The US Department of Justice has temporarily suspended its asset forfeiture program, which allows local police departments keep confiscated items from suspects.
According to RT Network, the program is the "equitable sharing payments" won't be back until "a later date should the budget picture improve." The DOJ pointed out to the $1.2 billion budget cuts as the major reason for suspending the program. Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US Marshals, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, will still be using this program.
The Jurist reported that under the current program, the local police can collect up to 80 percent of the proceeds coming from asset forfeiture. Local Police has been heavily criticized from across the US with this program.
Asset Forfeiture is a very important tool that provides a huge funding source for law enforcement agencies all over the country. This makes it subject for abuse. Properties from suspects that are allegedly used to fund crime can sometimes be liquidated to fund police operations and projects.
The Institute for Justice Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath said, "Law enforcement revealed that its true interest in forfeiture is policing for profit-not public safety."
"The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act does not stop police and prosecutors from chasing criminals. They're frustrated because Congress put on hold their chasing cash," he said in a report by the Weed Blog. "Many police, sheriffs and prosecutors want to circumvent state laws because outsourcing forfeiture litigation to the federal government is lucrative. State lawmakers should enact an anti-circumvention provision that respects federalism and refocuses law enforcement's attention on stopping crime by allowing only seizures greater than $50,000 to be forfeited under federal law."
Meanwhile, the International Association of Chiefs of Police was not happy with this announcement. In an email, the group told its members that the IACP, and other law enforcement partners, were not consulted on this decision. It said that this is detrimental to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
