Asset Forfeiture

Reformers Again Attempt to Curtail Legal Theft by Police in California

Legislation reintroduced to require a conviction for asset forfeiture.

|

seizure
Photographerlondon / Dreamstime

California looked as though it was going to seriously restrain the ability for police and prosecutors to abuse civil asset forfeiture last fall, but legislators ultimately failed at the end. The influence of police and prosecutor lobbying was too strong. Legislation that would have required police to actually attain convictions for crimes before attempting to seize and keep somebody's money or property passed in the state Senate, but failed in the Assembly.

The bill, SB 443, is back for another push for passage. Sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Holly Mitchell, the legislation would require convictions before permanently seizing somebody's property and would increase the evidentiary threshold required to connect the property with the underlying crime.

The previous iteration of the bill forbid law enforcement from bypassing state-level restrictions by participating in the Department of Justice's "Equitable Sharing" forfeiture process unless a person was convicted of a crime. This was an important component of the bill, because the DOJ's rules are laxer and allow police to keep more of what they seize than California's laws permit. Because of the looser rules, use of the DOJ's forfeiture process has skyrocketed in California, particularly in smaller municipalities, while seizures under the state's rules have remained flat. During the recession, as municipal budgets suffered revenue losses in California, law enforcement agencies increasingly turned to asset forfeiture to fill gaps.

The conviction requirement remains in this version of the bill, but a section has been added to allow police to seek seizure without a conviction if the defendant doesn't show up for court, flees to evade prosecution, or is deceased. One of the objections by law enforcement and prosecutors attempting to defend civil forfeiture is that they sometimes aren't able to get a defendant in the courtroom to tie him or her to the assets. This would seem to help address those concerns. Nevertheless, according to the Los Angeles Times, police and prosecutors are still unhappy:

Law enforcement groups say the practice is an essential tool in combating drug trafficking. When police arrest low-level cartel members with large sums of money in their cars, the driver isn't the primary target, Totten said.

"In many, many narcotics trafficking cases, we're not able to actually identify some of the higher-ups in the organization whose money we're seizing," he said. "That's just the nature of illicit drug trafficking."

Law enforcement loves to present the idea that they're seizing large sums of drug cartel money in their asset forfeitures, but the reality is that the vast majority of assets grabbed in any given seizure in California are worth less than $5,000, according to a report put together by the Drug Policy Alliance. The people often affected by asset forfeiture were poor and often spoke little English, and were unable to understand the process (and could not afford) to fight to keep their property.

Mitchell has support in her efforts from Republican Assembly member David Hadley, who points out that all the police really want here is to protect their revenue:

David Hadley, a Republican assemblyman from Manhattan Beach and a coauthor of Mitchell's bill, said law enforcement is fighting hard against changes to the civil forfeiture process because of the hit to their budgets. It's on the Legislature, he said, to boost funding for public safety so that police don't have to rely on taking people's property to pay for what they need.

"When you get outside of [the Capitol] you get a general consensus that something like this in its broad form should not be happening in the United States," Hadley said.

Yes, polls show that citizens, once they understand how civil asset forfeiture works, are overwhelmingly opposed to the process. That it's hard to get reform passed in states like California shows how overwhelmingly government employees have captured the legislative branch.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Is Looking for Fall Journalism Interns

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. David Hadley, a Republican assemblyman from Manhattan Beach and a coauthor of Mitchell’s bill, said law enforcement is fighting hard against changes to the civil forfeiture process because of the hit to their budgets.

    Finally, we’ve found the one Republican in California standing athwart paradise.

    1. It’s called Gerrymandering.

      They put us all in one barrel. We’re easier to shoot that way.

      1. Endorsed by Paul Tanaka. He should probably scrub that from his website.

  2. The conviction requirement remains in this version of the bill, but a section has been added to allow police to seek seizure without a conviction if the defendant doesn’t show up for court, flees to evade prosecution, or is deceased.

    I know that prosecuting cops for murdering innocent unarmed people in broad daylight is asking too much. I understand that, bless your little hearts. But can we not incentivize it? Is that really asking so much?

    1. Ouch. That hurts.

    1. LOLWAT.

      *clicks*

      “I’m not doing it for easy action,” Nagel says. “Isn’t that what Tinder is for?”

      That’s awesome.

      1. Did you see the many pictures of self-hating black women? Apparently beige babies are in hot demand, not just for OMWC.

    2. About half the time, he provides his seed the old-fashioned way. Sometimes, a lesbian looking to conceive will have her partner in the bed for moral support while she and Nagel engage in intercourse.

      “She’s never slept with a guy before, so the partner’s in bed, holding her hand,” Nagel explains. “Sometimes, it could be a little painful, then after a few times, they’re comfortable to do it on their own.”

      …How the fuck can he maintain a boner for that?

      1. When you’re used to getting off in a Target restroom, probably pretty easily.

      2. …you’re the one asking that?

        Anyways, I question whether that actually happens or if that part is a fantasy.

        1. Reality usually isn’t as kind.

      3. Talking about golf and the LPGA?

    3. “The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring.”

      “They all promise in advance they won’t sue.”

      You dumb, dumb motherfucker.

      1. Every paragraph of the article is a hoot.

      2. Yeah, he apparently didn’t even bother having a lawyer draw up some kind of easily overturned contract. You’d have to be pure stupid not to see that coming a million miles away.

    4. Hmm…my thoughts confirmed on this one:

      The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring.

      What an idiot.

  3. I do wish them good luck with this. Straight out of King George III’s playbook. Cops do it now, people are like, “Heeyyy!” Back then, “Right – let’s get up a militia.” Different days.

    Good luck Cali.

    Also – fuck Cali

  4. *reads alt text*

    *swoons*

  5. Seizing property prior to a criminal conviction is governmental theft, often grand larceny. And the time frame property can be held without a conviction should be SHARPLY limited.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

  6. End the practice of civil asset forfeiture as it exists today.. NO assets permanently taken unless and until the owner of the property is convicted in a court of law of a criminal offense, AND the property is plausibly connected with the criminal activity. Anything less is theft by government at the point of a gun. Iin the Old West, such activity was dealt with harshly and conclusively.

    LE agencies that “rely” upon this source of income for their contiued existence are defrauding the public. In nearly every case, the are overspending, wasting the assets seized on non-essential activities and acquisitions. Cut them off from this public teat, and let them manage their budgets the way the rest of us mere peons are forced to do.

  7. Check out this article about the present state of bills around the US pertaining to the War on Drugs and another overview of the issue. It gives great context to the current state of this war in US legislation.
    http://bit.ly/28YHQJR

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.