Mitch Daniels Vetoes Codification of Forfeiture Abuse
The Drug War Chronicle reports that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has vetoed a forfeiture "reform" bill that would have codified the egregious abuses that Radley Balko has detailed here. In an effort to correct the perverse incentives created by letting law enforcement agencies benefit directly from the seizures they initiate, the state constitution assigns "all forfeitures" to a fund for public schools. But as Balko has reported, police and prosecutors routinely evade that requirement by contracting out forfeitures or grossly exaggerating the "expense of collection," which they are allowed to deduct from the revenue. The bill that Daniels vetoed, approved by the Republican-controlled legislature, would have defined the expense of collection as 90 percent of the proceeds. In his veto message (PDF) last month, Daniels called the change "unwarranted as policy and constitutionally unacceptable."
Balko's coverage of Indiana's forfeiture abuses can be found here, here, and here. Last month I noted a proposal from the Institute for Justice and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys to abolish civil forfeiture, allowing seizure of property only after a criminal conviction.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The bill that Daniels vetoed, approved by the Republican-controlled legislature, would have defined the expense of collection as 90 percent of the proceeds.
Maybe I'm a tard, but this sounds bad.
As if LE would be able to keep 90% of what they stole.
Apparently your next not-president agrees. Incentive to steal shouldn't be codified.
Okay, I read the veto message and that is exactly why he vetoed it. Good job, Mitch.
I thought they were saying that he vetoed the bill because he prefers the status quo.
I accept your apology.
The bigger issue is publishing the list of pols who voted for a bill that is theft legalized and incentivized.
Took me a minute to parse this as well, but props to Daniels for doing the right thing, especially going against the Republicans in the state legislature.
After I noticed the scare quotes around the word reform all was clear.
Easy fix: 100% of proceeds go to the public defender's office.
More booty for alawyers. Figures you would say that.
If T.J Hooker taught me anything, it's that defense attorneys are scum who get scumbag drug dealers to beat the wrap, making Hooker have to deal with the scum later back on the streets. Maybe it was Miami Vice that taught me that, I don't know. Ponch didn't ride on the hoods of cars, did he?
A better fix: 100% of the proceeds go to the taxpayers in the form of a tax credit paid pro-rata in proportion to taxes paid (e.g. if you paid $100 you get $1.00, if you paid $1000 you get $10.00)
Even better: if the property was obtained through fraud or theft, return it or par value to those from whom it was taken wrongfully. Otherwise, the person gets to keep it. Eliminate forfeiture entirely.
Well, if you're going to try and be all sensible and shit, I'm going home.
Jacob,
You may be interested in our coverage of Daniel's veto as well: http://forfeiturereform.com/20.....orfeiture-"reform"-bill-by-which-prosecutors-hoped-to-codify-some-of-their-illegal-practices/
Sincerely
Eapen Thampy
Exec. Dir., Americans for Forfeiture Reform