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