Posted on 11/18/2015 12:34:40 PM PST by Kaslin
During a talk radio debate last week, Tulsa's district attorney, Steve Kunzweiler, warned that civil forfeiture reform would invite "some of the most violent people in the history of this planet" to set up shop in Oklahoma, making decapitated bodies "hung from bridges" a familiar sight in the Sooner State. Last month, Steve Jones, an assistant district attorney, told Tennessee legislators "criminals will thank you" for making it harder to confiscate people's property.
These are the noises that cops and prosecutors make when people talk about restricting their license to steal. A new report from the Institute for Justice, which gives the forfeiture laws of both Oklahoma and Tennessee a D-, explains why legislators should ignore such self-interested fear mongering.
The I.J. report shows how civil asset forfeiture -- which allows the government to take property supposedly linked to crime without charging, let alone convicting, the owner -- exploded after Congress started letting law enforcement agencies keep the loot in the mid-1980s. The Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture Fund collected $4.5 billion in 2014, up from $94 million in 1986 -- an inflation-adjusted increase of 2,100 percent.
Many states followed the federal government's example, giving police and prosecutors a financial interest in forfeiture by awarding them anywhere from 45 percent to 100 percent of the money it generated. That gave law enforcement agencies a strong incentive to target people based on the assets they own rather than the threat they pose -- "to favor the pursuit of property over the pursuit of justice," as I.J. puts it.
Neither justice nor public safety was served when cops took $11,000 in cash from Charles Clarke, a 24-year-old college student, at a Kentucky airport last year. The justification for seizing the money, which Clarke had saved from financial aid, family gifts, and various jobs, was that his suitcase smelled of marijuana.
Clarke, although a cannabis consumer, was no drug dealer, but that did not matter under federal law, which allowed seizure of the money based on "probable cause that it was proceeds of drug trafficking or was intended to be used in an illegal drug transaction." To keep the cash, the government need only show it's more likely than not that the money is connected to drugs in some way.
Even that "preponderance of the evidence" burden, which is much less demanding than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in a criminal trial, applies only when the owner contests a civil forfeiture. According to numbers obtained by I.J., that happens in only 12 percent of federal cases.
The failure to challenge forfeiture is by no means proof of the owner's guilt, since trying to stop the government from keeping your property is a complicated and expensive process that often costs more than the asset is worth. And although federal law notionally protects innocent owners from forfeiture, they bear the burden of proving they did not consent to or know about an illegal use of their property -- a reversal of the "innocent until proven guilty" rule in criminal cases.
Most states likewise make it easy for cops to take people's stuff and hard to get it back. That's why you can lose your home if your son sells pot there, lose your pickup truck if he installs stolen parts in it, and lose your car if your spouse uses it to find a prostitute, even if you knew nothing about the illegal activity that made your property guilty in the eyes of the law.
Cases like these have inspired reforms in several states during the last couple of years. Most notably, New Mexico and the District of Columbia now allow forfeiture only after a criminal conviction and channel the proceeds into their general funds.
The latter reform is especially important and especially repugnant to cops and prosecutors. As Steve Jones, the Tennessee prosecutor, explained, law enforcement officials rebel at the notion of relying on legislative appropriations because "we don't get what we need that way."
Non-conviction civil forfeiture is armed theft under color of law, period.
‘A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.”
-Don Vito Corleone
In a later generation, he could have been a congressman, a senator, a governor
I think reform is a necessary part of fixing this problem.
If true could you start with the two Steves?
[making decapitated bodies “hung from bridges” a familiar sight]
I guess they’ll be using some sort of harness.
Agreed. Conviction should come before forfeiture.
I suppose a courtesy ping is in order.
Oh and Jacob Sullum adores alliteration.
Well, don’t we all! I’m positively pleased!
correct
Constitutional due process worked just fine when it was in affect. But local politicians saw how the IRS can steal from and abuse the citizens so why not them too. There really needs to be legal and immediate reciprocity for public servants who do not honor their oath of office.
Most civil asset forfeiture laws are a rape of justice. Forfeitures should be forbidden unless people are convicted of using the assets in furtherance of a crime. Anything else is just lowlife scumbag.
A few years ago the Missouri House thought it would be a good idea to set the Minimum salary for rural county Sheriffs at $90,000.00. The Sheriff would then be allowed to raise his salary up to $250,000.00 using funds from property confiscated from drug dealers.
Enough Reps agreed with me that there would be no incentive to rid a county of drugs if your salary depended on busting drugies...
Maybe only 50some% of the time?
Speaking of people who need to be decapitated and hung from a bridge ...
So will innocent citizens.
A few years ago I learned that a former co-worker had again been arrested and jailed (possession, DUI, no license, no insurance).
They had him dead to rights but I was surprised to learn he had been released.
I guess when they learned he had no money, no assets, and no paycheck to garnish, they decided he wasn't worth prosecuting.
Fair disclaimer: I don't know details in this story, could have been a weak case. Really don't know if the defendant's poverty had any influence on the decision not to prosecute.
But it does appear that when you add a financial incentive to the justice system, things can go off the rails, so to speak.
This is what we get when we allow government a monopoly on law-enforcement.
+1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.