Pubdate: Wed, 04 May 2016
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Darrell Issa
Note: Darrell Issa is a senior member of the House Judiciary 
Committee and the U. S. representative for California's 49th 
Congressional District.

END POLICE TREASURE HUNTING

"We thought America was the best in the world." "This can't be 
happening." That's how Saw Marvellous Soe and Eh Wah described their 
astonishment after police seized more than $ 53,000 in cash from Eh 
Wah's car in Muskogee, Okla., in February.

Eh Wah is tour manager for a Christian rock band led by Marvellous 
that played in 19 U.S. cities, raising money from concerts to support 
an orphanage in Thailand and a Christian college in Burma. Worthy 
causes, no doubt. But when law enforcement found the cash during a 
routine traffic stop, a little-known legal process known as "civil 
asset forfeiture" allowed police officers to seize it, and whatever 
other property they wanted, without having to prove that Eh Wah was 
guilty of a crime.

"Drug proceeds," the officer wrote on the property receipt, even 
though no weapons, no drugs or even drug paraphernalia were found.

Stories such as this one happen all the time.

Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize property as long as 
they believe that the assets in question were somehow connected to 
criminal activity.

"As long as they believe" - that's the key part.

Authorities don't have to actually prove the person was guilty of a 
crime. They don't have to even file charges. The presumption of 
innocence is thrown to the wayside.

It's an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, but that's not even 
the most glaring problem with the system.

Under current law, most states allow police departments to absorb up 
to 100% of the value of the confiscated property - whether it's cash, 
cars, houses or guns - and use the proceeds to pad their budgets. 
It's an obvious conflict of interest - and boy, is it profitable for 
law enforcement agencies.

In 2014, the latest year for which data is available, police officers 
took more property from American citizens under civil asset 
forfeiture ($ 5 billion) than criminals took in burglaries ($ 3.5 
billion), according to research from the Institute for Justice.

Granted, there's a lot of nuance to these statistics. The numbers 
don't include state seizures - just federal seizures - and they 
exclude other types of theft, such as larceny. But the central point 
here remains: Civil asset forfeiture is dangerously profitable, 
prompting civic leaders, lawmakers and state legislatures to consider 
significant reform.

In 1994, California attempted to rein in civil asset forfeiture 
abuse, passing a bill that requires a criminal conviction before 
police can seize assets worth up to $ 25,000, and that caps the 
amount of money authorities can keep at no more than 65% of the total.

But unless Congress takes action, state efforts to stop civil 
forfeiture abuse mean very little.

A program run by the Department of Justice known as "equitable 
sharing" in effect allows state and local police to circumvent state 
restrictions on civil forfeiture. Through "equitable sharing," local 
police departments can seize assets under federal, rather than state, 
law and keep 80% of the proceeds. ( The Justice Department gets the rest.)

It should come as no surprise that in states that have implemented 
caps and limits, law enforcement simply relies on the federal program instead.

In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance found that whereas revenue 
collected under California's forfeiture laws had remained constant 
over the previous 10 years, revenue under the federal program had 
more than tripled.

As more and more states reconsider their civil forfeiture systems, 
the federal government needs to set a framework for smart reform. 
That starts with closing the equitable-sharing loophole, and 
requiring police to satisfy a higher burden of proof to a judge 
before seizing property under federal law.

Police of course need the ability to seize and protect property as 
evidence for trial. But the current system - which allows police to 
go treasure hunting, beefing up their budgets on the backs of 
innocent Americans - stands in stark contrast to constitutional 
principles of due process and property rights.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom