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.

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

DOJ Reopens Asset Forfeiture Sharing Program After Temporary, Budget-Related Shutdown

from the and-there-was-much-[law-enforcement]-rejoicing dept

Right before the end of last year, the DOJ -- facing budget cuts -- announced it would be ceasing its "equitable sharing" program with local law enforcement agencies. These agencies complained loudly about the unfairness of being decoupled from the asset forfeiture money train, as this partnership often allowed them to route around more restrictive state laws.

Today, they're breathing more easily, thanks to the DOJ's resumption of the temporarily-disabled program.

The Justice Department has announced that it is resuming a controversial practice that allows local police departments to funnel a large portion of assets seized from citizens into their own coffers under federal law.

The "Equitable Sharing Program" gives police the option of prosecuting some asset forfeiture cases under federal instead of state law, particularly in instances where local law enforcement officers have a relationship with federal authorities as part of a joint task force. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80 percent of assets they seize.

A North Carolina sheriff is looking at getting his hands on nearly a million dollars -- all tenuously tied to illegal activity.

“(The equitable sharing program) is a great benefit,” Graves said. “It takes money from the drug trade and puts it to better use for the community.”

He said that according to the best estimate from pending cases, equitable sharing should provide the sheriff’s office with approximately $846,000.

Meanwhile, another North Carolina sheriff says the lack of sharing might have resulted in dead officers had the feds not resumed handing out money taken from people never charged with a crime.

“The restoration of the Equitable Sharing Funds will serve as a boost to the morale of law enforcement professionals nationwide,” said Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson. “These monies were used by my agency in the past to purchase much needed equipment for the safety of our officers and the citizens of our communities. I am very thankful to God that we did not lose any officers because of the lack of safety equipment during the suspension of the Equitable Sharing Program…"

And it appears New Hampshire is either heavily-reliant on equitable sharing, or its representatives heavily-reliant on law enforcement support. Both senators and the state's governor issued statements welcoming back the DOJ's set of twisted incentives.

Then there's this article, with a headline that appears to have been written by law enforcement.

Money coming back: Federal program resumes helping local municipalities

This is not good news for citizens, as they're now facing an increased risk of having their cash and belongings taken from them without ever being charged with a crime. The best move would have been to leave this permanently defunded. The DOJ isn't saying how it's making up the $1.2 billion difference that resulted in the shutdown last year, but it likely has something to do with the fact that its seizures -- via the FBI and DEA -- are still generating plenty of "income."

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, doj, equitable sharing, police, stealing

DOJ's Equitable Sharing Program Takes $1.2 Billion Hit, Much To Dismay Of Asset Forfeiture-Abusing Law Enforcement Agencies

from the cash-cow-temporarily-penned dept

Good news (of sorts) on the asset forfeiture front: the same budget bill that delivered us into the hands of CISA also helped "rob" the nation's highwaymen of $1.2 billion in equitable sharing funds.

Budget cuts can be glorious things: the Department of Justice announces this week that, thanks to cuts in its budget of an initial $746 million in November's Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, followed up by a wondrous addition $458 million rescission in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 that became law last week, it is temporarily halting its so-called "equitable sharing" program.

The DOJ's statement notes it will definitely try to keep the equitable sharing program up and running, but doesn't see how that's going to be possible in the immediate future.

By deferring equitable sharing payments now, we preserve our ability to resume equitable sharing payments at a later date should the budget picture improve....We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing while continuing to operate the Program and meet our other fiscal obligations. Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible.

This means state and local law enforcement agencies can still use the federal program to dodge local restrictions on asset forfeiture, but they'll just have to accept the fact that payouts will be delayed for an indefinite period of time.

Equitable sharing is the preferred loophole for agencies who reside in states with restrictive laws or are currently being subjected to forfeiture reform efforts. They're not taking the news well. The National Sheriff's Association (the other NSA) was one of the first to bitch about the budget cut.

The National Sheriffs’ Association is shocked and disappointed by the Department of Justice’s decision to suspend the equitable sharing of Asset Forfeiture Program funds to state, local, and tribal law enforcement. This is yet another blow to those who work every day to prevent terrorism and crime in our communities.

