Rep. Issa Calls Out Civil Asset Forfeiture As Letting 'Cops Go Treasure Hunting'

from the time-to-end-it dept

We've been writing an awful lot about civil asset forfeiture over the past few years, and how it's basically a program that lets law enforcement steal money (and goods) from people and businesses without ever charging them with a crime. Instead, they just charge the thing with being part of a crime and then keep the proceeds. Just recently, the federal government reopened its asset forfeiture "sharing" program that basically makes it even more lucrative for police to just take people's money and things. Most people don't even realize this is happening, but when they find out the details, they are almost all opposed to the program, that looks like little more than supporting legalized theft for law enforcement, with basically no recourse. In that last link, we noted that most lawmakers don't seem to care about this issue at all, perhaps because of the fear of being branded as "anti-cop" or something silly like that.

Thankfully, it appears that some lawmakers are finally starting to speak out. Rep. Darrell Issa, who is rarely shy about stating his opinion, has written an absolutely fantastic attack on civil asset forfeiture in the LA Times.
Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize property as long as they believe that the assets in question were somehow connected to criminal activity.

“As long as they believe” — that's the key part.

Authorities don't have to actually prove the person was guilty of a crime. They don't have to even file charges. The presumption of innocence is thrown to the wayside.

It's an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, but that's not even the most glaring problem with the system.

Under current law, most states allow police departments to absorb up to 100% of the value of the confiscated property — whether it's cash, cars, houses or guns — and use the proceeds to pad their budgets. It's an obvious conflict of interest — and boy, is it profitable for law enforcement agencies.
He points out an insane statistic: In 2014 "police officers took more property from American citizens under civil asset forfeiture ($5 billion) than criminals took in burglaries ($3.5 billion)." Think about that for a second. Issa admits that there's some "nuance" in those stats (in terms of what they include and don't include) but it's still pretty clear that law enforcement is taking an awful lot of things (and money) away from people with basically no due process at all.

Issa notes that some states have started to pass rules that limit asset forfeiture (including requiring an actual conviction against a person and limiting how much money can be kept), but law enforcement supporters have been hitting back hard against any such legislation. And, with the DOJ reopening its "equitable sharing" program, many local law enforcement agencies are just shifting their asset forfeiture efforts to the federal program, rather than the state program:
It should come as no surprise that in states that have implemented caps and limits, law enforcement simply relies on the federal program instead.

In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance found that whereas revenue collected under California's forfeiture laws had remained constant over the previous 10 years, revenue under the federal program had more than tripled.
Issa notes that it's time for legislation at the federal level to change things:
As more and more states reconsider their civil forfeiture systems, the federal government needs to set a framework for smart reform. That starts with closing the equitable-sharing loophole, and requiring police to satisfy a higher burden of proof to a judge before seizing property under federal law.
It is difficult to come up with a reasonable argument why the basic reforms mentioned here shouldn't be allowed. Requiring a conviction seems like a due process necessity. But, you can expect that there will be angry pushback from law enforcement groups that have been funding operations through all of this stolen money for a long time.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset fofeiture, darrell isaa, doj, equitable sharing, forfeiture, law enforcement, seizure


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 12:11pm

    It's really not that difficult

    Ignoring for the moment that the massive conflict of interest should mean that any property/cash seized should go into a general fund(might I suggest education?), not the pockets of those making the seizures/thefts...

    If you want to take someone's stuff, then charge them with a crime, get a conviction for it, and demonstrate a significant link between the crime and the property in question.

    The only way this is a problem is if:

    A) You don't have enough evidence to charge them.
    B) You don't have enough evidence to convict them.
    and/or
    C) There is no link between the crime and the property.

    Given that the only real objection to requiring a conviction before stealing someone's property is if you know that the majority of the time you don't have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and therefore the property, which is not exactly a very 'good' objection to put it mildly.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 6 May 2016 @ 1:05pm

      Re: It's really not that difficult

      Ok stop it. That makes way too much sense.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 1:45pm

      Re: It's really not that difficult

      Ignoring for the moment that the massive conflict of interest should mean that any property/cash seized should go into a general fund(might I suggest education?), not the pockets of those making the seizures/thefts...

      There is only one tiny flaw in this. Lottery funds (at least in California) and many of the bonds for education were promised for Education, but the legislators just paid less to education instead since they were already covered by the lottery and by bonds. I suspect this would go the same way...legislators would allow the funds to go to education, but then would shift funds that would have gone to education back to law enforcement or other pet projects. The conflict of interest would still exist, but would be shifted to make it even less transparent to the voter / victim.

      I agree with everything else though...

