WEBVTT - Government Asset Seizure Raises Constitutional Debate (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:04.880
<v Speaker 1>President Trump's recent statements and tweets disparaging Attorney General Jeff

0:00:04.920 --> 0:00:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Sessions have somewhat obscured how faithfully Sessions has been implementing

0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>many of the President's agenda items, including his Law and

0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Order agenda, and that includes the recently announced rollback of

0:00:15.880 --> 0:00:19.320
<v Speaker 1>obama Eric curbs on civil forfeiture, a practice by which

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:22.000
<v Speaker 1>the government can seize the assets of people suspected of

0:00:22.079 --> 0:00:25.560
<v Speaker 1>crimes even before they are convicted of anything, and often

0:00:25.600 --> 0:00:29.120
<v Speaker 1>before they're even formally charged. Here to talk with us

0:00:29.160 --> 0:00:32.680
<v Speaker 1>about the Justice Department and Attorney General Sessions stands on

0:00:32.800 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>civil forfeiture are Lewis, really, professor at the University of

0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:40.599
<v Speaker 1>Print Pennsylvania School of Law, and James Jacobs, a professor

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 1>at n y U Law School. Lewis, what has Attorney

0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:49.879
<v Speaker 1>General Sessions announced that's different from what the Obama administration

0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:54.840
<v Speaker 1>was doing on civil forfeiture? Yes, good afternoon. Uh. In

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 1>January two thousand and fifteen, Erik Colder than the Attorney

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:04.280
<v Speaker 1>General under the Obama administration, had suspended the Adoptive Forfeiture program,

0:01:04.440 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>which is a program that allows local officials to seize

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 1>property and then handed over to the federal government. Which

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>prosecutes the civil forfeiture action and then once getting in

0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:19.280
<v Speaker 1>a forfeiture then returns up to of the funds to

0:01:19.319 --> 0:01:22.520
<v Speaker 1>the local government. This program had been so racked with

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 1>abuses UM documented in many of the media and the

0:01:26.600 --> 0:01:30.959
<v Speaker 1>Washington Post series in particular in two thousand four UM

0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:35.040
<v Speaker 1>that it UM was had to be shelved UM. And interestingly,

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:39.039
<v Speaker 1>in March of this year, the Inspector General for the

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice issued a report UM which was highly

0:01:42.640 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>critical of Civil Forfeiture UM and noted there that the

0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:52.320
<v Speaker 1>UM government had taken in over the last ten years

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:56.640
<v Speaker 1>three point two billion dollars in cash from people who

0:01:56.640 --> 0:02:00.080
<v Speaker 1>were never charged with a crime. So this is a

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:05.920
<v Speaker 1>program that is racked with abuses, and the announcement by

0:02:05.960 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General that now it will be boosted again

0:02:09.080 --> 0:02:13.600
<v Speaker 1>through bringing back the equitable sharing adoptive forfeiture program is

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:17.520
<v Speaker 1>really a disturbing announcement and one that is at odds

0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:20.880
<v Speaker 1>with where are the states are going in trying to

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:25.679
<v Speaker 1>reform civil forfeiture JIM. This is an issue that Republicans

0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:31.120
<v Speaker 1>and Democrats seem to agree on who supports civil forfeiture

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:36.080
<v Speaker 1>except for law enforcement to who get that stream of

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:40.880
<v Speaker 1>revenue from it. Yeah, I think that that you're quite

0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:43.359
<v Speaker 1>right in what you're saying in the question. I mean

0:02:43.400 --> 0:02:46.880
<v Speaker 1>that the biggest stituency for this is the law enforcement,

0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:52.639
<v Speaker 1>especially the state and local police departments, that use this

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:57.600
<v Speaker 1>money to to enhance their budgets, allowed them to do

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>things that they otherwise would not have been able to do.

0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:04.079
<v Speaker 1>So it was very popular with the state and local

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:08.919
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement. Had been subject to a lot of criticism

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:14.840
<v Speaker 1>from libertarian Republicans. The Cato Institute was one of the

0:03:14.880 --> 0:03:20.560
<v Speaker 1>biggest critics over the years of civil forfeiture, and also

0:03:20.720 --> 0:03:27.440
<v Speaker 1>from civil liberty liberties groups on the left. Well, lewis,

0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:32.200
<v Speaker 1>what is this likely to engender congressional opposition given that

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:36.040
<v Speaker 1>some Republicans are against civil forfeiture at least on the

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 1>scale it's from practiced in the past. I think it

0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:42.960
<v Speaker 1>will um and I agree with the comments that there's

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>a lot of support on certain local law enforcement and

0:03:46.920 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 1>state agencies, particularly where they've seen a drop in revenue. Um.

