With Bipartisan Support in U.S. Congress and Buoyed By New Mexico’s First-of-Its-Kind Law That Ends Civil Forfeiture, Momentum Accelerates for Reform
Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–April 20, 2015. Tomorrow, the Drug Policy Alliance launches Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses in California, a multi-year, comprehensive look at asset forfeiture abuses in California that reveals the troubling extent to which law enforcement agencies have violated state and federal law.
Civil asset forfeiture law allows the government to seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and any other property – even from citizens never charged with or convicted of a crime. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have led to a perversion of police priorities, such as increasing personnel on the forfeiture unit while reducing the number of officers on patrol and in investigation units. While civil asset forfeiture was originally conceived as an effective way to target and drain resources away from powerful criminal organizations, Above the Law discloses how these strategies and programs have now become a relied-upon source of funding for law enforcement agencies all across the state.
What emerges in the new report is a picture of a handful of relatively small cities clustered in Los Angeles County that lead the state in per capita seizures (Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Gardena, Irwindale, La Verne, Pomona, South Gate, Vernon and West Covina). The report’s analysis of fiscal records finds that many of these cities were providing false or inconsistent reports to the Justice Department, while some other cities appeared to be engaged in budgeting future forfeiture revenue, despite this being explicitly illegal under federal law.
“Civil asset seizure was never intended to be a primary funding source for law enforcement,” said Meghan Ralston, harm reduction manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Law enforcement professionals who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public need appropriate levels of funding, but seizing the cash and property of potentially innocent citizens who are never charged with a crime is no way to fund public safety. This report is a wake-up call to all Californians.”
The revelations exposed in Above the Law add to major national momentum for reform. Earlier this month, New Mexico’s Republican Governor, Susana Martinez, signed a new law that ends the practice of civil asset forfeiture in the state, which now has the strongest protections against wrongful asset seizures in the country. In January, Attorney General Eric Holder announced changes that could make it harder for state and local law enforcement to use federal law to seize property without evidence of a crime. And bipartisan legislation known as the FAIR Act has been introduced in both houses of Congress that would dramatically reform federal civil asset forfeiture laws.
In California, State Senator Holly Mitchell has just introduced Senate Bill 443, co-sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance, ACLU and the Institute for Justice.
“When ordinary people don’t even have to be charged with a crime before having their assets permanently seized and added to police coffers, constitutional rights are at stake,” said Senator Holly Mitchell, who represents South Los Angeles.
Forfeiture as it exists today is rooted in the drug war excesses of the 1980s, and a substantial number of cases to this day are related to drugs. And it has long been one of the more controversial aspects of the drug war. Between 1996 and 2002, ten states and the federal government enacted asset forfeiture reforms, with DPA playing an instrumental role in several of these efforts, including ballot initiatives in Utah and Oregon that prevailed by 2-to-1 margins in 2000. That year, the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, but this did little to stop the problem. In 2012, the federal government seized more than $4.7 billion in assets – a more than six-fold increase since 2001.
Civil forfeiture actions are not limited to wealthy individuals and seizures of ranches, yachts, and vehicles. In fact, the average value of a state seizure in California in 2013 was only $8,542. Navigating state law can impose an insurmountable financial burden on low-income and immigrant families and others lacking sufficient resources to defend themselves against forfeiture actions.
“Asset forfeiture inflicts the harsh punishments associated with criminal proceedings without the constitutional protections guaranteed by a trial,” said Lynne Lyman, California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “In practice, this means encouraging law enforcement to engage in questionable and unethical practices under the banner of the war on drugs.”
For additional background on Asset Forfeiture, check out John Oliver’s fantastic segment last Fall (viewed more than 5 million times), Sarah Stillman’s 2013 New Yorker article, and the Institute for Justice’s 2010 report Policing for Profit.
Link to the report: http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/above-law-investigation-civil-asset-forfeiture-california
Related Material:
Los Angeles Times
Report: Small L.A. County cities seize large amounts in civil forfeitures, Victoria Kim, April 20, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-report-civil-asset-forfeitures-20150420-story.html#page=1
Drug decriminalization group issues report criticizing law enforcement seizures
California police agencies bypass strict state rules on forfeitures to seize millions in assets, report says
A handful of small Los Angeles County cities seize large amounts of cash and cars using a controversial federal law that allows them to confiscate property even when owners aren’t charged with a crime, according to a report published by an advocacy group that promotes decriminalization of drugs.
The seizures by police in South Gate, Beverly Hills, Baldwin Park and other relatively small cities dwarf those made by much larger police departments in California from 2006 through 2013, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. Pomona reaped more than $14 million, exceeding assets collected in the considerably larger cities of Oakland, Long Beach, Fresno and Bakersfield combined, said the report, which is expected to be published Tuesday morning.
Law enforcement agencies keep up to 80% of property seized under what’s known as civil asset forfeiture, and several cities appear to rely on the revenue at a time of dwindling police budgets, potentially creating pressure on cops to make more seizures, according to the alliance, which has long been critical of the practice and called for reform.
