U.S. attorney general bans asset seizure by local police
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - State and local police in the United States will no longer be able to use federal laws to justify seizing property without evidence of a crime, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.

The practice of local police taking property, including cash and cars, from people that they stop, and of handing it over to federal authorities, became common during the country's war on drugs in the 1980s.

Holder cited "safeguarding civil liberties" as a reason for the change in policy.

The order directs federal agencies who have collected property during such seizures to withdraw their participation, except if the items collected could endanger the public, as in the case of firearms.

Holder said the ban was the first step in a comprehensive review the Justice Department has launched of the program.

U.S. attorney general bans asset seizure by local police - Yahoo News

your title is all wrong, they can still seize property, because of local and state laws, the federal law was put in place before states and local laws were in place

Announcing things like this on a Friday afternoon has traditionally been used to keep the media coverage to a minimum, I wonder why they did that when this is obviously good news about restoration of at least some of our lost liberty.

At least partial good news anyway, it sounds like that are going to give people's money and property back but it seems like they are still going to seize and keep your guns whether you committed a crime or not.

:ak47:

just make sure you are ready to pay them back. its wrong :2 cents::2 cents:

I agree it's wrong, but what Holder has done is nothing, because nothing really changes.

Attorney General is a peice of shit mental retarded it seems.

Fixed it for ya

Retards.

Doesn't federal law trump state laws?

It depends.. For example when states first started legalizing medical marijuana, the Federal govt was still arresting people for it and was going after the growers whom were approved by the state. The federal govt eventually decided to recognize the state's laws on the matter and backed off.

The Federal govt has the ability to step in or out if they feel like it. Meaning yes this does change a lot, because it's putting out a warning to states that the practice is not acceptable. As for if it changes anything at the state level, we will have to wait and see what the Federal govt does if states continue to violate people's rights with these seizures.

Vendzilla, just wants to be Mr Doom & Gloom as usual and go boo hoo because it's something someone in Obama's admin did.

Ok, from what I gather they can still seize property, but all profits from seized goods will go into a general fund (schools, roads etc.) and the police no longer will get their 20%. That basically kills any incentive they have to steal from innocent citizens.

Hate Holder all you want but you can't deny this is a great decision.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Good or bad news? confusing.

I'm not hating him, just explaining how it works to the Conservative Debbie Downers. It is a good thing which he just did and everyone should understand that this just helped Americans.. The Debbie Downers just want to whine about Obama, so nothing is ever good enough.

Good.. Takes away incentive by police forces to steal people's shit.

no, it does not "depend". preemption is in the constitution and very clear- federal law ALWAYS wins.



enforcement of the law is a different story.

I said "depends" in regard to "if" the federal govt chooses to enforce it or not to..


I mean hell I even gave very clear and specific examples and even stated that we would have to wait and see how states react and then how the federal govt reacts..

Yet you just pick out a single word.. to moan about.. :error

I'm not moaning about jackshit.

and, FYI, words count. especially in law. It's entirely misleading to tell someone it depends if fed law usurps state law. it doesn't depend. federal law ALWAYS trumps state law there is no depends.

It depends if the Feds want to enforce it or not. Right now medical & recreational marijuana is illegal at the federal level. Yet several states have legalized it. The Federal govt eventually decided that they would honor states decisions on the matter. Yet they could turn around at any time and start enforcing it..

It very much depends.

Everything I said was entirely true.. The forfeiture law is a good start but we have to wait and see what states do and then what the federal govt does. If some yahoo gonna do it my way state sheriff keeps on taking people's money, it will then be up to the federal govt to sue them..It's all about what states decide to do then then what the federal govt does in response..

So go get some diapers because it Depends.

https://lindachorney.files.wordpress...t-diapers1.jpg

preemption is very clear and concisely worded in our very constitution. there is no debate whatsoever if preemption depends or not.



what depends is the policing of the law, there is a difference between legislation and the enforcing of that legislation. politicians write legislation, police enforce that legislation.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

its a decision that's long over due. What gets me about Holder is he is still in contempt of congress

The govt. seizing property is no different than stealing in my opinion.

Good call by Holder. Hopefully that now takes away the precedent that states use for their own laws and those can be overturned in the future during court cases.

I thought this was supposed to get better?
 

Now they are just going around the courts - no need for a subpoena when you "incentivize" people to give up data.

DEA mines Americans' travel records to seize millions

"Baer said agents receive information from employees at "airlines, bus terminals, car rental agencies, storage facilities, vehicle repair shops, or other businesses." He did not explain why so many suspected couriers are released without charges.

The DEA came under fire for harvesting travel records two years ago, when Amtrak?s inspector general revealed that agents had paid a secretary $854,460 over nearly two decades in exchange for passenger information. A later investigation by the Justice Department?s inspector general found that the secretary initially looked up reservations only at agents? request, but quickly ?began making queries on his own initiative, looking for indicators that a person might be planning to transport illegal drugs or money on a train,? according to a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."

Good.
The entire process was nothing but theft from the citizens.