House Unamiously Passes Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

The U.S. House unanimously passed a civil asset forfeiture reform bill on Wednesday, June 24, 2019.

Specifically, the House passed an amendment that prohibits funding for the Department of Justice that goes towards a practice known as adoptive seizures, a loophole local law enforcement use to work around state forfeiture laws.

This bipartisan amendment was sponsored by Republic Congressman Tim Walberg and Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. This specific provision limits the federal government’s ability to seize private property without due process.

Walberg stated, “For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan way to shine a light on civil asset forfeiture abuses.” He added, “This amendment takes important steps to halt the practice of adoptive seizures, and it provides critical protections for all Americans and their right to due process under the Constitution.”

Trending: Score One for Due Process: American Bar Association Votes Against Affirmative Consent

On top of this bill, both Walberg and Raskin have teamed up to introduce the Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), which also reforms civil asset forfeiture practices.


Under the FAIR Act, the level of proof that the federal government needs to seize property is substantially increased, while the IRS structuring statue is reformed to protest innocent small business owners. Transparency and congressional oversight also come as a part of this reform package.

This is good news on the civil asset forfeiture reform front. Civil asset forfeiture is a practice used by corrupt law enforcement agencies to effectively fleece taxpayers and take private property without any respect for due process. The good news is that a recent Supreme Court decision has applied the 8th Amendment’s “excessive fines” provision to the states.

All in all, it seems that civil asset forfeiture reform is starting to become a national trend, and the feds are starting to wake up to this.

https://libertyconservativenews.com/house-unamiously-passes-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform/

That's a pleasant surprise. Though it still sounds like state and local agencies can steal as much as they want.

Does anyone know the history of how this was ever deemed constitutional in the first place?

Quote: Rigondeaux

That's a pleasant surprise. Though it still sounds like state and local agencies can steal as much as they want.

Does anyone know the history of how this was ever deemed constitutional in the first place?

I don't know that it was ever challenged. In the 1980s people loved seeing the Tony Montanas of the world get their stuff taken. As it trickled down he money became a drug for government, but people still cheered when a person pulled over for DUI had their car taken on the spot.

It was a plot device on "The Shield."

Good riddance.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Does anyone know the history of how this was ever deemed constitutional in the first place?

It's fantastic lesson in why you should always be suspicious and distrust power (especially .gov power)

Asset forfeiture came as a way of dealing with the mob (citation needed), the idea being that if your life is made rich by crime, you are not entitled to that wealth. Good logic. Further, due to the nature of the crime and the impossibility of making folks whole, it may as well go to fund the effort against them. Good logic. Lay the cost of crime prevention at those causing the cost. There's not really room to argue it, IMO, and I would generally support the idea.

The problem is obvious. It creates power, and c#$%s can never help themselves. FFW a few years and you have such absurd, riot inducing madness as "The state of Kansas vs $3,127", "The state of Oregon vs a 2002 Honda Accord", and all sorts of whackadoo, "you should be able to shoot people for this" type of absolute garbage. Oh, you don't carry years of financial paperwork with you to show me where you got this $13k that's none of my f#$%ing business? Just gonna hafta take it, worst of luck to you navigating the legal system to sue for your own wealth back.

Go 'head and Google if you want to spend this beautiful August day enraged. See how many parties, outings, personal appliances, etc have been bought with your stolen money, stolen only because you do not tote a professional gambler's tax paper's level of paperwork with you everywhere you go.

I will be SHOCKED if we see reform. But I support it a million percent.

Quote: Face

Asset forfeiture came as a way of dealing with the mob (citation needed), the idea being that if your life is made rich by crime, you are not entitled to that wealth. Good logic. Further, due to the nature of the crime and the impossibility of making folks whole, it may as well go to fund the effort against them. Good logic. Lay the cost of crime prevention at those causing the cost. There's not really room to argue it, IMO, and I would generally support the idea.

There is, IMHO, plenty of room to argue. The big hole in the logic you lay out is that this is being done a-priori. The concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is ignored.

I would really like to understand some of the rules of civil forfeiture.

Can I make a citizens arrest on someone committing a crime and legally seize their assets?

Quote: TumblingBones

There is, IMHO, plenty of room to argue. The big hole in the logic you lay out is that this is being done a-priori. The concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is ignored.

Either I'm ignorant on asset forfeiture or I write poorly. Assuming "a priori" means "take it before court", I feel that is something that deserves defense by force, aka GTFOH.

