Amid the surge of interest in police reform following the killing of George Floyd, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act last week, which would enact a sweeping overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws. Among its many critical reforms, the FAIR Act (S. 4074) would redress many of the problems with civil forfeiture and abolish its most abusive form.
I have never been personally affected by it, but I can’t really come up with words to describe how much I loathe the practice.
I’ve never been affected by it personally, but I know people who have. I know one person who lost property after a sting in which he wasn’t guilty (fewer than half the people targeted were), but it took him almost two years of lawsuits and help from the ACLU to get restitution-- he didn’t get his original property back.
It makes me so angry to think about-- the guy’s whole life got trashed-- that I can’t even go into the details right now. But he lost almost everything he had, and he wasn’t even guilty. As it was, it was a pretty minor charge, even if he had been guilty.
@running_coach, @snfaulkner: If somebody does something right, I think it’s better to work with that. Civil asset forfeiture has become an appalling abuse of power in this country, and I think everyone–liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or socialists–should work to end that.
I have no problem with this at all. It’s long overdue. I don’t have an issue with a law that says upon conviction of a crime, you forfeit the fruits and instrumentalities of that crime, but it is so abusive that someone will get arrested and the government will claim that all of their assets are fruits of a crime, then take it, and prevent someone from being able to pay for an attorney to defend them against that very charge. What is left of the right to counsel when the government can take away your ability to hire one?
I certainly have no love for Rand Paul, but I am 100% behind him on this one. It seems to me to be a clear contravention of the 5th Amendment and I cannot imagine SCOTUS approved it. Wonder whether McTurtle agrees.
This is a pretty typical bill by the Senator, and while he hasn’t always been consistent I fail to see any issue with this bill. Long overdue. Cosponsors are Republicans Crapo and Lee, and Independent (basically a Democrat) King.
Tim Walberg (R-MI), who I know nothing about, introduced a House version.
Also somewhat bi/tri-partisan support: “Dr. Paul’s FAIR Act is supported by Heritage Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice, FreedomWorks, National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Drug Policy Alliance, Americans for Tax Reform, and Campaign for Liberty.”
Of course, there is nothing really wrong with seizing the fruits of criminal activity – I would even support freezing the assets of an indicted suspect (all indicted suspects) In order to limit their access to better-than-average legal counsel.
However, in very many cases, it looks like the seizure involves no prosecution at all. The authorities (usually police) cite the assets (usually a large stack of cash) as potential evidence of wrong-doing, and hence it becomes your responsibility to prove that the assets in question are not ill-gotten gains.
You are never actually charged with, often not even accused of, anything, so there is no trial other than your suit to proactively recover your seized assets. Unlike a person, your stuff is guilty until proven innocent.
Agreed. What’s more, here’s an R actually acting on principle on something that would (if a D introduced it) almost certainly be interpreted as soft on crime.
It’s all about the revenue. Civil forfeiture brings in money, and lawmakers are more worried about their budgets than residents’ due process and property rights.
…
Rep. Kirsten Engel (D–Tucson) said that she understands that asset forfeiture abuse occurs but—in the words of the ArizonaCapitol Times —"she could not support such a change without also finding a way to ensure that counties have the money they need. She said the state is in no position to do that now,
…
Another lawmaker, Diego Rodriguez (D–Phoenix), said that the money from asset forfeiture proceedings also helps fund public defenders, so cutting that financial stream might cause county supervisors to cut funding for those offices.
Paul has a history of supporting this position. Here is a story about him trying to get the proposal through the Senate in 2014 during his first term. This proposal is entirely in keeping with his legislative history and general approach to governance while in Congress.
Whether he can capitalize on the moment to get into law this time is the tough question.