DOJ Suspends Asset Forfeiture

[Irving]

Surprised this hasn't popped up on here yet. Heard an interview with a Colorado Sheriff today on NPR. Neither the interviewer, nor the Sheriff seemed to really touch on the important part of this issue (IMO) which is how the state justifies asset forfeiture. The interviewer asked about potentially abusing the funds by buying unnecessary items, while the Sheriff says these funds are used to pay people to work the drug task forces. I'll try and find the actual interview, but it all sounded like a bunch of BS to me. I'm sure some LEO's will come in and shed some light on this issue.

Here are some links: Click "Listen" on the first article to hear the interview.
https://www.cpr.org/news/story/feds-...forts-question

http://ij.org/press-release/statemen...iture-program/

What I get from the interview is the sheriff saying that they can't pay drug task force people without forfeiture money, but then he says that the money doesn't materialize until sometimes years later. My take away is that this assets have to be forfeited in order to pay for something that wouldn't be needed if assets weren't being forfeited. I realize it is more complicated than that, and that drug enforcement can be a good thing regardless of acquiring assets. Anyway, I'd like to hear more from LEOs on the board about this, because the interview really just felt like two guys dancing around each other and not discussing much of anything. The Sheriff's main defense is that assets will still be forfeited, just by the FEDS and the states have no claim to the money. He even makes a comment along the lines of "local people won't be able to have a say in how the funds are used." He must really mean local law enforcement, because I don't know that anyone is asking citizens how that forfeited money should be spent.