Pubdate: Fri, 15 Apr 2016
Source: New York Post (NY)
Copyright: 2016 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
Contact: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/letters_editor.htm
Website: http://www.nypost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/296
Authors: Ilya Shapiro and Randal John Meyer
Note: Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at 
the Cato Institute, where Randal Meyer is a legal associate.

OBAMA RENEWS FEDS' LEGALIZED THEFT

WHEN Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided late last year that the 
Justice Department would end the federal civil-asset forfeiture 
program, criminal-justice reform advocates proclaimed it a "significant deal."

But late last month, less than four months later, the Obama 
administration reversed itself and reinstated the Asset Forfeiture 
Fund's Orwellian "equitable sharing" program.

That's a shame, particularly when the only supporters of the policy 
are the law-enforcement agencies that directly benefit from it. 
Indeed, the federal program's combined annual revenue has grown more 
than 1,000 percent in the last 15 years, filling the coffers of 
federal, state and local police departments.

Civil forfeiture allows police to seize private assets, often without 
any proof of wrongdoing, and often the agency doing the seizing gets 
to keep all or most of the proceeds. The federal civil-forfeiture 
program was passed in 1984 as part of President Ronald Reagan's 
Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It was intended for use against 
major drug traffickers and cartels.

Now police use the "adoptive forfeiture" aspect of the law to avoid 
the higher burdens of proof and other restrictions on asset 
forfeiture that states have been enacting. If the underlying actions 
that state officials are investigating also constitute a federal 
crime - like simple possession of marijuana - then the relevant 
assets may be forfeited to the feds.

It thus undermines state governments' ability to control their own 
police forces. While many states ensure that seized assets go to the 
general treasury - or for special funds, like education - the federal 
program requires that they be used solely for law enforcement.

Attempting to get back their money or property often forces owners 
into a legal labyrinth designed to favor law enforcement. In one 
recent case in California, a DEA agent seized $16,000 from Joseph 
Rivers as he was traveling by train to start a music career in Los 
Angeles. The only suspicious thing about Rivers was that he was 
traveling a long way on a one-way ticket with a lot of cash.

In October, after nearly half a year of legal wrangling, the 
government won its legal battle for Rivers' money - and he wasn't 
even issued a ticket.

Ending this practice administratively (again) would go a long way to 
stopping "policing for profit" and cure obvious injustices at low 
political cost. Of course, the Justice Department made clear by 
reinstating the program that the only way to end federal asset 
forfeiture would be the same way it was brought into the world - federal law.

The good news is that even a gridlocked Congress could do it. One 
easy way would be to do what it does best: pilfer a federal spending 
program. When the Justice Department suspended its program in 
December, it noted that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 
and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 had "reduced Assets Forfeiture 
Program funds by $1.2 billion."

It wasn't criminal-justice concerns that dictated the change, but 
rather that "those rescissions threatened the financial solvency of 
the Assets Forfeiture Fund." DOJ promised that it would "take all 
appropriate and necessary measures" to "reinstate sharing 
distributions as soon as practical and financially feasible."

By hamstringing the fund, the GOP-led Congress accomplished a 
significant victory on a criminal-justice issue on which both sides 
of the aisle agree. Now, Republicans can repeat their past success 
and defund the program. This move would tie the Justice Department's 
hands for the time being while meaningful reform can be considered.

Congress - this or the one elected in November - also could consider 
meaningful reform to the process of asset forfeiture and the lax 
federal laws that encourage states to join the program. Permanently 
reforming it and putting serious restraints on executive officials 
ultimately rests with the body that passed the law in the first place.

Congress should act. It's time to reform a tool that has done far 
more harm to the average citizen, and state freedom, than any benefit 
to any criminal-justice or law-enforcement interests - or repeal it altogether.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom