Atty Gen Holder on Friday barred local and state police from usi

[dmnEPC]

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.

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. It allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.

Police spent the seizure proceeds with little oversight, in some cases buying luxury cars, high-powered weapons and military-grade gear such as armored cars,

The policy will touch police and local budgets in every state. Since 2001, about 7,600 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments and task forces have participated in Equitable Sharing. For hundreds of police departments and sheriff’s offices, the seizure proceeds accounted for 20 percent or more of their annual budgets in recent years, according to a Post analysis.

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

This policy shift is shocking. I have no idea what to make of it. But the one thing I am certain of, is there is way more to this

 

[dodgy]

Awesome change.

 

[dmnEPC]

Awesome change.

Is it though? I guess time will tell. This is a drastic policy shift. It alienates the Administration from many police departments (at least on it's surface). Honestly I have no idea what the "why" is behind this massive shift. But I am all but certain, this will not go without some consequence. Either way there was most definitely some kind of deal cut. Would be very curious to know what that is.

 

[GimpSpack]

Is it though? I guess time will tell. This is a drastic policy shift. It alienates the Administration from many police departments (at least on it's surface). Honestly I have no idea what the "why" is behind this massive shift. But I am all but certain, this will not go without some consequence. Either way there was most definitely some kind of deal cut. Would be very curious to know what that is.

Maybe.

But if you think about it, isn't it in a (smart) government's self-interest to limit liberty-breaching policies in a country that still has some very anti-authoritarian undercurrents?

Now that the police are in the spotlight, the federal government needs to save some face in order to justify its existence and power.

People are - in general - sheep. But not everyone is as stupid or passive as you might expect.

You can bet your ass they're listening now that a growing percentage of the population is actually questioning the necessity of statism in general.

I suspect that when enough people are coaxed into the realm of freedom-based ideas, the government will be shown for what it really is. They're very afraid of this. They have to too much dirt on them to continue to use baseless rhetoric and fear-based mongering to subdue the masses indefinitely. They know this.

 

[retraCC]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks[/ame]

 

[shindig]

Must be some ugly internal reports floating around they know will come out eventually so they change it now and look like good guys and minimize impact of the reports, saying they already fixed the problem when they were made aware.

Problem being thuggery by police depts.

the attorney general’s motivation, said Holder “also believes that the new policy will eliminate any possibility that the adoption process might unintentionally incentivize unnecessary stops and seizures.”

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Must be some type of internal fight going on. Maybe due to the New York cops refusing to do their job, thumbing their nose at the mayor, etc... this may have spread to loads of other police forces across the country, with loads of internal complaints being lodged, etc.

So in response, the Fed govt basically said, "if you want to fuck with us, we'll fuck with you right back".

Who knows though...

 

[Jizzlobber]

I wonder if it applies to Game Wardens? I know here in Maine they have more authority over State and local police and may conduct searches without a warrant in the majority of instances.

 

[Muad'dib]

Holder is good at not using Federal Law for anything given the fact that he was in charge of the Fast & Furious gun-"lending" program. He's a piece of shit and a pathetic excuse for a human being :banana_sml:




You can just hear the "you mad, bro?"

 

[dmnEPC]

I wonder if it applies to Game Wardens? I know here in Maine they have more authority over State and local police and may conduct searches without a warrant in the majority of instances.

It depends. The change only applies to "federal crimes". Game Wardens are typically enforcing "state" regulations. So if a state law is broken (no federal) they (law enforcement) can still rob and steal whatever they want. Which leads me to wonder if LE won't get more aggressive with this tactic?

If those federal funds covered a significant part of the budget, those budgets will still need to be met. The one thing I do know, is government's and their departments do not like to spend less money. They always find a way to replace it. And almost ever actually cut their budgets (just the amount of increase)