By rescinding nearly $1.2 billion from the Program, Congress and the Administration have openly chosen to focus on the financial bottom line over protecting communities. They should be ashamed because this decision will have severe and direct consequences for our communities.

First off, lol "terrorism."

If there's anything asset forfeiture has done little to impact, it's terrorism. Most law enforcement agencies talk a good terrorism game, but use funding, tech and secondhand military gear to target ordinary crooks -- the sort of criminals they've always been able to pursue without armored vehicles, cell tower spoofers and hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeiture funds.

Secondly, the last thing I'd want to criticize Congress and the Administration for is "focusing on the bottom line." That's what budgets are for and that's what legislators should be doing. Of course, the budgeting process in our country has become a tragicomic farce, as can easily be seen by the passage of the horrible Cybersecurity Act (the rebranded CISA) under the pretense of sussing out the nation's future spending. This criticism can basically be rephrased as "Screw the taxpayers. We want ours."

The NSA also points out that it's become highly reliant on a single "income stream."

The Congress and the Administration have once again failed to understand the repercussions of their actions. In this case, joint task forces across the country will do without the critical manpower support of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies because many, if not most, sheriffs will be unable to sustain the anti-terror and criminal prevention tempo sufficient to meet the ever-increasing demands. Our federal law enforcement partners will now carry that unimaginable burden.

"Anti-terror tempo." Hilarious.

From there, the association delivers its parade of horribles, none of which seem particularly horrible to anyone but law enforcement officials used to getting what they want, whenever they want it.

The protective capabilities of our nation are being downgraded at every level in never ending attacks on law enforcement. From this rescission to the early release of thousands of federal inmates to the restrictions on surplus military equipment available to state and local law enforcement, the safety and security of our communities is being put at risk.

Let's see: the "bad" things stem from overcriminalization, militarization of law enforcement agencies and the widespread dissemination of police accountability tools (mainly, cell phones with built-in cameras). And now, the ability to route around local laws to grab a greater share of assets seized without corresponding convictions has been temporarily curtailed.

Let's hope these federal agencies will hold up under the "unimaginable burden" of shaking down recreational marijuana users for any cash they might be carrying, busting people for thinking about robbing imaginary stash houses containing imaginary drugs, and whiling away the hours at the FBI's Build-A-Terrorist Workshop.

For the immediate future, law enforcement agencies will have to play by local rules. Fortunately for them, most states still run highly-questionable forfeiture programs, so the temporary loss of federal-level sharing should have minimal impact.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, doj, equitable sharing, law enforcement, police, sharing

Eric Holder Cuts Off Program That Helped Spur Police Asset Seizure 'Shopping Sprees'

from the good-move dept

Well, here's a bit of a surprise. For years we've been highlighting the ridiculousness of police asset seizure and asset forfeiture laws (and, actually, were working on another post on some new such laws that we may now need to revisit...). These laws have basically become a legalized way for local police to steal cars and money without ever charging anyone with a crime. And then... they get to keep the money and sell off the cars. Some have even admitted the process is basically the police going "shopping" for stuff they want. They can seize anything, claiming that it was used in a crime, even if no one is ever charged with a crime. Effectively, they're "charging the thing" which is why you get crazy case names like the (actual case): United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.

However, on Friday, somewhat unexpectedly, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was massively limiting a federal program that helped make these seizures so valuable to police:

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said in a statement.

Holder’s decision allows some limited exceptions, including illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, a small fraction of the total. This would eliminate virtually all cash and vehicle seizures made by local and state police from the program.

While police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. Many states require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.

There's still more to be done to fix bad asset seizure and forfeiture laws, but this is a really big step forward.

Of course, just watch as police departments start to protest that they can no longer go "shopping" for "toys" that they can steal:

The policy will touch policing and local budgets in every state. Since 2001, about 7,600 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments and task forces have participated in Equitable Sharing. For hundreds of police departments and sheriff’s offices the seizure proceeds accounted for 20 percent or more of their annual budgets in recent years.

Either way, kudos to Holder for making this move.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cars, doj, equitable sharing, eric holder, feds, money, police