Surprise! House Votes to Curb Sessions’ Asset Forfeiture Revival

Medible review surprise house votes to curb sessions asset forfeiture revival
Medible review surprise house votes to curb sessions asset forfeiture revival

Jeff Sessions speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC. (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

WASHINGTON, DC — In a surprise move, the House voted virtually unanimously Tuesday to  curb federal asset forfeitures, a slap in the face to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Sessions had reinstated a federal civil asset forfeiture program that allowed state and local law enforcement to evade state forfeiture restrictions by handing their cases over to the feds, with the feds then returning 80% of the money to the seizing agency.

In response to a rising clamor over civil forfeiture reform abuses, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder had reined in the program, known as Equitable Sharing. Now, Sessions’ attempt to bring it back has been blocked by a congressional coalition of progressives and the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Advertisement

The move came in a voice vote on an amendment to the Justice Department appropriations bill, which was sponsored by strange bedfellows Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.).

The amendment aims directly at “adoptive forfeiture,” the process by which the federal government agrees to take cases brought to it by local law enforcement agencies attempting to skirt state-level restrictions, which can include an outright ban on civil asset forfeiture (seizure without a criminal conviction) or designating that seized funds are to go the general fund or other designated fund—not the cops.

Critics of civil asset forfeiture argue that the search for lucre distorts policing priorities, creates perverse incentives, and amounts to policing for profit. Numerous states have moved to end civil asset forfeiture outright, while others have imposed various restrictions on the practice.

Advertisement

Advertisement

While Sessions claims the program is needed so that criminals “are not allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime,” a whopping 87% of federal asset forfeiture cases take place in cases where there has been no criminal conviction.

The House has acted. Now, it’s up to the Senate to act. If the Senate fails to pass a similar measure, the amendment could still become law if it gets adopted by the conference committee that will attempt to sort out differences between the two bills.

In the meantime, Sessions has been put on notice that his gift to profit-hungry state and local cops has serious opposition.


This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license from StopTheDrugWar.org and was first published here.

Tags: adoptive forfeiture, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, Don Beyer, Jeff Sessions, Justin Amash, Mark Sanford, policing for profit, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Labrador, Ro Khanna

Recommended Articles

guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Your questions and comments are welcome!x
()
x