Speaker 1: President Trump's recent statements and tweets disparaging Attorney General Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions have somewhat obscured how faithfully Sessions has been implementing
Speaker 1: many of the President's agenda items, including his Law and
Speaker 1: Order agenda, and that includes the recently announced rollback of
Speaker 1: obama Eric curbs on civil forfeiture, a practice by which
Speaker 1: the government can seize the assets of people suspected of
Speaker 1: crimes even before they are convicted of anything, and often
Speaker 1: before they're even formally charged. Here to talk with us
Speaker 1: about the Justice Department and Attorney General Sessions stands on
Speaker 1: civil forfeiture are Lewis, really, professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Print Pennsylvania School of Law, and James Jacobs, a professor
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School. Lewis, what has Attorney
Speaker 1: General Sessions announced that's different from what the Obama administration
Speaker 1: was doing on civil forfeiture? Yes, good afternoon. Uh. In
Speaker 1: January two thousand and fifteen, Erik Colder than the Attorney
Speaker 1: General under the Obama administration, had suspended the Adoptive Forfeiture program,
Speaker 1: which is a program that allows local officials to seize
Speaker 1: property and then handed over to the federal government. Which
Speaker 1: prosecutes the civil forfeiture action and then once getting in
Speaker 1: a forfeiture then returns up to of the funds to
Speaker 1: the local government. This program had been so racked with
Speaker 1: abuses UM documented in many of the media and the
Speaker 1: Washington Post series in particular in two thousand four UM
Speaker 1: that it UM was had to be shelved UM. And interestingly,
Speaker 1: in March of this year, the Inspector General for the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice issued a report UM which was highly
Speaker 1: critical of Civil Forfeiture UM and noted there that the
Speaker 1: UM government had taken in over the last ten years
Speaker 1: three point two billion dollars in cash from people who
Speaker 1: were never charged with a crime. So this is a
Speaker 1: program that is racked with abuses, and the announcement by
Speaker 1: the Attorney General that now it will be boosted again
Speaker 1: through bringing back the equitable sharing adoptive forfeiture program is
Speaker 1: really a disturbing announcement and one that is at odds
Speaker 1: with where are the states are going in trying to
Speaker 1: reform civil forfeiture JIM. This is an issue that Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats seem to agree on who supports civil forfeiture
Speaker 1: except for law enforcement to who get that stream of
Speaker 1: revenue from it. Yeah, I think that that you're quite
Speaker 1: right in what you're saying in the question. I mean
Speaker 1: that the biggest stituency for this is the law enforcement,
Speaker 1: especially the state and local police departments, that use this
Speaker 1: money to to enhance their budgets, allowed them to do
Speaker 1: things that they otherwise would not have been able to do.
Speaker 1: So it was very popular with the state and local
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Had been subject to a lot of criticism
Speaker 1: from libertarian Republicans. The Cato Institute was one of the
Speaker 1: biggest critics over the years of civil forfeiture, and also
Speaker 1: from civil liberty liberties groups on the left. Well, lewis,
Speaker 1: what is this likely to engender congressional opposition given that
Speaker 1: some Republicans are against civil forfeiture at least on the
Speaker 1: scale it's from practiced in the past. I think it
Speaker 1: will um and I agree with the comments that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of support on certain local law enforcement and
Speaker 1: state agencies, particularly where they've seen a drop in revenue. Um.
Speaker 1: What we really have to talk about in the civil
Speaker 1: forfeiture program is that all the money that is forfeited,
Speaker 1: and it's a huge amount of money, goes right back
Speaker 1: directly to law enforcements UM, and so they have a
Speaker 1: great stake in whether or not civil forfeiture continues UM.
Speaker 1: At the same time, they've been criticized in the Inspector
Speaker 1: General's reports for not keeping careful records, not really advancing
Speaker 1: criminal prosecutions in the way that they're seizing cash, and
Speaker 1: that it looks much more alike just an attempt to
Speaker 1: get money as opposed and posing real civilibities issues. So
Speaker 1: we've seen bipartisan support for reforming civil forfeiture, both at
Speaker 1: the federal level and the state level UM, certainly from
Speaker 1: both the left and the right UM. And I would
Speaker 1: also note that Justice Clarence Thomas issued a very interesting
Speaker 1: statement earlier this year in connection with a case in
Speaker 1: which the Court did not grant sartiari UM reviewed on
Speaker 1: a civil forfeiture case. But Justice Thomas took the occasion
Speaker 1: to say the forfeiture has become widespread, highly profitable. It's
Speaker 1: led to egregious and well chronicled abuses UM and frequently
Speaker 1: targeting the poor and groups least able to descend. So
Speaker 1: we are seeing will support UM for reform of civil forfeiture,
Speaker 1: and I think that will be also showing opposition to
Speaker 1: what the Attorney General has announced. Jim going on what
Speaker 1: he just talked about the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: is this a dangerous move by Sessions in that if
Speaker 1: there's a challenge to the Supreme Court, it could lead
Speaker 1: to an all or nothing decision. Um. That's possible that
Speaker 1: they might declare certain kinds of civil forfeiture to be
Speaker 1: unconstitutional without certain kinds of procedural protections. But I don't
Speaker 1: think it would be the end of civil forfeiture. And
Speaker 1: it's also important here note that that there's a lot
Speaker 1: of federal state uh issues here. So so about half
Speaker 1: the states have tried to to reign in the the
Speaker 1: forfeiture aggressiveness of law enforcement, and by and by turning
Speaker 1: the cases over to the federal government was like an
Speaker 1: an end run around those state limitations. Um So, in
Speaker 1: that sense, the the the rules are are in a
Speaker 1: way undermining the state's capacity to set their own policies
Speaker 1: on forfeiture. So I think that's very important, Lewis. And
Speaker 1: about thirty seconds that we have left, is there a
Speaker 1: legitimate role for civil asset forfeiture? Well, I think, and
Speaker 1: this is my own opinion on this, that we have
Speaker 1: criminal forfeiture in this country, and that is taking away
Speaker 1: the property that was used in connection with the crime.
Speaker 1: Once a person has been convicted of a crime, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that there should be a program that takes
Speaker 1: away property from a person who is not only not
Speaker 1: convicted of a crime, but not even charged with a crime,
Speaker 1: not even suspected of a crime. Our thanks to Lewis
Speaker 1: Ruley of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and James
Speaker 1: Jacobs of n y U Law School for being here
Speaker 1: today on Bloomberg Law