Forfeiture

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Forfeiture

Post by notmartha » Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:35 pm

Forfeiture

See also Robbery, Crime


KJV References

Ḥāram, Hebrew Strong's #2763, is used 52 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as destroy (34), utterly (10), devote (2), accursed (1), consecrate (1), forfeited (1), flat nose (1), utterly to make away (1), slay (1). It is translated as “forfeited” in the following verse:
Ezra 10:8 - And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away.
Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
FOR'FEITURE, noun

1. The act of forfeiting; the losing of some right, privilege, estate, honor, office or effects, by an offense, crime, breach of condition or other act. In regard to property, forfeiture is a loss of the right to possess, but not generally the actual possession, which is to be transferred by some subsequent process. In the feudal system, a forfeiture of lands gave him in reversion or remainder a right to enter.

2. That which is forfeited; an estate forfeited; a fine or mulet. The prince enriched his treasury by fines and forfeitures.
Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856
FORFEITURE, punishment, torts.

1. Forfeiture is a punishment annexed by law to some illegal act, or negligence, in the owner of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, whereby he loses all his interest therein, and they become vested in the party injured, as a recompense for the wrong which he alone, or the Public together with himself, hath sustained. 2 Bl. Com. 267.

2. Lands, tenements and hereditaments, may be forfeited by various means: 1. By the commission of crimes and misdemeanors. 2. By alienation contrary to law. 3. By the non performance of conditions. 4. By waste.

3. 1. Forfeiture for crimes. By the Constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, it is declared that no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. And by the Act of April 30, 1790, s. 24, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 88, it is enacted, that no conviction or judgment for any of the offences aforesaid, shall work corruption of blood, or any forfeiture of estate. As the offences punished by this act are of the blackest dye, including cases of treason, the punishment of forfeiture may be considered as being abolished. The forfeiture of the estate for crime is very much reduced in practice in this country, and when it occurs, the stater takes the title the party had, and no more. 4 Mason's R. 174; Dalrymple on Feudal Property, c. 4, p. 145 154; Fost. C. L. 95.

4. 2. Forfeiture by alienation. By the English law, estates less than a fee may be forfeited to the party entitled to the residuary interest by a breach of duty in the owner of the particular estate. When a tenant for life or years, therefore, by feoffment, fine, or recovery, conveys a greater estate than he is by law entitled to do, he forfeits his estate to the person next entitled in remainder or reversion. 2 Bl. Com. 274. In this country, such forfeitures are almost unknown, and the more just principle prevails, that the conveyance by the tenant operates only on the interest which he possessed, and does not affect the remainder man or reversioner. 4 Kent, Com. 81, 82, 424; 1 Hill. Ab. c. 4, s. 25 to 34; 3 Dall. Rep. 486; 5 Ohio, R. 30.

5. 3. Forfieture by non performance of conditions. An estate may be forfeited by a breach, or non performance of a condition annexed to the estate, either expressed in the deed at its original creation, or impliedly by law, from a principle of natural reason. 2 Bl. Com. 281; and see Ad Eject. 140 to 173. Vide article Reentry; 12 Serg. & Rawle, 190.

6. 4. Forfeiture by waste. Waste is also a cause of forfeiture. 2 Bl. Com. 283. Vide article Waste.

