I doubt it changes much. As noted states have their own civil asset forfeiture laws and most if not all, don’t need to do it under a federal law.
They are doing this to downplay objections to Holder’s replacement in waiting, who made her career doing civil asset forfeiture. She oversaw 900 million under civil asset seizures.
Methinks you are correct. Still, this is a good thing, regardless of the motivation. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
What galls me is that the gutless Supremes haven’t reined this in already. It is a corrupt practice to seize property absent a preponderance of evidence that the property was the fruit of a crime, converted from the fruit of a crime or directly and knowingly used by its owner in the commission or facilitation of crime.
This BS of seizing grandma’s house because the grandson sold a bag of weed out of his car while parked in the driveway needed to be stopped long ago.
Aha! Thanks for the explanation.
On first reading, I couldn’t believe that I actually agreed with something Holder did. I knew there had to be some nefarious reason for it.
Good insight and analysis.