In these tough economic times, how do law enforcement officers find the cash for nifty gadgets such as new militarized swat vehicles or fancy, little video cameras?
Why, they steal it!
Civil asset forfeiture tactics have been abused by law enforcement agencies across the nation for decades — and it’s only getting worse.
A 2000 reform act passed by Congress seems to have had little effect, as recent stats by the Department of Justice show $4.22 billion was seized through federal forfeiture laws in 2012, up from $1.7 billion in 2011 — an increase of a whopping 248%.
While national nonprofits and law firms dedicated to fending off such cash-seizing techniques continue to grow, and investigative news reports exposing the fraud pile up, the process continues unabated.
Reformers say the only real solution lies with stronger laws from Congress. Until such time, here’s how the game is played.
Criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but there’s a caveat. The feds can seize the assets of an individual for the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. Called “civil asset forfeitures,” they’re in stark contrast to criminal asset forfeitures, which allow police to seize cash and property from those convicted of a federal crime.
While criminal asset forfeiture cuts legal muster, civil federal forfeiture laws are heralded by many as entirely unconstitutional. Meanwhile, examples of wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement are easily found.
Typically after such seizures, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies split the loot, using legal loopholes that allow them to collude, although they call it “equitable sharing.” Local agents are temporarily deputized as federal ones, which helps them get around civil asset forfeiture laws and procure the assets.
Take, for example, a case out of Nashville chronicled by NewsChannel5 in late April. An Indian-American New York businessman on his way to purchase a convenience store with a large sum of cash lost $160,000 after a routine traffic stop in December 2011.
Ultimately officers were forced to return the money — but more than a year later, and only after the man proved it was for businesses purposes, not drug trafficking. In essence, he had to prove his money’s innocence. And the feds still kept $5,000 of it as part of a settlement.
Peter Strianse, a former federal prosecutor, told NewsChannel5 “he often hears from people who’ve had $10,000 or more seized through federal forfeiture laws — and he has to tell them to kiss their money goodbye.”
“It becomes just a real losing proposition,” Strianse said. “You are going to spend three times that amount of money to try to get the $10,000 back that was taken from you.”
In another example, the Columbia, Mo., police department was able to recently purchase a $200,000 armored police vehicle — a military style SUV — with the help of $36,505 in civil asset forfeiture funds.
Perhaps some of that $36,505 came from Kevin Bay, the owner of a Columbia, MO apparel store called BoCoMo Bay. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune, Bay was arrested on suspicion of carrying unlicensed firearms and selling synthetic marijuana, but the prosecutor in the case dropped all charges; it was, at the time, not illegal to hold and sell synthetic marijuana.
Unfortunately, however, the dropped charges came after Columbia police seized hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property from his house. He asked for it back. Local authorities refused. Bay’s case remains entangled in federal courts.
What’s worse about the Columbia case is that, any asset forfeitures — whether civil or criminal — are required under the state constitution to be given to Missouri’s schools and public universities — not to police departments to purchase military-style tanks. On the one hand this seems less dangerous, but try making the case that you want to take your money away from education.
But the following may illustrate police motives — their zeal to seize such assets:
In November 2012, Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton’s told the Columbia Police Review Board that civil asset forfeiture is “kind of like pennies from heaven — it gets you a toy or something that you need is the way that we typically look at it to be perfectly honest.”Published in