7. By forfeiture is also understood the neglect of an obligor to fulfil his obligation in proper time: as, when one has entered into a bond for a penal sum, upon condition to pay a smaller at a particular day, and he fails to do it, there is then said to be a forfeiture. Again, when a party becomes bound in a certain sum by a recognizance to pay a certain sum, with a condition that he will appear at court to answer or prosecute a crime, and he fails to do it, there is a forfeiture of the recognizance. Courts of equity, and now courts, of law, will relieve from the forfeiture of a bond; and upon a proper case shown, criminal courts will in general relieve from the forfeiture of a recognizance to appear. See 3 Yeates, 93; 2 Wash. C. C. 442 Blackf. 104, 200; Breeze, 257. Vide, generally, 2 Bl. Com. ch. 18; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.; 2 Kent's Com; 318; 4 Id. 422; 10 Vin. Ab. 371, 394 13 Vin. Ab. 436; Bac. Ab. Forfeiture Com. Dig. h. t.; Dane's Ab. h. t.; 1 Bro Civ. L. 252 4 Bl. Com. 382; and Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture for High Treason, London ed. l746.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, 1891
forfeit blacks 1.JPG
forfeit blacks 1.JPG (173.26 KiB) Viewed 2895 times
The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895
forfeiture cent.JPG
forfeiture cent.JPG (123.99 KiB) Viewed 2895 times
Michael Moriarty:
National Health? Socialized pension funds? State-controlled television? Search and seizure laws? Forfeiture laws? If we're not living in the Soviet Union of the United States we certainly have returned to 1776 and 'taxation without representation.'
Harry Browne:
Asset forfeiture is a mockery of the Bill of Rights. There is no presumption of innocence, no need to prove you guilty (or even charge you with a crime), no right to a jury trial, no right to confront your accuser, no right to a court-appointed attorney (even if the government has just stolen all your money), and no right to compensation for the property that's been taken.
Robert Higgs:
Democrats and Republicans alike support the "War on Drugs." Federal, state, and local police make more than a million drug arrests yearly. Drug cases clog the courts. More than 60% of federal prison cells and about 30% of state prison cells hold drug offenders. No-knock drug raiders nullify the Fourth Amendment every day. Yet illicit drugs continue to pour onto the market, and they are readily available throughout the land. Looks like another failed policy. But politicians say more money will win the war. For fiscal 1996, President Clinton has requested a record $14.6 billion for this exercise in futility. State and local government will also spend huge sums. Who benefits? Posturing politicians and puritanical zealots, of course, but also the Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs Service, Coast Guard, FBI, and the rest of the drug warriors. Police love the drug war, because the forfeiture laws it inspired allow them to seize and keep private property with impunity. Corrupt cops get fabulous bribes, and corruption therefore runs rampant.
David B. Kopel:
Persons who fit “drug courier profiles” may be detained and harassed by the police, although such profiles include getting off the plane early, late, or in the middle as an element of the profile. Infrared sensors spy into people’s homes, with no probable cause. Except in the home, the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement has been mostly abolished by a “law and order” Supreme Court. Under forfeiture laws, billions of dollars of private property have been seized from persons who have never been charged, let alone convicted of any crime. Pre-trial detention, a gross contradiction of the presumption of innocence, has become routine. Citizens traveling on busses, on trains, or in private cars are liable to be pulled over and searched by police and drug-sniffed by police dogs for no reason at all. Urinalysis has become a routine condition of initial or continued employment, and the medical privacy of many persons taking lawful prescription medication has been compromised as a result. Stalinesque “Drug Abuse Resistance Education” programs in the schools encourage children to turn in their parents for illegal drug possession. Attractive young police officers pretend to be high school students, and pester socially awkward teenagers into selling them drugs. Punishment for crime has become grotesquely disproportionate to the offense, as teenagers in possession of $1,500 worth of LSD are sent to prison for longer terms than kidnappers and arsonists. America has a higher imprisonment rate than any other nation in the world, and yet violent criminals serve less and less time in prison as America’s rapidly expanding prison industry takes in more and more young people convicted of drug offenses. The United States Army is conducting domestic law enforcement operations in California and Oregon; the National Guard has been turned into a militarized drug police. Wiretapping has never been more common. Financial privacy has vanished as banks must report currency transactions; car dealers must report customers who buy with cash.
WEX Legal Dictionary
Forfeiture

"They don't have to convict you. They don't even have to charge you with a crime. But they have your property. "
--Henry Hyde, as quoted in CNN Article

Forfeiture, the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity, has been a major weapon in the Federal government's "war on drugs" since the mid-eighties. Two recent developments, however, have called attention to the darker side of this practice: a decision by New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, to deploy forfeiture against drunk drivers, and a House-approved bill that would, if signed into law, drastically narrow the scope of the federal forfeiture statutes. Forfeiture is a potent deterent, as well as a revenue source on which law enforcement has grown increasingly dependent. However, it brings with it far fewer procedural safeguards than the criminal law.

In the words of former President George Bush, "Asset forfeiture laws allow the government to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets." New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir invoked deterence when he said, "We believe that ... the threat of civil forfeiture and the possibility of losing one's car, have served to reduce the number of motorists who are willing to take the chance of being caught driving drunk." On the other hand, a civil liberties group has filed suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the New York City program. Citing some of the same constitutional concerns, the House passed a Bill that would drastically curtail the federal operation of the law.