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 7 May 2016 @ 4:29am

        Re: Re: It's really not that difficult

        @ ltlwolf-
        same in florida, with their pitchmen/politicians selling the lottery: 'oh noes, we absolutely, positively, will not nebber ebber cut education funding by *just* the amount the education system rakes in from the lottery, we wouldn't do that; this is all EXTRY monies, to put the cherry on top of our education system, blah blah blah...'
        yeah, care to guess the outcome ? ? ?
        lying psychopaths, the lot of them...

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Atkray (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 3:17pm

      Re: It's really not that difficult

      Not that I support asset forfeiture at all, but if we have it the funds should go to victims restitution programs.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 6:39am

      Re: It's really not that difficult

      And in order to maintain the "equitable sharing" all property confiscated in the school system would go to funding law enforcement. I'm so tired of these fat cat teachers living high on the hog with bubblegum and firecrackers.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 1:00pm

    wasn't this sort of 'i see it, i want it, i'll take it' exercise being carried out in the 30's-40's in Germany?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 1:40pm

    So long as this is a revenue source

    The police are going to fight its regulation with every fiber of their being, even at the cost of lives as necessary.

    Kinda like corporations, really.

    In history, all inquisitions and witchhunts really get going once assets seized become a recognized revenue train. Confessions extracted by torture from everyone!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 2:32pm

      Re: So long as this is a revenue source

      The best organized crime is the one where you control the laws so that what you do isn't legally a crime.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 9 May 2016 @ 11:34pm

      Re: So long as this is a revenue source

      Ah right, yes. You've actually found the correct predecessor of this and it's literally the witch hunts.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 1:57pm

    ya!

    Way to go Issa!!!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 2:28pm

    we should tell law enforcement that they can't do that to american people anymore but can do it to foreigners as long as they are not on american soil. every month we'll list what nations they can go milk.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 3:16pm

    Want to be a successful criminal? Just join the local law enforcement agency! They provide you with a gun, immunity and incentive!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 6 May 2016 @ 3:22pm

      Re:

      Dumb criminals go to jail, smart criminals go into law enforcement or politics.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Quiet Lurcker, 7 May 2016 @ 9:06am

        Re: Re:

        Considering that criminals, by definition, are pretty dumb to begin with....

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2016 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        "Ethical criminals go to jail, unethical criminals go into law enforcement or politics."

        FTFY

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2016 @ 4:55pm

    I prefer the term "state sanctioned crime"

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    duz, 6 May 2016 @ 6:59pm

    You know civil forfeiture has gotten out of control when even Darrell "Car Thief" Issa calls it theft.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    WTF? Over, 7 May 2016 @ 9:13am

    US Constitution Is Not Just a G.D. Piece of Paper

    These policies LE are following have been written by those who have usurped America's government. They are going underground when the shit hits the fan. Its just a matter of keeping the forces happy who will defend them then. Throwing them these bones keep LE motivated to keep the drug war alive. It also helps to fund their efforts, saving the federal government a few bucks at the same time.

    The last thing they are concerned with now is the treason they are committing against the citizen's of the greatest country there ever was.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 7 May 2016 @ 10:51am

      Re: US Constitution Is Not Just a G.D. Piece of Paper

      The problem with tyranny is that it can turn a really great country into a really terrible one fast.

      When it comes to protection of personal liberties and benefits, I think Denmark and Sweden have been ahead of us by a head and neck for decades now.

      But when it's a general policy of state departments to warn against visiting your country, that's a pretty strong sign that the greatness of your nation has gone stale.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2016 @ 6:19pm

      Re: US Constitution Is Not Just a G.D. Piece of Paper

      No, it's not just any paper to them. It's toilet paper, to wipe their asses.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Blowhard, 7 May 2016 @ 12:20pm

    Supporters

    The only supporters of theft are those actually commiting the theft.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whatever, 8 May 2016 @ 9:35pm

    If you can't do the time, don't do the time. The police wouldn't take your assets if they didn't have a good reason. Issa is spreading Techdirt-flavored FUD, and the Kool-Aid kids are lapping it up.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 8 May 2016 @ 10:58pm

      Can't tell if this is Poe.

      I'm not sure if you're really Whatever sticking to your pro-authoritarian rhetoric or are some Whatever-shaped satirist mimicking his pro-authoritarian rhetoric.

      The police have a good reason to take your assets whenever they can, specifically, they get to keep them.

      When the Holy Inquisition got to seize the property of whatever Jews, heretics and witches they uncovered, they found them everywhere they looked.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2016 @ 4:17am

        Re: Can't tell if this is Poe.

        I'm not sure if you're really Whatever sticking to your pro-authoritarian rhetoric or are some Whatever-shaped satirist mimicking his pro-authoritarian rhetoric

        Doubt it's the latter. Nobody else would lower themselves to that level of scummy bootlicking.

        link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.