I merely intended to support the idea that one shouldn't profit from crime. Taking a whole car over 10g of weed or $20k because you don't have a receipt is abuse of power.

Quote: Face

... Assuming "a priori" means "take it before court", I feel that is something that deserves defense by force, aka GTFOH.

I'm afraid I would have mis-defined it myself.

Quote: Dictionary

a pri·o·ri
/ˌā prīˈôrī/
adjective
adjective: a priori; adjective: apriori

1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
"a priori assumptions about human nature"
synonyms: theoretical, deduced, deductive, inferred, scientific; More
postulated, suppositional, self-evident
"he argued that Conservatism was based on an observation of life, and not a priori reasoning"
antonyms: empirical

adverb
adverb: a priori; adverb: apriori

1.
in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.
"sexuality may be a factor but it cannot be assumed a priori"
synonyms: theoretically, from theory, deductively, scientifically
"the words were not necessarily the ones which would have been predicted a priori"
antonyms: empirically

Origin
late 16th century: Latin, ‘from what is before’.

This topic is relevant to professional gamblers who travel around with lots of cash. Stories have been told of police seizing it, on the suspicion of it being drug money. In my opinion, it is just a money grab, knowing the owner may not spend years fighting it.

That said, because the topic is somewhat political, I will be watching it with my finger on the "ban" button, ready to press if things stray away from the topic at hand.

Quote: DRich

I would really like to understand some of the rules of civil forfeiture.

Can I make a citizens arrest on someone committing a crime and legally seize their assets?

That is pretty funny. I bet if it was possible people would be more willing to fight it opposed to fighting when the police do it

It really will not change much, as most seizures occur at state and local level (especially low level cash seizing).

Without straying too far from gambling, I will only say, this will not change anything for people travelling to the casino with large amounts of cash (because most stops will be local or state police.....)

-If you are concerned, about this issue (for gambling purposes), I would advise being active in state level politics where they can change the requirements for state and local seizures (some states have made improvements).

Quote: Wizard

This topic is relevant to professional gamblers who travel around with lots of cash. Stories have been told of police seizing it, on the suspicion of it being drug money. In my opinion, it is just a money grab, knowing the owner may not spend years fighting it.

That said, because the topic is somewhat political, I will be watching it with my finger on the "ban" button, ready to press if things stray away from the topic at hand.

In my opinion your ban finger should be above the persons name that makes this politically controversial. This is significantly relevant to Advantage players and gamblers who travel with money. This is a topic I'm "passionate" about, especially hearing all the horror stories I have heard.
I know there's another thread related to this topic and I don't remember ever getting political.

Quote: DRich

I would really like to understand some of the rules of civil forfeiture.

Can I make a citizens arrest on someone committing a crime and legally seize their assets?

When I lived in Ft Lauderdale, if you intersected a drug boat on the high seas, you could claim ownership of the boat.
It was a dubious reading of the maritime law by Ed Meese and I don't think it survived his term as AG. In NY, they seized Sammy Gravinos yacht and it cost the FBI a small fortune. They drydocked it and for some reason no one would bid on it.

In any event, this Bill will now join all the other House bills in limbo as it simply won't be taken up in the Senate.

In depth article explaining what asset forfeiture is, but also how it differs from state to state. Some states require little evidence to seize money (simply having money is enough evidence), whereas others need stronger evidence (closer to “beyond reasonable doubt”).

Quote: RS

In depth article explaining what asset forfeiture is, but also how it differs from state to state. Some states require little evidence to seize money (simply having money is enough evidence), whereas others need stronger evidence (closer to “beyond reasonable doubt”).

Right which is why Federal laws (unless they pass one to limit the power of states) on this issue are pretty irrelevant. Most low level seizures (like people going to the casino with lots of cash), occur from local or state LE.

Many states can seize pretty much anything for any reason if they really want to. This is an issue that you really have to fight at the state level (if you live in one of the not great states). It is unlikely that the federal government will pass a bill that limits states power in this regard, there would be too much push back.

And, without getting too political, it would never get signed by the current administration (the current POTUS is a huge fan of assets forfeiture), I will be surprised if he signs even a federal level aimed bill.... This most likely will not get signed (assuming it even makes it through the senate)….. So don't get to excited, because even in the off chance if it survives the senate and gets signed (most unlikely) , it will only change policies for federal LE departments, state and local police can operate as usual.....