Asset Forfeiture: Killing Criminal Organizations With $16 Seizures
from the imperceptible-wounds dept
When asset forfeiture is pitched to Americans, law enforcement agencies roll up to press conferences with shiny, new seized vehicles and large stacks of cash. This public preening is meant to assure everyone that forfeiture kills drug cartels and cripples large criminal organizations. But the day-to-day reality is much different. Pathetic, even. Here's Eric Boehm of Reason on Utah's yearly forfeiture roundup:
Utah police seized more than $1.4 million in cash during 2016 and federal law enforcement agencies operating in Utah took another $1.3 million in assets from people suspected of crimes, a new report shows.
Sounds impressive until you start digging into how that $2.7 million was amassed. It wasn't a few large seizures with definite ties to criminal activity. It was a bunch of petty, nickel-and-dime seizures where the amounts taken could easily have earned by the property's owners through completely legal means.
Most forfeitures (69 percent) take place during traffic stops and most of the time only money is seized. According to the state report, cash was taken in 99 percent of forfeitures during 2016, with the median seizure amounting to only $1,031.
The paperwork alone for the following seizure easily surpassed the value of the property seized. And that's just in terms of office supplies. Add on the labor involved and what is even the point.
That means, in many cases, the amount seized was considerably less than four-figures. In one instance, the report shows, police took $16 from a motorist.
So much for the "don't drive around with large amounts of cash" solution. To avoid being robbed by opportunistic law enforcement, the mantra needs to be shortened to "don't drive." Or simplified to "don't leave the house."
Utah's smallball seizures aren't an aberration. Before the Washington DC Metropolitan PD was hit with minor forfeiture reforms, it also believed no amount of cash was too small to be seized. It racked up nearly $3 million in seizures slowly and steadily from citizens who went on to sue the department.
Altogether, the nearly 1,400 claimants in the class action lost almost $700,000 to forfeiture, so the settlement will restore roughly three-quarters of what was taken from them. Yet the claimants represent just 14 percent of those affected by this particular D.C. forfeiture policy. Over a six-year period, the Metropolitan Police Department seized a staggering $2.9 million from these owners collectively.
Among the owners represented in the lawsuit, the median amount of cash seized was a mere $120. In fact, the MPD seized as little as $1 from some owners. There is little indication trivial amounts of money can be plausibly tied to the drug trade, noted Sean Day, who was co-counsel on the class action.
These low dollar amounts discourage owners from seeking the return of their property. In some places, the fee just to file a motion for return is higher than the amount taken. Even the median seizure in Utah (~$1,000) is easily dwarfed by filing fees and the costs of legal representation. It would be ludicrous to believe officers aren't aware of these facts when they seize cash.
It's hard to see how civil asset forfeiture benefits society. It doesn't take criminals off the street because criminal charges are rarely filed. It doesn't put criminal cartels out of business because the few hundred dollars lifted off random people likely isn't directly tied to these organizations -- and if it is, the hit is so small an organization won't feel it.
Law enforcement agencies fight reform by claiming it will harm taxpayers if the agencies are forced to rely solely on general funds (something with actual oversight) to pay officer overtime and purchase equipment. But the alternative is even worse: agencies and officials are arguing it's OK to tax certain citizens the amount of cash they happen to have on them when interacting with police officers. It's a preposterous argument that says law enforcement agencies not only shouldn't be expected to play by the same public funding rules as every other agency, but will actually be unable to perform their basic functions without a second stream of income.
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 forfeiture, law enforcement, stealing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sad
Though, if their day job is upholding the law, that means their second job is something other than upholding the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sad
It's "normal".
The US is becoming a "normal" country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sad
http://alibi.com/blog/22824/La-Mordita.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, much like a legitimate business, all this really does is increase expenses, and ultimately cost of goods sold.
Unlike a legitimate business, drugs users are physically addicted to the product, and the final price has little bearing on how much they're willing to consume. You could quite rightfully argue that in the end more petty crime and violence will occur as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A means for the police to punish those that they take a dislike to, and that is why they like it, and wish to keep it in place without any obstructions to their administration of instance justice, like due process, or even real evidence of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asset Forfeiture
In this case, we need you to give up your 4th and 5th amendment liberties. Law enforcement now reserves the right to search and permanently seize your life or property despite the Constitution clearly proscribing the same.
