The Holder Forfeiture Policy: Worse Than We Thought

I lauded the new policy announced by Attorney General Eric Holder on civil asset forfeiture as a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough to fix the problem (to be fair, it would take legislation to do that). But the more it’s examined, the smaller that step in the right direction becomes. Jacob Sullum runs the numbers:

Holder’s order applies only to “adoption,” which happens when a state or local agency seizes property on its own and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. “Over the last six years,” the DOJ says in the press release announcing Holder’s new policy, “adoptions accounted for roughly three percent of the value of forfeitures in the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.” By comparison, the program’s reports to Congress indicate that “equitable sharing” payments to state and local agencies accounted for about 22 percent of total deposits during those six years. That means adoptions, which the DOJ says represented about 3 percent of deposits, accounted for less than 14 percent of equitable sharing. In other words, something like 86 percent of the loot that state and local law enforcement agencies receive through federal forfeitures will be unaffected by Holder’s new policy.

That is not the impression left by The Washington Post, which broke this story on Friday. “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges,” the Post reported, saying the new policy “would eliminate virtually all cash and vehicle seizures made by local and state police from the [equitable sharing] program.” The Post did note, deep in the story, that Holder said equitable sharing would continue in cases “where local and federal authorities are collaborating.” But it said “most of the money and property taken under Equitable Sharing since 2008…was not seized in collaboration with federal authorities.”

That contradicts the Justice Department’s numbers, which indicate that the vast majority of equitable sharing comes not from adoption but from “collaboration” of some sort, even if it is limited to federal support for multijurisdictional task forces. A 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office reinforces that point, noting that “adoptions made up about 17 percent of all equitable sharing payments” in 2010.

If Holder (and Obama, presumably) really think civil asset forfeiture is a problem — and it is — I’d like to see them push for legislation that does away with it entirely unless there is a conviction in the case. That would fix the problem. And this is one of the few issues where they could actually get bipartisan support. There are many voices on the right who are strongly opposed to our asset forfeiture laws, so it would actually have a chance of passing even with Republican control of both houses of Congress.

"I think it's pretty obvious that Pence is already de facto president, has been since ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"No can do, er, bonobo. The only guarantee is that they are sinfully delicious. Even ..."

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Heeeey . . . that gives me a great idea!I'll put a cherry on top!Mmmmm! ..."

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Pure is for water and heroin. When it comes to women a lack of purity ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    OK, so he might get Rand Paul on board. Mitch McConnell would not touch it since Obama got his nig…socialist germs all over it!

  • Artor

    Thanks to the DHS “Fusion” Centers, much of the day-to-day law enforcement could make the claim that they are working “in cooperation” with the feds. I’m betting that the new rule changes almost nothing. The Blue Klux Klan won’t want to give up a penny of their favorite revenue stream: outright theft.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I’d like to see them push for legislation that does away with it entirely unless there is a conviction in the case. That would fix the problem. And this is one of the few issues where they could actually get bipartisan support. There are many voices on the right who are strongly opposed to our asset forfeiture laws, so it would actually have a chance of passing even with Republican control of both houses of Congress.

    Your naivete is adorable. It makes me want to hold you in my arms, swaddled in your blankie, straight from the dryer and gaze in to your clear, sparkling blue eyes.

  • Cuttlefish

    You need Senator Kelly Ayotte to propose it. If Obama is seen to have anything to do with it, it loses Republican votes immediately, but a Repub senator from the first-in-the-nation primary state of NH proposing it would mean that any GOP candidate *must* agree with it or risk offending Granite State voters.

  • freemage

    I’d like them to require conviction–and then apply them to virtually ever white-collar crime out there. That’s where the real money is to be had, anyway. Stripping away an inside-trader’s or mortgage fraud’s entire bank, stock and bond portfolio at one swoop might actually get some real traction in terms of deterrence.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    freemage (#5): “Stripping away an inside-trader’s or mortgage fraud’s entire bank, stock and bond portfolio at one swoop might actually get some real traction in terms of deterrence.”

    …aaaaaaaaand the bill just died in committee.

  • sezme

    I’d like to see them push for legislation that does away with it entirely unless there is a conviction in the case.

    What about plea bargains, which is how the vast, vast majority (~95%) of cases are disposed of? I think the incentives in criminal cases where a lot of money is involved would lead to more jury trials and fewer convictions.