to ANYONE the presumption of innocence for ANY REASON, then we have denied it to ourselves as well.

The 14th Amendment specifies that:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note that all persons born in the United States are citizens and are entitled to certain privileges and immunities. By contrast, all persons are entitled to "life, liberty, and property" AND the "equal protection of the laws."

It does not matter who you are nor what you are - nor how you got here. The courts have ruled that you will have an equal protection of the laws. Regardless of your race, color, creed, immigration status, religion (or lack thereof), political ideology, or anything else... what applies to even one person in America, applies to every person standing within our borders. That is not my opinion, that is the law.

Once we deny the principle of a presumption of innocence to anyone - I mean ANYONE, the legal community is well within their power to enforce bad laws like asset forfeiture since WE endorsed it the moment we denied to other people their Rights as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

Scrounger
02-10-2017, 08:39 AM
It's not on his priority list, unless it's a tool to curb illegal immigration or Muslim imports.

I don't think he's concerned with rights and liberties of voters, he's not a libertarian. I think he's more concerned with this from an immigration standpoint and who cares about the domestic impact.

It IS on his list since asset forfeiture can be used as a precedent to deny undocumented foreigners the equal protection of the laws.

Robo
02-10-2017, 09:47 AM
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seize a person's property without convicting or even charging them with a crime. The mere suspicion that a person's property is connected to criminal activity is deemed sufficient grounds for such seizure. And instead of placing the onus on the government to prove that a crime has been committed, the accused must prove their innocence if they want their property back. Moreover, the proceeds of civil asset forfeiture are used to fund law enforcement agencies, creating a perverse incentive for them to confiscate ever-increasing amounts of property. The defenders of this odious practice usually claim that only criminals have their property seized, but that is merely an assumption on their part, and a self-serving one at that. Because until a court of law has made a determination of guilt, people in this country are PRESUMED INNOCENT. To characterize them as "criminals" is to invert the basic premise of our justice system. It's also worth noting that opposition to civil asset forfeiture is not really a partisan issue: Conservatives, progressive-liberals, and libertarians have all voiced strenuous objections to the practice. Trump should probably get the other side of the story instead of just taking law enforcement's word for it that this is a legitimate practice, because he's walking into a political buzz-saw.

Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, called asset forfeiture “a wonderful tool” during her confirmation hearing,

Tan Nguyen hopped in his car excited about $50,000 in casino winnings. That excitement faded when he saw police lights in the rear view mirror. A Nevada police officer suspicious of the man’s large sum of cash confiscated it, Forbes reports. Nguyen said the cop threatened to seize and tow his car if he spoke up about it.

The Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit’s monthly “Funk Night” party got weird in May of 2008. The all-night dance party was raging when police burst in around 2 a.m., the Metro Times reports. Officers alleged the establishment did not have a license. They passed out loitering tickets and impounded 40 vehicles just because they were driven to the party. They all got their cars back. Oh, except for the one guy who had his car stolen from the impound lot. Also, they each paid a $900 impound fee, totaling more than $35,000.http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

(http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/Donald)Donald Trump held a meeting at the White House Tuesday with Sheriffs from accross the nation. One Sheriff told the President that a Texas Congressman was presenting legislation to require conviction before law enforcement could confiscate assets through asset forfeiture laws. The Sheriff claimed he told the Congressperson that “Mexico’s drug cartels would build a monument to him.”Trump assured the Sheriff that he would support asset forfeiture laws.

Ethereal
02-11-2017, 10:05 PM
Is Trump a 'Fascist, Loofa-Faced, Shit-Gibbon' for Opposing Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform? (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/criminal-justice-civil-asset-sessions)

"The police don't have to even charge you with a crime to seize your stuff."

Nick Gillespie | Feb. 9, 2017 3:31 pm

When Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson told Donald Trump that a state senator was pushing civil asset forfeiture reform in Texas, the president responded: "Who is the state senator? Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career."

That prompted Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach (D-District 17) to tweet:


Hey @realDonaldTrump I oppose civil asset forfeiture too! Why don't you try to destroy my career you fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon!

— Daylin Leach (@daylinleach) February 7, 2017

So what is this legal process prompting threats of career destruction? In our latest Reason podcast, Nick Gillespie chats with Reason criminal justice reporter C.J. Ciaramella about the history of civil asset forfeiture and the prospects for reform now that Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as attorney general. Topics include: how asset forfeiture went on steroids in the 1980s with the escalation of the drug war, Reason's longtime coverage of the issue (see a 1999 article by Michelle Malkin), and Ciaramella's recent story, "Inside Mississippi's Asset Forfeiture Extortion Racket."

That's a good insult.