We have made government so that it may take your life and property with little resistance. Be not surprised when they darken your doorstep or end your existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asset Forfeture is Legalized Armed Robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asset Forfeture is Legalized Armed Robbery
Asset Forfeiture is unconstitutional and therefor illegal. The fact that you called it legal is the root problem for how we got here. Since you do not recognize the Constitution, they have no reason to either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Armed robbery
A robber who points a gun at a person over just $16 probably shouldn't get the death penalty. Hanging is too severe for a $16 crime.
Unless the robber kills the person they're robbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Armed robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Armed robbery
Can't be too much more terrifying than the robber who told me he was going to shoot me for a six-pack of cheap beer. Ballantine Ale, as a matter of fact.
Otoh, I didn't get shot in the alley that night, either. That was years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
Man, I didn't give up the six-pack that night, neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
No. We were just pretty broke. That six-pack of Ballantine Ale was it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
I do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
Yeah. But you still shouldn't hang someone over a $16 robbery. Even at gunpoint.
'Course I guess Utah uses a firing squad these days, anyhow. But the principle's the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
If a person threatens another person's life over property, then the initiator forfeits their life. Being kind to a person that cruel and allowing them to continue to exist is being cruel to the kind people that have to endure these types of people.
Life is only sacred for those that respect it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Armed robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Armed robbery
Hanging or some other form of execution? Probably not. Jail time in the 'months or years' category? Absolutely.
Police should be held to a higher standard, not lower, and if they're using their position to engage in systemic armed robbery then they deserve to be punished harshly for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Armed robbery
With a firearm, robbery is a rather serious felony: Over a year.
I don't think it ough to be knocked down to just a few months. That would just be a misdemeanor assault or larceny.
At least one year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Armed robbery
Utah has a relatively low proportion of colored folks, yes? That is, Utah's not Mississippi, nor Alabama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's destruction of evidence right there. If you don't want to spend a few years in jail you'd better make sure it's in pristine condition and in my pocket in the next five minutes. -the cops (probably)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their true motivation for robbing the public - ensure they have enough $$ to rob more people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What has America become?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People used to keep $20/$100 bills next to their driver's license for traffic stops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Our pay and toys are more important than your rights'
Law enforcement agencies fight reform by claiming it will harm taxpayers if the agencies are forced to rely solely on general funds (something with actual oversight) to pay officer overtime and purchase equipment.
If the department(s) don't have enough funds to pay for operating expenses then the proper action is to go to the local/state government, present the case as to why the budget needs an increase and the evidence based justifications for that, and get the money that way.
"We'll just rob the public to make up the difference" is not the proper course of action for a budget shortfall, and demonstrates a horrific mindset(especially who it's coming from) where the 'well-being' of the police are placed well above the public or even the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the people being harmed by asset seizures are also taxpayers, but with the police deciding which groups in society will be harmed by their seizing of assets..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Heroes
Asset Forfeiture: Killing Criminal Organizations With $16 Seizures
Preying upon some of societies most vulnerable persons and stealing their meager possessions is a crime. It makes no difference how the perpetrator is attired - government costume or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That won't work either, because then they'll smash in your door at 3am on a no-knock warrant because they don't like your preferred brand of tea. (Hail Lipton!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Utah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be worth challenging
The point is to make it cost way more for the police to have seized the money than they are making from the seizure, not to win your money back.
The cost of the DA's, having to have the police officer or officers in court for a day as witnesses, and so on. Drive up the costs to the police as much as you can, call the police officers supervisors as witnesses over the record of the officer. Even if the judge doesn't let you call such a witness, that'll be a motion that probably requires separate hearing to determine decide, which requires the DA's to be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are looking at this wrong:
Now it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are looking at this wrong:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooner or later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing Data...
After all it is in a court of law that the determination of guilt is decided by a jury/judge, not by law enforcement. And i believe the bill of rights has a few things to say about seizure of property.
We don't let cop's collect the fine when you get a traffic ticket, but if you say the magic word(drugs) then go ahead and empty their wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]