2015 National Lawyers Convention
Criminal justice and policing reform are much in the news lately, sparked by events that garner national media coverage. This panel will assess the need for reform, and the road forward. How do media narratives about policing square with the empirical evidence? What are the most effective methods of policing, and how can they best be promoted? What is the proper way to balance police activity and the crime rate? In the current atmosphere, is legitimate police activity chilled? Must law enforcement officers responding to calls pause to consider their potential personal liability?
Civil Rights: Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
- Mr. Arthur Loevy, Partner, Loevy & Loevy
- Mr. Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute
- Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation
- Mr. Michael P. Tremoglie, Former Philadelphia Police Officer
- Mr. Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
- Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
The Mayflower Hotel Criminal Law & Procedure and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
Since the 1980s, the Department of Justice has utilized civil asset forfeiture as an effective tool to seize and forfeit billions of dollars-worth of assets allegedly connected to criminal activity as either an instrumentality or fruit of the crime. Since the inception of the asset forfeiture program, the Justice Department has shared much of these funds with state and local law enforcement authorities under its equitable sharing program, and many states have their own civil forfeiture laws and procedures. Critics of the program believe that civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally unfair, claiming, among other things, that it has the potential to warp law enforcement priorities, that the existing procedures are stacked against innocent property owners, and that it is simply wrong to seize someone’s property when that person has not been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Several proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform the civil asset forfeiture program, the Justice Department has announced that it is conducting an internal review of this program, and a number of states have recently undertaken a review of their own civil asset forfeiture laws.
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
- John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
- John W. Vardaman, III, Assistant Deputy Chief for Policy, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, United States Department of Justice
Everyone knows that the proceeds and instrumentalities of a crime are confiscable by the state. What they don’t know is that the laws that authorize this type of “civil forfeiture” are subject to abuse. Some allege that state and federal law enforcement authorities use civil forfeiture as a revenue-generation tool, creating perverse incentives. This system sometimes falls on innocent owners, many of whom don’t have the legal skills or money to fight back. Our experts will discuss whether this area of our legal system is in need of reform.
- Mr. Andrew R. Kloster, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Legal Center, The Heritage Foundation
- Ms. Darpana Sheth, Attorney, Institute for Justice
- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society