Concerned about the the broad effect of federal forfeiture laws, Henry Hyde (R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Chairman) and John Conyers (D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the Committee) teamed up to introduce the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in a rare display of bipartisan unity. The Representatives were concerned about the problem of police using seized property or funds to finance their own operations. As Bob Barr (R-Ga.) put it, "In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog." Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities. They eventually let him go, but they kept the money, and refused to even give him a receipt for it. Because he did not have 10% of the money seized to put up as a bond, he could not afford to challenge the seizure in the usual way. Disturbed by this and other similar stories of excess, the House members voted to approve H.R. 1658 to curb this abuse. The Clinton administration said that the bill would have a negative impact on the war on drugs. The House soundly rejected an administration-favored alternative, however -- supporters of H.R. 1658 said the alternative bill would expand the federal power, not narrow it.

Most forfeiture activity occurs under Federal law, and most of that is connected to the traffic in illegal drugs. The Department of Justice established the National Assets Seizure and Forfeiture Fund in 1985 and realized $27 million from drug-related forfeitures that year. By 1992 the total take had climbed to $875 million. Many states followed suit by establishing their own civil forfeiture programs. Cities and other municipal governments have cooperated in forfeiture actions under both Federal and state drug laws. They have used such laws on their own to deal with local concerns ranging from unsafe housing to prostitution, and now for the problem of drunk driving.

The authority to seize property in this way is not inherent. Rather, it is established by statute. It is constrained by those authorizing laws and by the U.S. Constitution. The expansion of forfeiture activity has not gone on without Constitutional challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard at least half a dozen forfeiture cases during the nineties, but its rulings have not done much to rein in the practice. This short survey of the law of forfeiture draws upon these Court decisions. Its introduction to the essential statutory provisions focuses on the Federal statutes. State and local provisions tend to be quite similar.

Forfeiture takes two distinct forms -- criminal and civil. Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. Thus, the proceeding is directed against the res, or the thing involved in some illegal activity specified by statute. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in rem forfeiture does not require a conviction or even an official criminal charge against the owner. This is the source of its attractiveness to law enforcement, and its threat to those concerned about abuse or circumvention of Constitutional protections.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Forfeiture

Post by notmartha » Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:37 pm

From: http://benwilliamslibrary.com/blog/?page_id=2957
Oklahoma Cops Unveil New Device Enabling Direct Seizure Of Bank Accounts, Credit Cards

(NOTE: If this police crime succeeds in Oklahoma you can bet police forces in other states will soon follow suit. -ed)

By Claire Bernish – June 8, 2016

As if civil asset forfeiture, where police can seize your property without having to prove you actually committed a crime, wasn’t contentious enough already, a new device allows the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to steal money directly from your bank account — on the spot.

And it’s already in use.

The Electronic Recovery and Access to Data Machine, known by the acronym ERAD, can scan your bank account and prepaid cards, giving OHP instant access to the balance — and the funds — if a trooper believes the money is tied to a crime. OHP rolled out 16 ERAD devices in May, and unsurprisingly, has already employed the technology.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to be a victim of these badge-wearing armed robbers — which makes OHP’s new ERAD device an astonishing prospect.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.” So all he has to do is “believe” you lied about anything and he has the right to take everything you have. They justify this claiming it is not about seizing money. Of course not. It is criminal prosecution but there is no crime. Forget innocent until proven guilty. That will not apply. They pretend the money committed the crime – not you.

He can rob you of everything and leave you with no money even for gas. The police have become the criminals. This is precisely how Rome fell. When they could not could not pay the army, they began sacking their own cities. This is exactly what the police are doing now and there is nobody to defend us against this new criminal organization.

Just stay out of Oklahoma at all costs. If other states follow, you better migrate to another country and fast. One not based on common law (English countries). This will destroy the freedom to even travel as broke police are nothing more than highway criminals with guns.

What Vincent seems to be saying is OHP will try its damnedest to find a reason to rob you at gunpoint.

“If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we’ve done that in the past,” Vincent added.

State Sen. Kyle Loveless said cases where police abused this new system have already come to light, including single mothers, a cancer survivor who had their medication seized, a Christian band, and a number of other completely innocent people.

“I know a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money,” Vincent stated the obvious. “That’s a small thing that’s happening now. The largest part that we have found … the biggest benefit has been the identity theft,” he added without further explanation.

Controversy over civil asset forfeiture (CAF) surrounds the fact law enforcement is under no obligation to prove the property it seizes could in any way be tied to criminal activity. Once police have your property, most departments are free to essentially divvy it up amongst themselves.

