“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f*** it's gonna take you.”
This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO series The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.
Asset forfeiture has long been a topic of controversy in law enforcement. Cops and prosecutors have had the power to seize property and cash from suspects before anyone has actually been convicted of a crime (usually narcotics-related). Then these law enforcement agencies have plugged a portion of that money (and money derived from auctioning of property) into their own budgets, allowing them to spend in ways that possibly would not have passed scrutiny during the formal appropriations process.Critics note that asset forfeiture creates a perverse incentive for policing priorities: the more assets cops seize, the more money they get to spend. Satirist John Oliver characterized the practice as akin to “legalized robbery by law enforcement” in a must-watch segment on his show Last Week Tonight. News organizations, including New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Free Beacon have recently outlined abuses of the system.
[...]
The Washington Post has released its giant cache of Equitable Sharing Agreements from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country. We urge you to dig in, find your local cops, identify out how they’ve spend this money, and let the world know what you find.
Related Stories
After decades of abuse the Attorney General (AG) of the United States has barred State and Local police from using Federal Statutes to seize assets and keep them even when any other charges were dropped.
The Washington Post points out that there are very few exceptions to AG Holders order: including illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography.
Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.
Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program that the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.
The order does not prevent state and local police from using State seizure statutes. It simply prevents any Federal Law Enforcement Agency from signing on to the seizure to "legitimize" it, and then share the assets back to the local authorities.
The Post noted that local and state police routinely used this program to pull over drivers for minor traffic infractions, press them to agree to warrant-less searches and seize large amounts of cash without evidence of wrongdoing, and without filing any charges.
Notably missing from the order was any limitations on Federal Authorities abusing the seizure statutes in the absence of any conviction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday January 22 2015, @11:06PM
The irony is that only a satirist is allowed to say it in public.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 22 2015, @11:42PM
Last Friday, Attorney General Holder announced [washingtonpost.com] that the DOJ was limiting the types of seizures it would allow state and local law enforcement to classify under the Federal Equitable Sharing [wikipedia.org] program.
According to the Washington Post article (linked above) reporting on AG Holder's announcement:
This is a good start, but the whole process is a travesty which has hurt thousands of innocent people, in some cases destroying their businesses and lives -- all with no evidence of wrongdoing or charges filed. It's disgusting, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @12:43AM
Yes, this was the story here on SN referenced in the first link.
I think its no accident that Holder decided to take his action because he was tipped by the liberal press that these stories were going to come out. Several sources had stories in the queue about the abuses, and felt they could no longer suppress them.
Principally Fox News (say what you will) was posting stories back in November May and April, and also carried stories about the Senate getting annoyed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/30/civil-forfeiture-likely-to-be-hot-issue-at-lynch-confirmation-hearing-experts/ [foxnews.com]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/14/senators-call-on-justice-department-to-stop-sharing-asset-forfeiture-funds/ [foxnews.com]
Once that was out CNN and the rest of the liberal media knew they couldn't keep a lid on it any longer, and gave the administration a heads up.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday January 23 2015, @01:18AM
What would have been the reason for the liberal media to keep the lid on?
As opposed to what type of media that would not have had this interest and why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @01:33AM
Thou shalt not tarnish the name of thy god Obama.
Keep your peace until the opposition is in control, then unleash your rage.
And before you all rush out and burn your karma modding me to hell, the same thing happens when the situation is reversed.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 23 2015, @02:02AM
Weird... what the hell does govt have to do with local police asset seizure?
Isn't the "separation of power" actual/active/expected anymore in US? Does the populace always expect that it is only the president that can (or is to be made responsible to) put all the things in order? (is it that bad already?)
Because, if not, I don't see how "police abuses seizing power" can be interpreted as "Obama - or the-other-guy - sucks" (as a proof, it was the AG the one who put the things on a better track. What Obama had to do with it?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @05:05AM
Go back and read the story, and the one I posted earlier (second link in TFS).
It goes something like this:
Tin-horn sheriffs stop some unsuspecting guy going to pay off his Truck with cash money, and on a pretense, the have a drug dog sniff the car and ask to search. In the search, they find an envelope containing 8 grand. They seize the money, and the truck, and log it in with the FBI or DEA or some other agency, which makes it legal EVEN when the state has no forfeiture statute.
The feds take a skim, hand the bulk of it back to the Sheriff, to buy just about what ever they want, off budget, off books.
The poor stiff now has to PROVE that all that money was obtained legally. PROVE his innocence. If He can, maybe in a year or two he will get part of his money back just in time to pay his lawyer. The truck was probably sold off, so good luck getting any of that back.
Now if the guy was dealing dope, he just walks away. But too many innocent people were getting their shit ripped off. Get Lucky in Vegas, don't you DARE drive home with cash money.
All AG Holder did was tell local/county/state LE that the feds won't be signing on to that scam any more.
Holder didn't outlaw the practice when the Feds themselves pull the same stunt.
Holder didn't outlaw the practice when States have Seizure Statutes. (Not many do, it was an unpopular scam).
So it had everything to do with the Federal Government, because they were giving cover to these thieving local LE.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday January 23 2015, @07:08AM
Lesson? Start a drug business so you can afford seizures from time to time and still make a big profit? :D
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @07:47AM
Carry your cash on your person.
Get multiple wallets if necessary.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 23 2015, @04:17PM
In many areas, if you're stopped for even a simple traffic violation you get a pat-down automatically. I've been given pat-downs for 5MPH over the speed limit -- and they never even issued a citation. Searched me, asked if I had any drugs or guns in the car (but didn't search it) and sent me on my way. Keep it on your person, they'll DEFINITELY find it. Keep it in your car, they MIGHT find it.
If you must carry it, just keep it well hidden. If it's on your person, you might need to make use of some...cavities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @02:30AM
So Obama is the one that wrote the laws allowing legalized theft, or didn't veto them when Congress wrote them during his term, and that's why the "liberal press" didn't run with the stories? Or is this more bullshit smearing of Obama for things with which he had nothing to do?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday January 23 2015, @01:25PM
Come on now, he's the President. He has been for six years, and he appointed Holder who recently made a statement about this practice. It's not like they just found out that their jackboots were are stealing shit from normal citizens. They've known the whole time, they just don't care. Bush didn't care either, but that doesn't make it okay for Obama to not care. People need to stop acting like Presidents aren't responsible for the actions of the federal government.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 23 2015, @07:39PM
They've known the whole time, they just don't care.
The fact that they are banning/limiting the practice should indicate to a rational person that they do in fact care.
If they don't care why are they changing anything?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday January 26 2015, @02:16PM
They're politicians, my Dear; they poll.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday January 23 2015, @01:23AM
Not sure why you had to get all partisan about this.
This issue should outrage people of all political persuasion.
But you're right. Those librul media types having been hiding this for years.
Especially those ratbags from Frontline [pbs.org] and The Atlantic [theatlantic.com].
They've been covering this up for years. Or not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @01:36AM
Not sure why you had to get all partisan about this.
Because in this case, most of the press about this issue came FIRST from Fox, and any mention of Fox brings out a lot of people who aren't too fond of their karma.
I'm not saying the situation wouldn't be reversed in the Republicans were in power.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday January 23 2015, @01:57AM
Did you even look at the links I posted? The Atlantic article is from 2011(!).
And this one from the New Yorker [newyorker.com] is from 2013.
So. The media on both "sides" (the only reason there are "sides" is that those who want to perpetuate their own power use that old chestnut to divide us) has been covering this issue as it's really quite disturbing and, frankly, incredibly outrageous.
The media has, over the years, reported on this ever since the government started to do this as a part of RICO cases back in the '70s. Things got much worse under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Now people are actually paying attention.
Perhaps you should look at your motivations in trying to blame a "side." The truth is that this has been going on for a long time and getting worse under both D and R administrations.
At least something positive is happening. Or is it improper to say that because there's a D in the White House? Please.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @06:35PM
I just love how you go into spectacular contortions to intimate that this is all Obama's fault when this has been going on for decades, spanning a range of administrations on both sides of the aisle. The "liberal press" had tipped them off to a story that is decades old? Accusations that they were desparately trying to "suppress" the story? You mean like this? [cnn.com] Or this [washingtonpost.com] or this [theatlantic.com] or this? [motherjones.com] Wow. Just wow.
Look, why can't you just admit it? The Obama administration has actually taken a step in the right direction. Go ahead, it won't kill you. Seriously, it's not going to kill you. Granted, it would have been nice if they had gone the whole way and outright banned the practice of civil forfeiture, but what is so god-awful wrong with giving credit where credit is due? Is your hatred of Obama so visceral that you must find fault even when they finally do the right thing? Why is this so hard for you?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @08:57PM
The AC said
spectacular contortions to intimate that this is all Obama's fault when this has been going on for decades, spanning a range of administrations on both sides of the aisle.
He's been president for 6 years!
He has no trouble issuing executive orders for things he wants, even when those things are actually against the law.
At some time, he has to take responsibility.
You can't kick George Bush's cat forever you know.
So you tell me AC, HOW LONG will it take till Obama becomes responsible for the operations and misdeeds of this government?
(Just be prepared to wear you answer for that many years.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24 2015, @12:58AM
Take responsibility? You mean like his AG announcing that the DOJ will no longer participate in civil forfeiture except for cases where public safety is concerned? Would you count that as this administration taking some responsibility?
Gee, it really must gnaw at your soul that W has feet of clay. For the record, I didn't single out W in my earlier response; in fact, I didn't even mention his name. I did point out that this has been going on for quite some time under administrations that spanned the political spectrum.
I have no problem with pointing out the misdeeds of this administration. For example, I do wish that Eric Holder would have gone the entire way and banned the practice outright. My problem comes when partisans like you kick the one guy who actually is trying to do something to clean up the mess. Why not applaud the effort and encourage him to do more? I also found it odd that you were suggesting some sort of conspiracy of liberal media to suppress this information when it has been known--and reported on--by left-leaning news organizations for decades. (One of the links I provided was to a story from 2010; there are other, even older, news stories I did not bother linking to.) Just because this was first brought to your attention by Fox News a couple of days ago, doesn't mean it wasn't already widely reported on before. You would know this if you had bothered to look at the datelines on the links I provide in my previous post. Hell, you could have even just googled "civil forfeiture", like I did, and seen for yourself. But you didn't do that. Instead, you decided to spin this as some sort of "lame stream media" conspiracy to suppress a scandal. Honestly, it is just plain sad when partisans like you desperately try to shoehorn a story like this into your political agenda, no matter how imperfect the fit.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 23 2015, @01:19AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 23 2015, @05:55PM
One of the problems with asset forfeiture is that the individuals seizing the assets (cops) are allowed to keep them for their own use. I don't understand why municipalities allow this. The money from the sale of the assets should be surrendered to the government and the money distributed through the regular budgeting process, not used by the police to supplement their budget off the books. I am not saying that this would fix everything thing with this system (I would prefer that it be abolished or severely limited), but I feel this would help curtail the practice in many jurisdictions since the police would not be directly benefiting from the practice.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday January 23 2015, @06:21PM
That would only spread out the perverse incentive. It would be less focused, but garner more support throughout the government. That is not a prescription for reducing the corruption.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.