House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion

from the LOAD-LAST-SAVE? dept

Trump’s pick for attorney general unsurprisingly holds the same ideals as his boss. He also holds the same misconceptions and misplaced nostalgia for tough-on-crime policing that went out of vogue as soon as it became apparent it wasn’t doing anything but filling up prisons.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been going hot and heavy on a 1980s-esque law enforcement policy revival. He booted the DOJ off the civil rights beat, telling states and cities to solve their own police misconduct problems — something they were clearly unwilling to do on their own, hence the DOJ’s intercession. He told cops they’re getting back their access to war gear, rolling back the Obama administration’s minimal 1033 program reforms.

He’s been touting tougher policing and tougher sentencing, using a false narrative of a country under siege by drug dealers and criminal border-jumpers. In a time of historic lows — both in violent criminal activity and violence towards police officers — AG Sessions is acting like a street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse to anyone who will listen.

Sessions is also peeling away federal reforms to asset forfeiture. He’s opened the federal safety valve for civil forfeitures, allowing local PDs to dodge state laws limiting the amount of property they can take from uncharged citizens.

Given the makeup of Congress, one would assume Sessions’ ongoing effort to raise US law enforcement to “a law unto itself” level would ride on rails, at least up until midterm elections. Instead, Sessions is facing a literal House divided — not against itself exactly — but against him.

In a stunning move, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture.

Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.

If this passes the Senate untouched, the amendment will roll things back to 2015 — once again prohibiting federal adoption of local forfeitures. It would make state and local agencies play by the rules set for them by their legislatures, rather than allow them to bypass protections put in place to discourage abuse of programs loaded with the most perverted of incentives.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
58 Comments
The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Bye, partisan!

Nit: Although “Republican” is both a noun and an adjective, “Democrat” is only a noun. The corresponding adjective is “Democratic”.

It’s my experience that those who use “Democrat” as an adjective usually carry a distinct right-wing bias, but it looks like the usage may be spreading to the point that that may be becoming a less reliable indicator…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Full text [was Link?]

The amendment is short enough that here’s the full text from 163 CR H7272

At the end of division C (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. ____. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for activities prohibited by the order issued by the Attorney General entitled Prohibition on Certain Federal Adoptions of Seizures by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” (Order No. 3488-2015, dated January 16, 2015) or the order entitledProhibition on Certain Federal Adoptions of Seizures by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” (Order No. 3485-2015, dated January 12, 2015).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Link?

H.Amdt. 391: … printed in House Report 115-297…

Fwiw (actually very little), here’s a convenient link for House Report 115-297, which accompanies H.Res. 504.

But don’t bother clicking, unless you need to verify that the report contains no substantive discussion of the amendments. It does indeed have the text of amendment 126, which text is also available at 163 Cong. Rec. H7272 (daily ed. Sep 12, 2017).

 


 

Incidentally, the “sponsored” hyperlink — the one that’s blockquoted without attribution in Cushing’s article above — that hyperlink sucks already.

It points to dynamic content for the “Daily Schedule”. Today, the content has already changed for next week.

Anonyhatter says:

Maybe I missed something but… A lot of the things Trump has done i.e. policies he reversed, and this is where maybe I missed something on this particular issue, but… Last I checked C.A.F. was a law enacted by congress, the Obama admin circumvented the legislative process in enacting many of its policies and executive orders… Last I checked this like many issues (re: so called “Dreamers”) is restoring the division of the branches envisioned by our forefathers…

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

  1. You don’t seem to know what "projecting" means.
  2. Trump said, during the campaign, that he planned to institute a ban on Muslim immigration. Rudy Giuliani said, about the travel ban, that Trump had asked him for advice on how to institute a Muslim ban legally. The ban targeted predominantly-Muslim countries, and Trump initially sought exceptions for Christians. Were you ignorant of these basic facts, or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Asylee vs TPS

That’s not exactly true. Refugees are defined by US law as "people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion." While in many cases that will mean they’re members of minority groups, that need not be the case; it’s entirely possible for a minority to persecute a majority. Iraq under Saddam Hussein is a good example; that was an instance where a Sunni minority oppressed a Shiite majority.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm

Well, in this case, congress approved a shared forfiture program. Obama directed agents of the executive branch, namely law enforcement agencies, to not utilize the program. It’s entirely how it’s supposed to work. Congress crafts the laws, the executive branch chooses how to enforce the law. Dreamers, Forfiture, Wall street, et. al, it’s all the same prosecutorial desgression.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Response to: Anonyhatter on Sep 14th, 2017 @ 2:48pm

So you are fine with the executive branch being selective about what laws it will enforce? That is not a “lawful” idea. It’s also something bound to run afoul of the ideology of either party. For extra bonus points, it can also violate our founding principles depending on what’s ignored.

Anonymous Coward says:

Blockquote link

In a stunning move, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved…

I don’t see a link in Cushing’s article above for the two blockquoted paras. Maybe I’m just blind today. But via Google

In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture”, by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, Sep 12, 2017

In a stunning move, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved…

Amendment No. 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members…

Anonymous Coward says:

“He’s been touting tougher policing and tougher sentencing, using a false narrative of a country under siege by drug dealers and criminal border-jumpers. In a time of historic lows — both in violent criminal activity and violence towards police officers — AG Sessions is acting like a street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse to anyone who will listen.”

This is a joke right?

1. Heroine use and other opiate abuses is at an all-time high.
2. 11 million+ are working illegally as indentured servants, prostitutes, day laborours at less than minimum wage rates that boarders penal labour conditions in mostly far left so-called sanctuary cities.
3. Anyone that bashes the character of another person using such exaggerations such as: “street corner preacher, promising an impending apocalypse” is the spitting definition of projection.

I don’t support Jeff Sessions but when people say stupid things, you can’t help but defend the one’s you don’t support.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

BTW, I’m a legal immigrant from France who choose Boston as my home which apparently is now a sanctuary city. Not only has crime risen by 13% over the past year, but you can’t get a job anywhere that has been taken over by illegal immigrants who will only hire their own and since they charge much lower rates for their services, they’re destroying those who follow the law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The overall crime rate in Boston is 6% higher than the national average.
For every 100,000 people, there are 8.28 daily crimes that occur in Boston.
Boston is safer than 13% of the cities in the United States.
In Boston you have a 1 in 34 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.
The number of total year over year crimes in Boston has decreased by 10%.

http://www.areavibes.com/boston-ma/crime/

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Lies, damned lies.

Furthermore, crime is not uniform within a city. The average could be down but crime in the rough areas could be up.

This is the same way the climate can be warming even if you’re having lower than average temperatures where you’re at.

Stats also depend on reporting. I could very well see crime under-reported in high crime areas. People may not simply see the point in bothering. (been there, done that)

FamilyManFirst (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh, really?

While the number of murders is up in the city, overall crime was down in 2016. (http://www.wbur.org/morningedition/2016/12/30/boston-2016-crime-statistics)

Moreover, according to http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html, crime has been steadily trending downward for at least the past decade. That site only has data from 2001 – 2015, as the 2016 data isn’t widely published yet, but it shows the trend.

Given your inability to get the crime rate correct I have grave doubts about your assertion of illegal immigrant activity and, for that matter, about your claim to be a legal immigrant from France.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Statistics can rise and fall from year to year. The long-view look at crime statistics—that is, whether crime rates are trending down or up across a longer period of time than a year—offers a more accurate view of whether crime rates are getting better or worse. Judging by all available statistics, crime rates in Boston have dropped steadily over the past decade. A spike in crime during a given year means next-to-nothing unless that trend continues in the following year.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yeah and the fact still remains that illegals are being hired more often over than black americans. Vistit and fast food restuaraunt or look at any other work that’s being done that requires no highschool degee…people try to say that children don’t want to work these jobs anymore, it’s only because they have a fucking monopoly on it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

the fact still remains that illegals are being hired more often over than black americans

If you had cited statistical sources instead of anecdotal data, I might have cared about your assertion of fact. Also: Even if we assume businesses hire undocumented immigrants at greater rates than legal citizens of any race, you have not expressed a motive for doing so.

Come up with a stronger argument than “this is true around the country because I saw it happen in one part of one state of the entire United States” next time. It might just save you from being mocked for making empty declarative statements.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...