Countless cases dot headlines around the country evidence thousands of innocent people as victims of this financial terrorism perpetrated by the government. Police even managed to ‘seize’ $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage, and a church.

The one state that is leading this criminal scheme is Oklahoma. It is wise not to travel in that state at all. Oklahoma should be on a no fly zone. Now Oklahoma police can outright just seize everything you have from debit cards to bank accounts on a traffic stop without any criminal charges being filed.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Forfeiture

Post by notmartha » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:55 am

WEX Legal Dictionary has recently updated its definition of "Civil Forfeiture" to include Sessions' new policy. (Please go to WEX page for citation links.)

Civil Forfeiture

Overview

Civil forfeiture occurs when the government seizes property under suspicion of its involvement in illegal activity. Such a proceeding is conducted in rem, or against the property itself, rather than in personam, or against the owner of the property; by contrast, criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding. For this reason, civil forfeiture case names often appear strange, such as United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues,(1) and the property owner is a third-party claimant to the action while the property is the defendant. This form of forfeiture is codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, 984, and 985, as well as in 21 U.S.C. § 881.

The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize his property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity.

While the government views civil forfeiture as a powerful tool against the drug trade, organized crime, and political corruption, it is often criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and as against a fundamental element of due process: the presumption of innocence. See:


“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.” Amendment IV


“No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Amendment V


“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Amendment VIII


“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United States (1895)


“While use of the particular phrase ‘presumption of innocence’—or any other form of words—may not be constitutionally mandated, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be held to safeguard ‘against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Taylor v. Kentucky (1978)

History

Civil forfeiture in the United States is a holdover from English law. It was commonly used by the government during the Prohibition era to seize the property of bootleggers in an attempt to stymie the production and sale of illicit alcohol. When Prohibition ended, civil forfeiture was still available but not so commonly used until the War on Drugs began in the 1980’s. In response to increased concerns about the bustling drug trade and other criminal activity, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Title III of the law consisted of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, which amended the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Statute (RICO) to clarify what constitutes forfeitable property, and create a rebuttable presumption of forfeitability. In other words, the government could seize first, and defend the forfeiture in court later. The Act also established the Equitable Sharing Program which allows the government to liquidate seized assets and retain the proceeds.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Austin v. United States that a forfeiture could be considered an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but declined to establish a multifactor test to determine whether a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive. Otherwise, the ruling upheld civil forfeiture as a practice, within undefined limits.

In 1996, the Court’s holding in United States v. Ursery established that the government may seize a person’s property due to its involvement in a crime in addition to prosecuting them for that crime without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In 1998, the Court continued to uphold civil forfeiture in United States v. Bajakajian, but limited it if the amount seized would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense,” in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

In 2000, Congress enacted the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) “to provide a more just and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures.” CAFRA amended a variety of U.S.C. titles and chapters, and included, among other things:

•An “innocent owner defense”
•A provision for a victim to petition the court when the forfeiture is excessive
•A requirement that the government pay reasonable litigation costs incurred by a claimant who “substantially prevails”
•Procedure for the civil forfeiture of real property
•Fugitive disentitlement to court resources
•An encouragement to use criminal rather than civil forfeiture

There have been bipartisan efforts since CAFRA to further reform federal civil forfeiture, but as of July 2017, none have been enacted.(2)

In recent years, many states have passed laws to limit the use of civil forfeiture, and some prohibit it altogether unless the owner has already been criminally convicted for the crime that justifies seizure. The Equitable Sharing Program, however, provided a loophole that allowed state and local law enforcement agencies to share in the liquidated proceeds of civil forfeiture cases they may hand over to federal law enforcement. To combat this loophole in 2015, Attorney General Holder unilaterally barred federal law enforcement from collaborating with local and state police to take on forfeiture cases where local and state law disallows it without warrants or criminal charges.(3) He also limited the federal seizure of bank accounts only to instances where serious illegal transactions have been documented.(4)

Current Events

In March 2017, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General released a report reviewing the DOJ’s oversight of civil forfeiture activities. The report identified specific weaknesses in the DOJ’s oversight, including an insufficient effort to determine “whether seizures benefit criminal investigations or the extent to which they may pose potential risks to civil liberties,” and an inadequacy in policy and training to ensure operational consistency. To remedy these weaknesses, the report recommends that the relevant departments of law enforcement:

1.Develop ways to collect relevant data related to seizure and forfeiture activities sufficient to identify and evaluate whether seizures advance or are related to federal investigations.

