Pubdate: Sun, 23 Aug 2015
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2015 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/0n4cG7L1
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: Chuck DeVore
Note: Chuck DeVore served in the state Assembly from 2004 to 2010 and 
is a vice president at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE ON UNJUST CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

Traveling with a large amount of cash can be risky in California.

An owner of a food truck from Northern California traveled to Los 
Angeles to make a large purchase. He had $10,000 in cash with him - 
not unusual, given that he operated a cash-based business.

Unfortunately, his $10,000 was taken - by law enforcement. His cash 
was seized at a drug interdiction stop and, while no illegal drugs 
were found in his vehicle and he wasn't charged with a crime, his 
money was taken anyway under a process called civil asset forfeiture.

How can this happen?

The modern era of civil asset forfeiture arrived with the 
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. As with most laws, its 
intentions were good: to allow federal law enforcement to team up 
with local authorities to share assets seized from criminals. Victims 
of fraud could see restitution from white-collar criminals and drug 
dealers could find their entire ill-gotten empires seized. It was a win-win.

Then the iron-clad law of unintended consequences struck. Civil asset 
forfeiture power incentivizes law enforcement to seize cash because 
they are allowed to keep some of the proceeds. Since cash is taken in 
civil actions, with case names such as United States of America v. 
$124,700 in U.S. Currency, the owners of the cash have to prove they 
acquired the money by legitimate means to get it back - guilty until 
proved innocent.

Over time, local law enforcement became increasingly dependent on 
seized assets to finance special equipment purchases and some really 
special purchases, such as trips to casinos, Hawaiian jaunts and even 
a margarita machine - "pennies from heaven" as one police chief in 
Missouri called it. About $77 million was distributed to California 
law enforcement agencies through equitable sharing last year.

But laws in California governing civil asset forfeiture are better 
than in many other states due to a 1994 reform passed and signed into 
law by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican.

However, a legal sleight of hand called "adoption" allows 
California's law enforcement agencies to transfer a civil asset 
forfeiture case to federal jurisdiction where protections are sorely 
lacking, thus, bypassing California's more restrictive laws.

In 2000, California lawmakers voted to restrict the equitable sharing 
loophole, but then-Gov. Gray Davis vetoed the measure.

Civil asset forfeiture has become particularly lucrative for some 
jurisdictions, with the Southern California cities of Pomona, Baldwin 
Park, Beverly Hills and South Gate acquiring more property than 
California's largest cities.

To address this growing problem, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, 
introduced Senate Bill 443 with Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, and 
Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Manhattan Beach, as co-authors. The 
bipartisan bill reforms California's asset forfeiture law by 
prohibiting transfer of a state forfeiture matter to federal 
authorities. Further, if defendants manage to get their money back in 
civil asset forfeiture cases, the proposed law allows for the 
reimbursement of court expenses  a major barrier for many who 
calculate that the cost to fight an unjust seizure exceeds the value 
of the assets taken by government.

SB 443 passed the state Senate in June with only one "no" vote.

Unfortunately, a large roster of California law enforcement groups 
with a powerful presence in Sacramento have banded together to 
preserve the status quo that allows them to keep Californians' cash 
without a criminal conviction.

Law enforcement agencies say they need the money. If so, the 
Legislature and local elected officials should prioritize spending 
for law enforcement.

Justice - fair play - as well as public confidence in law 
enforcement, is far too important an asset to throw away on 
continuing cash forfeitures under federal law. SB 443 is worthy of 
unanimous support in the Legislature.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom