Does Anyone Besides Jeff Sessions Defend Today’s Civil-Forfeiture Practices?

[EasyAce]

By George F. Will
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department

“The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. . . .
The worst thing in the world varies from individual to individual.”
— George Orwell, 1984

Philadelphia — For Christos and Markela Sourovelis, for whom the worst thing was losing their home, “Room 101” was Courtroom
478 in City Hall. This “courtroom”’s name is Orwellian: There was neither judge nor jury in it. There the city government enriched itself
— more than $64 million in a recent eleven-year span — by disregarding due-process requirements in order to seize and sell the property
of people who have not been accused, never mind convicted, of a crime.

The Sourovelises’ son, who lived at home, was arrested for selling a small amount of drugs away from home. Soon there was a knock on
their door by police who said, “We’re here to take your house” and “You’re going to be living on the street” and “We do this every day.”
The Sourovelises’ doors were locked with screws and their utilities were cut off. They had paid off the mortgage on their $350,000 home,
making it a tempting target for policing for profit.

Nationwide, proceeds from sales of seized property (homes, cars, etc.) go to the seizers. And under a federal program, state and local law
enforcement can partner with federal authorities in forfeiture and reap up to 80 percent of the proceeds. This is called — more Orwellian
newspeak — “equitable sharing.”

No crime had been committed in the Sourovelises’ house, but the title of the case against them was “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.
12011 Ferndale Street.” Somehow, a crime had been committed by the house. In civil forfeiture, it suffices that property is suspected of
having been involved in a crime. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving their property’s innocence. “Sentence
first — verdict afterwards,” says the queen in Alice in Wonderland.

In Courtroom 478, the prosecutors usually assured people seeking to reclaim their property that they would not need lawyers. The
prosecutors practiced semi-extortion, suggesting how people could regain limited control of their property: They could sell it and give
half the proceeds to the city. The “hearings” in Courtroom 478 were often protracted over months, and missing even one hearing could
result in instant forfeiture.

The Sourovelises were allowed to return to their house only after waiving their rights to statutory or constitutional defenses in a future
forfeiture action. Such action was forestalled when their case came to the attention of the Institute for Justice, public-interest litigators
who never received the “You can’t fight city hall” memo. It disentangled the Sourovelises from the forfeiture machine, shut down
Courtroom 478, and now is seeking a court ruling to tether this machine to constitutional standards.

There might somewhere be a second prominent American who endorses today’s civil-forfeiture practices, but one such person is “very
unhappy” with criticisms of it. At a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on forfeiture abuses, one senator said “taking and seizing
and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” and neither is law enforcement
enriching itself from this. In the manner of the man for whom he soon will work, this senator asserted an unverifiable number: “Ninety-
five percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” This senator said it should not be more
difficult for “government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.” In seizing
property suspected of involvement in a crime, government “should not have a burden of proof higher than in a normal civil case.”

IJ’s Robert Everett Johnson notes that this senator missed a few salient points: In civil forfeiture there usually is no proper “judicial
process.” There is no way of knowing how many forfeitures involve criminals because the government takes property without even
charging anyone with a crime. The government’s vast prosecutorial resources are one reason it properly bears the burden of proving
criminal culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A sued businessperson does not have assets taken until he or she has lost in a trial,
whereas civil forfeiture takes property without a trial and the property owner must wage a protracted, complex, and expensive fight
to get it returned. The Senate Judiciary Committee might want to discuss all this when considering the nominee to be the next attorney
general, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions.

[endicom]

Conservatives, including Reagan, saddled us with Civil Asset Forfeiture so Sessions is just being a true-blue conservative.

Despotism comes at you from all directions.

[bigheadfred]

Conservatives, including Reagan, saddled us with Civil Asset Forfeiture so Sessions is just being a true-blue conservative.

Despotism comes at you from all directions.

But mostly from the top down.

[EasyAce]

Conservatives, including Reagan, saddled us with Civil Asset Forfeiture so Sessions is just being a true-blue conservative.

Despotism comes at you from all directions.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984---which probably did most to turn asset forfeiture from
an occasional use that was originally based on ancient British martime law into an ongoing cash cow for local and fed law
enforcement officials---was signed and defended by Ronald Reagan . . . but originated with Mississippi Democratic
Congressman Jamie Whitten in September of that year. Subsequent asset forfeiture laws originated with Republicans
and had Democratic support, but in recent years it's been men and women on the right speaking against forfeiture laws
and their abuses.

But despotism is remarkably bipartisan.

[endicom]

...in recent years it's been men and women on the right speaking against forfeiture laws
and their abuses.

I hope they prevail.

[Cripplecreek]

But mostly from the top down.

It comes at you from behind and waits for you to drop the soap.

[bigheadfred]

It comes at you from behind and waits for you to drop the soap.

Ah yes. Tyrannosoreass

[Cripplecreek]

I hope they prevail.

The states are the ones leading the way on reform. Its been a big issue here in Michigan in recent years. Things like eliminating destructive fines for unknowingly breaking regulatory laws that no one should have a reasonable expectation of knowing. (Charging someone $1000 per week for building a garage 2 feet to close to a wetland).

We recently eliminated building permits for certain projects under $5000

[endicom]

The states are the ones leading the way on reform. Its been a big issue here in Michigan in recent years. Things like eliminating destructive fines for unknowingly breaking regulatory laws that no one should have a reasonable expectation of knowing. (Charging someone $1000 per week for building a garage 2 feet to close to a wetland).

We recently eliminated building permits for certain projects under $5000

Steps in the right direction.

AFAIK, New York State has been pretty good on CAF but, if anyone's interested, NYC makes its own rules in defiance of the courts: http://gothamist.com/2014/01/14/nypd_civil_forfeiture.php

[geronl]

Property tax appraisals have the same effect.

A facebook friend said the appraisal valued her home at 400% more than the last time, she fought an they lowered it and she fought and it came down to around the same as before.

Most people don't fight and end up paying rent to the government.