2.Review seizure practices to determine whether more-specific policy guidance and/or training is needed to ensure consistency in seizure operations.

3.Ensure that state and local task force officers receive training on federal asset seizure and forfeiture laws and component seizure policies before they conduct or participate in federal seizures.

4.Monitor the effects of the Attorney General’s 2015 Order that eliminated most types of federal adoptions of state and local seizures, and seek to mitigate any negative effects on law enforcement cooperation.(5)

In July 2017, Attorney General Sessions reversed the 2015 directive that prevented local law enforcement from circumventing state restrictions on civil forfeiture.(6) However, this new directive includes changes meant to prevent abuse of the practice, such as requiring more detail from police agencies about probable cause justifying a seizure, expedited notice to property owners of their rights and the status of their belongings after a seizure, and limited ability to seize property less than $10,000 without a state warrant or other enumerated exceptions.(7) Nevertheless, critics say the safeguards are ineffective.(8) Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas commented in a 2017 denial of certiorari on a civil forfeiture case that the civil forfeiture system “has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses” which “frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.”(9)

Pending Legislation

If passed, the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2017 (FAIR Act) would amend civil forfeiture sections of the U.S. Code to:

•replace the standard of proof “a preponderance of the evidence” with the stricter “clean and convincing evidence;”

•disallow the equitable sharing of forfeiture proceeds with “any other Federal agency” or “any State or local law enforcement agency which participated directly,” effectively killing the Equitable Sharing Program;

•and establish a multifactor test to determine the whether the forfeiture is proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Alternately, if passed, the Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures Act of 2017 (DUE PROCESS Act) would amend civil forfeiture sections of the U.S. Code to:
•shorten the amount of time between forfeiture and when the government is required to give notice to the property’s owner;

•add “initial hearings” to the civil forfeiture judicial procedure;

•replace the standard of proof “a preponderance of the evidence” with the stricter “clean and convincing evidence;”

•grant reasonable attorneys fees to claimants who prevail in a settlement rather than in court—and the payment of fees may not be waived as part of any settlement;

•define what counts as a claimant prevailing;

•establish an annual audit of civil forfeitures by the DOJ Inspector General; require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a publicly available database describing all federal civil forfeitures, including statistical breakdowns of forfeitures by agency and where money given from the Asset Forfeiture Fund or Treasury Forfeiture Fund goes;

•and establish a multifactor test to determine the whether the forfeiture is proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

While the two bills are largely similar, one important difference exists: the FAIR Act effectively ends equitable sharing while the DUE PROCESS Act attempts only to curb its abuse.

Last updated in July of 2017 by Stephanie Jurkowski.

1. 449 F. Supp. 193 (C.D. Cal. 1978)
2. See S. 255 (114th Congress): Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 (FAIR Act), reintroduced in March of 2017 under the same name as H.R. 1555; H.R. 5212 (113th Congress): Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014; H.R. 5283 (114th Congress): Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures Act of 2016 (DUE PROCESS Act), reintroduced in March of 2017 under the same name as H.R. 1795.
3. Robert O’Harrow Jr. et al., Holder Limits Seized-Asset Sharing Process That Split Billions With Local, State Police, Washington Post, Jan. 16, 2015.
4. Robert O’Harrow Jr., Holder Announces New Limits on Civil Asset Forfeitures, Washington Post, Mar. 31, 2015.
5. Review of the Department’s Oversight of Cash Seizure and Forfeiture Activities, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Jon Schuppe, Jeff Sessions Removes Restrictions on Controversial Police Seizures, NBC News, July 19, 2017; Press Release No. 17-795, Attorney General Sessions Issues Policy and Guidelines on Federal Adoptions of Assets Seized by State or Local Law Enforcement, DOJ Office of Public Affairs, July 19, 2017 (policy directive attached).
7. Associated Press, Trump Justice Department Restoring Asset Seizures, With Some Safeguards, Lawrence Journal-World, July 19, 2017.
8. J. Justin Wilson, Civil Forfeiture Is Inherently Abusive, Institute for Justice, July 19, 2017.
9. Matt Ford, Justice Thomas’s Doubts About Civil Forfeiture, The Atlantic, Apr. 3, 2017; Statement of Thomas, J., On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District No. 16–122, Leonard v. Texas, 2016 Term Court Order List of Mar. 6, 2017.
Post Reply