Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Perverse Forfeiture Incentives Created by Equitable Sharing

The DOJ program allowed police and prosecutors to bypass state limits on asset seizures.


Institute for Justice

As Scott Shackford noted earlier today, the Justice Department is scaling back its Equitable Sharing Program, which enabled local police and prosecutors to bypass state restrictions on civil forfeiture. The program was appealing largely because it let law enforcement agencies keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds from asset seizures. According to a 2010 report from the Institute for Justice, that was bigger than the shares allowed by 15 states.

In many cases, equitable sharing also let police and prosecutors evade procedural safeguards that property owners enjoyed under state law. The most extreme example was North Carolina, where civil forfeiture essentially does not exist because property can be taken only after the owner is convicted of a crime. Even then, law enforcement agencies do not get any of the money. Not surprisingly, I.J. found a high level of "evasion" in North Carolina, as measured by the state's participation in equitable sharing.

Counting North Carolina, 16 states make it relatively hard to take people's property by imposing a higher standard of proof than federal law does: either proof beyond a reasonable doubt or "clear and convincing evidence," as opposed to a "preponderance of the evidence," which is the federal standard and amounts to any probability greater than 50 percent. By seeking forfeiture under federal law, police and prosecutors could take advantage of that weaker standard.

Another benefit of equitable sharing was that the feds took on the task of pursuing the forfeiture, which was especially helpful if the owner happened to put up a fight. A couple of years ago, for instance, the Justice Department tried to seize the Motel Caswell, a family-owned business in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, based on drug offenses committed by a tiny fraction of its guests. The case, which the feds ultimately lost, was instigated by a forfeiture specialist at the Drug Enforcement Administration who enlisted the help of the Tewksbury Police Department, which stood to enjoy a windfall—more than it would have gotten under state law—without having to bear the cost of litigation. Eliminating equitable sharing in drug cases should mean fewer attempted thefts like that one.

The perverse incentives created by equitable sharing were so glaring that its detractors included not only reform-minded Democrats like Rep. John Conyers (Mich.) and libertarian-leaning Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) but drug warriors like Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Kan.) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). Last week Grassley and Sensenbrenner joined Conyers and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in urging Holder to eliminate equitable sharing. "We are concerned that these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities," they wrote. "We also recommend that you implement additional procedural safeguards to make sure the property of innocent Americans is not being swept up in overzealous asset forfeiture." 

Update: A closer look at the new DOJ policy shows that it leaves most of the Equitable Sharing Program untouched.

NEXT: Court Briefing Blasts Sports Leagues' Hypocritical Stance Against Legalized Gambling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But how will police departments balance their books now? Won’t somebody think of our Heroes in Blue (TM).

    1. Yeah, how are they going to justify the new margarita machine?

  2. So Walter Mathau ran a hotel before his death?

    1. Naah. They propped him up for the photo shoot.

      1. Look, Buttermaker, you’re not my father and I’ll not move an inch to play baseball for you any more. So why don’t you get back into that sardine can of yours and go, go vacuum the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?

  3. If the barber gets paid for how much hair he cuts off a customer, you’re going to have a lot of crew cuts.

  4. Since forfeiture’s based on the theory that the guilt is in the thing itself, and the practice was called “deodand” (God’s thing, thing given to God), then why is gov’t allowed to keep & sell what’s seized? Like it’s no longer guilty once it’s passed thru the sovereign’s hands? Make them destroy the guilty property, and that’ll end the practice.

    1. Make the judges *sentence* the property to execution. Then laugh at the judges when they do this.

  5. Dude makes a lot of sense man.

  6. my roomate’s aunt makes $83 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her check was $20229 just working on the computer for a few hours. read more……….

  7. my buddy’s half-sister makes $66 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for five months but last month her payment was $19090 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this site……….

  8. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

    1. Now here are some assetts (and asses) that need forfeiting.

  9. up to I looked at the check 4 $9975 , I did not believe that my brother woz like they say trully taking home money in there spare time from their computer. . there best friend has done this less than 10 months and a short time ago paid for the depts on there home and purchased themselves a Ariel Atom . have a peek at this website………..
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  10. North Carolina, where civil forfeiture essentially does not exist because property can be taken only after the owner is convicted of a crime.

    What a concept. Actal “due process of law” before you lose your property. Isn’t tere something in the Bill of Rights along that line?

  11. Ella . even though Paula `s artlclee is terrific… I just purchased Mazda MX-5 after having made $6168 thiss month and-also, ten-grand this past month . this is certainly the best-job Ive ever had . I started this four months/ago and practically straight away began to bring in over $86… per-hour . read ………

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.