Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmux | Hacker News Reader

CT has banned civil forfeiture without a criminal conviction. A step in the right direction.

Good for them. But my understanding is that local cops can still seize an asset, declare that it was really a Federal seizure, have the money assigned to federal government, then the federal government gives most of it back as a bounty. The whole program seems to be a way for the Feds to encourage local police to follow federal priorities rather than local priorities and sadly I'm sure the current attorney general will be looking for ways to do more of that.

Yep, and in CT is seems 93% of revenue cam from the Federal Sharing program

http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-Connecticut/

That article only shows data through 2013, a number of states have changed their laws in the last four years.

>The whole program seems to be a way for the Feds to encourage local police to follow federal priorities rather than local priorities and sadly I'm sure the current attorney general will be looking for ways to do more of that.

Yes, exactly; I'm guessing today's article below is what prompted the OP to post the article they did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/jeff-...

"In 2015, Eric Holder's Justice Department issued a memo sharply curtailing a particular type of forfeiture practice that allowed local police to share part of their forfeiture proceeds with federal authorities. Known as “adoptive” forfeiture, it allowed state and local authorities to sidestep sometimes stricter state laws, processing forfeiture cases under the more permissive federal statute. ... In his speech Monday, Attorney General Sessions appeared to specifically call out adoptive forfeitures as an area for potential expansion. “Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”"

Someone needs to update the list in Wikipedia, CT is still listed as allowing it with "Clear & convincing evidence"

got a link to a news story or perhaps the actual law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

Another good idea would be to make the assets property of a third party which does not affect the budget of the department or offer bonuses. Perhaps direct attribution of cash assets to social security/medicare or some similar bottomless money pit, and the direct attribution of all other assets to a professional auction house or pawn. This would prevent the federal government from offering the same incentives that the state government did before.

The purpose of asset forfeiture (if it's legitimate at all) should be, first and foremost, to prevent crime.

some states(Missouri, possibly others?) put it in their department of education.

This ofen seems good at first read till you realize there is also optional funding for states that can then be moved elsewhere. This happens in missouri with casinos. Gambling money can only be used for education but other education money doesn't have to be used for education beyond a certain level... So you put money in the casino bucket and take it out of another bucket. Effectively casino money goes to whatever the state wants once the minimums are hit.

Source: things I've heard and complaints from friends who worked in politics... however no real facts to take it with a grain of salt.

Agreed, dollars are fungible, but WRT Asset forfeiture, as long as it doesn't become play money for the police department they are less likely to pursue it in fringe cases. Keeping track of how your elected representatives cook the books is a different issue.

I've worked DOD project funding in a past career, probably one of the more restrictive venues for reallocating federal funds: and this isn't limited to casinos.

My acquaintances who will remain unnamed have similar experience on the east coast. I've heard of money being rearranged to create funding for a position that didn't exist before and then that position being filled with a political appointee. Some states are better than others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com