Asset Forfeiture

Forfeiture Loot Corrupts Justice

When law enforcement agencies make money by seizing property, due process vanishes.

|

In Ohio during the 1920s, people caught with "intoxicating liquors" could be tried by rural mayors, who were paid for each conviction and authorized to impose fines that were split between the village and the state. Four decades later, mayor's courts in Ohio were handling traffic cases, which did not reward the mayors directly but generated substantial income for their villages.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of these arrangements violated the right to due process, since the judges had a financial incentive to find people guilty. Civil asset forfeiture creates a similar problem, encouraging police and prosecutors to take property from innocent owners and turn a deaf ear to their objections.

That is what happened to Rhonda Cox, whose pickup truck was seized in 2013 by Pinal County, Arizona, sheriff's deputies when they arrested her son for installing stolen parts in it. Cox argues that the forfeiture violated her right to due process, and last week a federal judge refused to dismiss her lawsuit, recognizing the constitutional concerns raised by a system that lets law enforcement agencies make money by confiscating assets they say are linked to crime.

In Arizona, U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa noted, the law enforcement agencies that initiate and complete a forfeiture get to keep all of the proceeds. Some agencies, such as the Arizona Department of Public Safety's bomb squad, SWAT team, and hazardous materials unit, are funded entirely by forfeitures, while others rely on them to pay for vehicles, equipment, overtime, retirement fund contributions, and image-building donations to local civic groups. According to Cox's complaint, Lando Voyles, who as Pinal County attorney approved the confiscation of her truck, even used forfeiture loot to pay for his home security system.

This financial interest tends to make cops and prosecutors less than sympathetic to the rights of innocent property owners like Cox, who did not know her son had borrowed her truck, let alone that he was doing anything illegal with it. The deputies who took the truck said there was no way she'd ever get it back, and Voyles' office rejected her "petition for mitigation" out of hand, claiming (incorrectly) that she was not entitled to relief because she had purchased the truck for family use. Deputy Pinal County Attorney Craig Cameron also claimed, inconsistently, inaccurately, and irrelevantly, that Cox was a "straw buyer" for her son.

"Rhonda was caught in a Kafkaesque predicament where, bizarrely, she bore the burden of proving that she was entitled to get the Truck back," her complaint notes. "The State did not have to prove that Rhonda did anything wrong—let alone criminal—in order to keep the Truck."

Cox could not afford to take her challenge further, especially since the cost of a lawyer could easily have exceeded the $6,000 she paid for the truck. Under state law at the time, she also would have been on the hook for the government's legal expenses if she lost.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Cox, notes that forfeitures in Pinal County frequently involve property worth less than $1,000, making legal challenges prohibitively expensive. That effectively means the agencies that stand to profit from a forfeiture are the first and final arbiters of whether it's justified.

Even prosecutors understand the potential for corruption in this situation. A training presentation from the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council, which Judge Humetewa quotes in her ruling, warns that "when your bosses can't find any money in their budget they get depressed," and "when they get depressed they tell you to start doing forfeiture cases."

Playing off those jokey Direct TV ads about the hazards of cable, the downward spiral continues until cops "start seizing everything in sight," "screw things up," and "ruin forfeitures for all of us." Although the slide is supposed to be an admonition about the need for "educated, ethical and professional" forfeiture practices, it is really a lesson about the hazards of legalized theft.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

9 responses to “Forfeiture Loot Corrupts Justice

  1. I would love to see the collapse following a Supreme Court ruling that forfeiture practices violated due process. If only such ruling would be practically applied.

    1. That would he the opposite of a collapse. More like a Flash Flourishing.

  2. Save lawyer fees; file a federal criminal complaint of conspiracy to violate civil rights, naming every one from the initiating officer to everyone in the entire administrative chain.
    Absent a criminal conviction, there is no way this involves due process.

    1. What!? Sue everyone and the police benevolent fund as co-conspiritors and try for RICO status. Add any and all gov’t groups that get a penny of forfeiture money. When the local library is threatened with paying the judgement, they’ll get real edgy.

  3. Thanks for the information. Once very beneficial to us all. Awaited further information.

    Walatra Sehat Mata Softgel

    Vig Power Capsule

  4. Thanks for the information. Once very beneficial to us all. Awaited further information.

    Obat Tradisional Flek Paru Paru

    Cara Membersihkan Rahim

  5. All true, and the points raised are all valid, but there is the Forgotten 900 Pound Gorilla in the room. Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt prosecuted the Sullivan v. US appeal nullifying the Fifth Amendment in 1927, and designed a series of tax law exploits as prohibition enforcement work-arounds–including stepped-up asset forfeiture. Her successes were legendary and by summer of 1929 her tell-all series was syndicated nationwide–and the nation began accelerating to into the great depression under Dry Hope Herbert Hoover. Reagan and HW Bush did the same thing in 1987, wrecking most economies on two continents. George Waffen Bush repeated this with his ramp-up of faith-based asset-forfeiture (which he called “markets”) and the economy collapsed again. These are the unproductive hands of Adam Smith’s warnings. This was warned of in Atlas Shrugged by someone who witnessed the Crash and Depression: “But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters by-law?men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims?then money becomes its creators’ avenger.”

  6. It’s also used as leverage to get the “no so bright” to agree to “consent to search” or to a lesser charge at the street level where the officer has all the power and you have none.

  7. Kuring manggihan rinci anyar II jeung maca blog anjeun. Teu sangka Abdi hayu review nostalgia abdi. Kuring henteu weruh naon ngomong lian ti kuring

    Obat Gerd

    Obat Keputihan

    Obat Kanker Serviks

    Obat Herbal Kista

    Obat Bercak Putih

    Obat Psoriasis

    Obat Dispepsia

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.