The criticism comes amid mounting concerns nationwide that forfeiture leads to abuses, with reports of police taking cash, cars and even homes based on little or no evidence of a crime. In federal court, owners who seek a return of their seized property face the burden of proving it was not the product of criminal activity.
Last week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the need for reform. And some states have already taken steps to reform local forfeiture laws, with New Mexico approving new rules this month so that local police can only confiscate assets if a person is found guilty of a crime.
California requires a conviction to justify keeping seized assets of up to $25,000. For larger amounts of money, police must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the property was connected to drug sales or manufacturing – a higher standard than the “probable cause” required under federal law. In addition, police departments receive 65% of seizures under California law compared with up to 80% under federal law.
Because of such reforms, the Drug Policy Alliance contends, local law enforcement agencies in California are skirting the state’s stricter rules by using federal law to seize assets.
“Seizing the cash and property of potentially innocent citizens who are never charged with a crime is no way to fund public safety,” Meghan Ralston, harm reduction manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement. “This report is a wake-up call to all Californians.”
Some disputed the report’s claims that agencies are prioritizing seizures over core law enforcement functions, such as patrol. John Lovell, a law enforcement lobbyist and legislative counsel for the California Narcotics Officers’ Assn., said civil asset forfeiture disrupts drug organizations by aiming at their profits. Lovell said it was no surprise that an advocacy group that opposes drug laws would criticize civil asset forfeitures.
“That’s like saying the tobacco industry is critical of anti-smoking ads,” he said.
Still, others also have raised concerns about civil asset forfeitures, which were designed to target the riches of drug trafficking organizations and cripple their operations.
At last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he believes forfeitures encourage “law enforcement to take short cuts” and that “the process creates perverse incentives.”
In January, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced reforms restricting when local agencies can use federal law to seize assets. The Drug Policy Alliance report said the change did not go far enough, saying most of the money local agencies reap from federal forfeitures involves assets seized while working with a federal agency on a joint investigation.
In California, state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) has introduced reform legislation. The Drug Policy Alliance is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The alliance said its report was compiled by a freelance journalist using records obtained from the U.S. Justice Department, the federal Treasury Department and local government entities.
California law enforcement agencies received nearly $600 million from civil asset forfeitures under federal law from 2006 through 2013, according to the Drug Policy Alliance’s report. State forfeitures brought in about $140 million.
Even tiny cities took in sizable amounts of forfeiture revenue by working with the U.S. Department of Justice. Vernon, with 112 people, took in nearly $1 million; and Irwindale, with fewer than 1,500 residents, received more than $800,000, the report said. Beverly Hills collected more than $7.3 million; La Verne more than $3 million; and South Gate more than $7.6 million.
The report said police departments use forfeited assets to buy cars, computers, helicopters and air surveillance equipment, and to pay for overtime. Cities have increased asset forfeitures at a time when their budgets were being slashed and some appear to have improperly budgeted for future forfeiture revenue, said the report, which called for federal audits of cities as well as legal reform.
Police Capt. Ty Henshaw of Irwindale said his department has not aggressively pursued forfeitures and does not depend on seized assets to make budget. He said the agency’s seizures primarily resulted from helping other law enforcement agencies in drug cases.
“It’s not a very good practice to rely on forfeiture funds,” he said. “It’s nice to have, but you can’t count on it.”
Beverly Hills police Lt. Lincoln Hoshino said his department’s increased federal forfeiture assets are most likely the result of participation with federal task forces. Pomona’s finance director, Paula Chamberlain, disputed several claims in the report, including that spending left the city’s forfeiture fund with a shortfall last year.
Other police departments did not respond to requests for comment.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Penny Schneider, who is in charge of asset forfeitures for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, said prosecutors approach forfeiture cases “with the same amount of care and consideration” as they would a criminal case.
“It is a tool … to prevent drug traffickers from enjoying the fruits of their crime,” she said. “It isn’t a revenue source.”
But Jim Roberts, a San Jose-based attorney who specializes in forfeiture cases, said he’d seen rampant abuse and intimidation by law enforcement agencies.
He recalled a woman in her 80s who purchased a Palo Alto home for a disabled sister, only to have police move to seize it when the octogenarian’s son, who was living in a back room, was photographed leaving the home for another location where he sold cocaine. Roberts said police dropped the seizure attempt only after he filed legal papers on her behalf.
Another client, Roberts said, was an indie rock band driving through a rural county on tour when the cash they were carrying to pay their road crew was seized and they were threatened with money laundering charges, Roberts said.
The attorney said that in many cases, people don’t fight the seizures because of the legal costs, or they settle for getting a portion of their property back rather than go through a legal battle. He said he advises prospective clients not to bother fighting some cases because it would cost more than the assets are worth.
“Drug asset forfeiture has become a form of legalized theft and extortion by the government,” he said.
Source: www.drugpolicy.org
