Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHB

(37,163 posts)
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 01:48 AM Jan 2015

Is this the end of "State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix"?

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit: I'm just using the Texas case name as an example. I could have just as easily used "United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency" or hundreds of others. It was just the first example of one of these ridiculouse case names that I ran across when looking for an example.

Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions with local, state police

By Robert O'Harrow Jr., Sari Horwitz and Steven Rich January 16 at 2:15 PM

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.

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.
***
The decision follows a Washington Post investigation published in September that found that police have made cash seizures worth almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Post found that local and state police routinely pulled over drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to warrantless searches and seized large amounts of cash without evidence of wrongdoing. The law allows such seizures and forces the owners to prove their property was legally acquired in order to get it back.
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
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is this the end of "State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix"? (Original Post) JHB Jan 2015 OP
Please repost this in the Texas Group TexasTowelie Jan 2015 #1
I just used the Texas case name as an example. JHB Jan 2015 #3
If Texas has its own laws which make such seizures legal, they're still in place. herding cats Jan 2015 #2

JHB

(37,163 posts)
3. I just used the Texas case name as an example.
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:20 AM
Jan 2015

I could have just as easily used "United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency" or hundreds of others. It was just the first example of one of these ridiculous case names that I ran across when looking for an example.

I've edited the OP to clarify that.

herding cats

(19,568 posts)
2. If Texas has its own laws which make such seizures legal, they're still in place.
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:10 AM
Jan 2015

Here's a bit more on the program Holder just ended.

Attorney General Eric Holder this morning issued an order that will bar federal agencies from participating in "adoptions" of assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies. "Adoptions" occur when state or local law enforcement agencies seize cash or properties under state laws, but then ask that a federal agency takes the seized property and forfeit it under federal law.

State and local law enforcement agencies routinely resort to "adoption" as a means of circumventing state laws that mandate seized assets go to designated programs, typically a state's general fund or education fund. When a seizure is "adopted" by the feds, the seizing agency gets to keep 80% of the proceeds, with the federal government getting the rest.

"With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons," Holder said in a Friday statement. "This is the first step in a comprehensive review that we have launched of the federal asset forfeiture program. Asset forfeiture remains a critical law enforcement tool when used appropriately – providing unique means to go after criminal and even terrorist organizations. This new policy will ensure that these authorities can continue to be used to take the profit out of crime and return assets to victims, while safeguarding civil liberties."

While much asset forfeiture activity is related to drug cases, they are not included in the list of exceptions to the new policy barring "adoptions." Those public safety exceptions include firearms, ammunition, explosives, and materials related to child pornography.

The new policy does not impact asset forfeitures conducted by federal law enforcement, nor does it bar state and local law enforcement from conducting civil asset forfeiture under state law.

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/attorney-general-holder-biggest-asset-forfeiture-reform-years



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is this the end of "...