0:03:51.680 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 1>What we really have to talk about in the civil

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 1>forfeiture program is that all the money that is forfeited,

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 1>and it's a huge amount of money, goes right back

0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:04.440
<v Speaker 1>directly to law enforcements UM, and so they have a

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:08.720
<v Speaker 1>great stake in whether or not civil forfeiture continues UM.

0:04:08.800 --> 0:04:11.760
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, they've been criticized in the Inspector

0:04:11.840 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 1>General's reports for not keeping careful records, not really advancing

0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>criminal prosecutions in the way that they're seizing cash, and

0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:23.840
<v Speaker 1>that it looks much more alike just an attempt to

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:28.200
<v Speaker 1>get money as opposed and posing real civilibities issues. So

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>we've seen bipartisan support for reforming civil forfeiture, both at

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 1>the federal level and the state level UM, certainly from

0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:40.760
<v Speaker 1>both the left and the right UM. And I would

0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:44.160
<v Speaker 1>also note that Justice Clarence Thomas issued a very interesting

0:04:44.240 --> 0:04:48.279
<v Speaker 1>statement earlier this year in connection with a case in

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:52.560
<v Speaker 1>which the Court did not grant sartiari UM reviewed on

0:04:52.600 --> 0:04:56.479
<v Speaker 1>a civil forfeiture case. But Justice Thomas took the occasion

0:04:56.560 --> 0:05:01.360
<v Speaker 1>to say the forfeiture has become widespread, highly profitable. It's

0:05:01.440 --> 0:05:05.760
<v Speaker 1>led to egregious and well chronicled abuses UM and frequently

0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>targeting the poor and groups least able to descend. So

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 1>we are seeing will support UM for reform of civil forfeiture,

0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:18.839
<v Speaker 1>and I think that will be also showing opposition to

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:22.599
<v Speaker 1>what the Attorney General has announced. Jim going on what

0:05:22.960 --> 0:05:26.600
<v Speaker 1>he just talked about the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas,

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.680
<v Speaker 1>is this a dangerous move by Sessions in that if

0:05:30.680 --> 0:05:34.159
<v Speaker 1>there's a challenge to the Supreme Court, it could lead

0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:40.839
<v Speaker 1>to an all or nothing decision. Um. That's possible that

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 1>they might declare certain kinds of civil forfeiture to be

0:05:45.960 --> 0:05:51.599
<v Speaker 1>unconstitutional without certain kinds of procedural protections. But I don't

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:55.520
<v Speaker 1>think it would be the end of civil forfeiture. And

0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>it's also important here note that that there's a lot

0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:06.159
<v Speaker 1>of federal state uh issues here. So so about half

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:12.159
<v Speaker 1>the states have tried to to reign in the the

0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:19.360
<v Speaker 1>forfeiture aggressiveness of law enforcement, and by and by turning

0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:22.560
<v Speaker 1>the cases over to the federal government was like an

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:28.880
<v Speaker 1>an end run around those state limitations. Um So, in

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:35.279
<v Speaker 1>that sense, the the the rules are are in a

0:06:35.360 --> 0:06:41.160
<v Speaker 1>way undermining the state's capacity to set their own policies

0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:45.480
<v Speaker 1>on forfeiture. So I think that's very important, Lewis. And

0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 1>about thirty seconds that we have left, is there a

0:06:48.480 --> 0:06:53.560
<v Speaker 1>legitimate role for civil asset forfeiture? Well, I think, and

0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>this is my own opinion on this, that we have

0:06:56.360 --> 0:07:00.839
<v Speaker 1>criminal forfeiture in this country, and that is taking away

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the property that was used in connection with the crime.

0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:07.839
<v Speaker 1>Once a person has been convicted of a crime, I

0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:11.440
<v Speaker 1>don't believe that there should be a program that takes

0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:14.560
<v Speaker 1>away property from a person who is not only not

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 1>convicted of a crime, but not even charged with a crime,

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:22.280
<v Speaker 1>not even suspected of a crime. Our thanks to Lewis

0:07:22.400 --> 0:07:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Ruley of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and James

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:27.680
<v Speaker 1>Jacobs of n y U Law School for being here

0:07:27.720 --> 0:07:29.400
<v Speaker 1>today on Bloomberg Law