Pubdate: Fri, 27 May 2016
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Copyright: 2016 The Orange County Register
Contact:  http://www.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321

PROVE A CRIME BEFORE SEIZING PROPERTY

A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy pulled over a taco truck driver 
near Lancaster, searched the vehicle and found $10,000. The man 
wasn't charged with a crime. But the money was seized.

That's perfectly legal under a federal program called "equitable sharing."

It more accurately should be called "unequitable taking."

For more than a year, state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, has 
been trying to erase the practice that allows local and state police 
working with federal authorities to seize assets they suspect are 
linked to a crime.

As it stands now, no burden of proof is necessary, no "innocent until 
proven guilty." As long as state or local law enforcement are working 
with federal officials, they can bypass stricter state law that 
limits seizures to cases in which there is a conviction and the 
assets are related to the crimes.

Senate Bill 443, introduced last year by Sen. Mitchell, sailed 
through the Senate, but was voted down in the Assembly.

Why? Because powerful law enforcement groups have been lobbying hard 
to defeat it. They argue that civil asset forfeitures are an 
important crime-fighting tool that the federal government would 
employ with or without their help.

That shouldn't justify trampling on people's right to due process.

There is an effort to resurrect the legislation before the 
Legislature's session ends Aug. 31.

With it comes an opportunity for those legislators who blocked the 
bill to now make things right, especially Southern California 
lawmakers who represent poor communities where, studies suggest, 
there is a disproportionately higher number of these civil asset seizures.

There are now 232 California agencies that employ the lucrative 
practice, up from 220 two years ago, according to a recently released 
American Civil Liberties Union report that detailed a litany of 
stories  like that of the taco truck driver.

It's easy to understand why the program continues to gain popularity. 
It's lucrative.

One study found that, from 2000-13, annual payments to state and 
local law enforcement under the program grew from $198 million to $643 million.

Under the program guidelines, local law enforcement agencies reap 80 
percent of the proceeds, while the remaining 20 percent goes to 
federal agencies.

If victims want their property back, it often means suing the federal 
government. That is a long, expensive process (and for undocumented 
immigrants, probably out of the question).

Portrayed by law enforcement as a weapon against criminals, civil 
asset forfeiture is nothing but a way to pump up police budgets at 
the expense of folks who are not convicted and, often, never even charged.

This policy, an offshoot of the failed "war on drugs," should end. Do 
California legislators have the courage to end it?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom