Cops and Robbers

On January 16, 2015, Attorney General Eric Holder made promising changes to the policies regarding federal adoption of property seized by state or local law enforcement under state law in order for the property to be forfeited under federal law (“federal adoption”). Prior to this press release, federal law enforcement agencies could adopt property seized by state or local law enforcement agencies to prevent property from being returned to criminals. However, in order to seize the property, law enforcement officers only need to show that the property is related to criminal conduct by the preponderance of the evidence. Permitting law enforcement agencies to keep these assets potentially incentivizes many asset forfeitures. This may explain the findings of a recent Washington Post investigation, which revealed that law enforcement agencies have seized $2.5 Billion since 2001 from people who were never charged with a crime.

Holder Signals Changes Coming to Criminal Law

On April 9, 2014, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. spoke at the Annual Convention for the National Action Network (NAN), a civil rights organization founded by Reverend Al Sharpton.  Holder began by honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was killed on April 4, 1968, almost exactly forty six years from the date of the convention.  Holder acknowledged that Dr. King dedicated his life to building a more just society and left us with a charge to “confront the challenges of our time.”  Holder praised NAN for their work, and for advancing “the cause of justice that has always been at the center of [the Obama] Administration’s work.”  Thus, Holder seemingly proposed “justice” as the foundation of Obama’s criminal policy, and compared the goals of the Administration to those of Dr. King.

A Reexamination of Felon Voting Privileges and its Natural Extensions

In a February statement by the United States Attorney General Eric Holder, he decided to announce a new push by the Department of Justice to fight state laws that restrict the voting privileges of convicted felons.  In doing so, he stated that “By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood [that felons] will commit future offenses.”  He went on to attack such laws on the basis of their disproportionate effect on minority communities that they impose, presuming higher rates of convicted felons in minority communites, and the nature of the laws as being of an additional punishment levied on felons who have already served their due sentence.  While these arguments appear facially valid, whether or not they could withstand legal challenge as a reason for why such laws should be repealed still stands to be seen.