Fact Check: Actually, Civil Asset Forfeitures Skyrocketed Under Obama

Lest you be caught in an argument with someone on the Left, or merely someone who doesn’t know better, about the change in policy toward civil asset forfeitures from the Obama-era Justice Department to that of Trump — something along the lines of this claim by CBS News:

A change would likely represent another reversal by Sessions of Obama-era Justice Department policies. His Democratic predecessor Eric Holder had tightened control of the department’s asset forfeiture operations amid concerns that property could be seized without judicial oversight and without the owner ever being charged with a crime.

…well, just keep this handy graph nearby that shows that, in fact, civil asset forfeitures skyrocketed under Obama, exceeding property seizures from burglaries:

While Eric Holder was Attorney General, the total annual dollar value of assets seized by federal law enforcement went from less than $2 billion to more than $5 billion, exceeding criminal burglary losses in the year 2014.

The above graph comes from a Washington Post piece by Christopher Ingraham, in which the writer takes the supposition that Attorney General Holder had brought property seizures to an end to task. Meanwhile, another great piece on forfeiture comes via the Institute for Justice, which published some disturbing findings about the profit incentive of CAF in its annual review:

Profit Incentive: In 43 states, police and prosecutors can keep anywhere from half to all of the proceeds they take in from civil forfeiture—a clear incentive to police for profit.

Equitable Sharing: Under a federal program called “equitable sharing,” local and state law enforcement can bypass state laws that limit civil forfeiture. By collaborating with a federal agency, they can move to forfeit property under federal law and  take up to 80 percent of what the property is worth. Granting law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture encourages profiteering and not the pursuit of justice.

Burden of Proof:  Nearly all states and the federal government require far less evidence than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for criminal convictions.

Outcry among conservatives and liberals to the DOJ’s ramped-up plan has been unanimous. And while we can’t say that Sessions being on the outs with the Trump administration is welcome news, still, a lot of the DOJ’s credulous belief in the virtues of CAF does seem to come from him directly.

Click below to hear a clip from Buck on Civil Asset Forfeiture from last night’s show.
Listen to “Buck on Civil Asset Forfeiture 7/19” on Spreaker.