Attorney General Sessions is trying to make his mark on the Justice Department. Unfortunately, he chose to continue a despicable practice: Civil Asset Forfeiture. National Review describes this practice here

Asset forfeiture is a constitutionally questionable practice whereby property — often cash — is taken from citizens by police agencies who suspect, or at least say they suspect, that the property may have been come by illegally, often through the drug trade. Cash seized through asset forfeiture can be used by police departments, as can cash generated through the sales of seized property such as vehicles. The fact that police personnel can materially benefit from forfeiture proceedings creates a conflict of interest that would render forfeiture problematic even if it were used with discretion in accordance with the highest degree of procedural protections for the rights of the accused.

Gee what could possibly go wrong?  Here is one example.  A Church group had $53,000  confiscated by the cops.  All that was needed was a cop not liking the answers from the guy to seize cash and valuables.  Much as I like the police in general, this is not how you help them fight crime. National Review continues to explain why this is a Very Bad Idea:

No doubt many of the men and women on the terrorism watch-list are genuine bad guys, and no doubt many of those who have lost their property to asset forfeiture are peddling dope. But we are a nation of laws, which means a nation of procedural justice. If the DEA or the LAPD wants to punish a drug trafficker, then let them build a case, file charges, and see the affair through to a conviction. We have no objection to seizing the property of those convicted of drug smuggling — or of crimes related to terrorism, or many other kinds of offenses. We object, as all Americans should object, to handing out these punishments in the absence of a criminal conviction.