Asset Forfeiture

Tennessee Spent $100K in Asset Forfeiture Funds on Catering

Justice Department watchdog to cops: Your banquets don't count as "police activity."

|

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security improperly spent more than $100,000 in asset forfeiture funds on catering and banquet tickets over the last two years, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Justice's inspector general.

The inspector general reported that between 2014 and 2016, the Tennessee agency spent $112,614 in asset forfeiture funds on catering, luncheon, retail food, and banquet tickets, all of which are not allowable expenses under the Justice Department's guidelines for its equitable sharing program.

The Justice Department's equitable sharing program allows state and local law enforcement to partner with the federal government on asset forfeiture cases. Police get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenues, while the other 20 percent goes into the Justice Department's equitable sharing fund. That fund distributes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to police departments across the country.

But the Justice Department puts restrictions on how those funds may be used, to avoid the appearance of corruption.

"Equitable sharing funds cannot be used to pay for food and beverages," the inspector general wrote. "Also, law enforcement agencies are urged to use equitable sharing funds prudently and in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of extravagance, waste, or impropriety. As an example of an extravagant expense, the Interim Policy Guidance notes the use of equitable sharing funds to purchase social event tickets."

In a letter responding to the report, Tennessee officials said they were not aware that using the funds for banquet activities was prohibited. They agreed to refund the expenditures and to improve their monitoring and reporting requirements.

Some departments have been much less than scrupulous with the large piles of seized cash and other confiscated property at their disposal.

For example, a 2016 inspector general audit found that an Illinois police department spent more than $20,000 in equitable sharing funds on accessories for two lightly used motorcycles, including after-market exhaust pipes, decorative chrome, and heated handgrips.

The FBI is investigating a former Arizona sheriff who used asset forfeiture funds to pay for a "public safety newsletter" sent to voters while he was running for Congress, touting his public safety record.

Reason reported on a case in Mississippi where Hinds County sheriff's deputies seized all of the furniture in a woman's living room because her boyfriend was a suspected drug dealer. The county district attorney eventually struck a deal with the woman to return all of the furniture, except for a white couch, which was forfeited by the county and is presumably still occupying a county office somewhere.

Then there was the $90,000 Dodge Viper that a Georgia sheriff purchased with forfeiture funds for the department's DARE program.

Civil libertarians often argue that the inherent profit incentive in asset forfeiture—which allows police to seize property and cash suspected of being connected to a crime, even if the owner is not charged with an offense—leads police to fish for seizures to pad their budgets.

While the Obama administration was somewhat receptive to pressure for forfeiture reform, the Trump administration is not. In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he was rescinding an Obama-era directive that put strict limits on when the federal government could "adopt" asset forfeiture cases from local and state police. The move was part of the Trump administration's effort to reduce violent crime by ramping up prosecutions of drug dealers and gang members.

Advertisement

NEXT: Here Is Every Crazy Title IX Rape Case Betsy DeVos Referenced, Plus a Bunch More

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. And here we thought they were wasting it!

  2. Thank God they didn’t spend tax dollars on that.

  3. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security improperly spent more than $100,000 in asset forfeiture funds on catering and banquet tickets

    Apparently those Tennessee cops have big balls.

    1. Some balls are held for charity
      And some for fancy dress
      But when they’re held for pleasure,
      They’re the balls that I like best.
      And my balls are always bouncing,
      To the left and to the right.
      It’s my belief that my big balls should be held every night.

  4. Clearly these monies were not spent upon wasteful desires, the origin of which are generated by minds of no great ability.

    It is all well and good – and righteous therefore – to redistribute these monies from the lesser peoples to their betters, who know how best to use said monies.

  5. No, no, no. You are confused. The money for the banquets is from the state forfeiture fund, which we keep in our right pocket. The Justice Department equitable sharing funds we keep in our left pocket.

  6. The county district attorney eventually struck a deal with the woman to return all of the furniture, except for a white couch, which was forfeited by the county and is presumably still occupying a county office somewhere.

    Oh, I doubt it. Wet-spot stains are difficult to get out of white couches, so I’ve heard.

  7. “Also, law enforcement agencies are urged to use equitable sharing funds prudently and in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of extravagance, waste, or impropriety.”

    If we flaunt it, the peasants may wonder where we got it.

  8. The Justice Department’s equitable sharing program allows state and local law enforcement to partner with the federal government on asset forfeiture cases. Police get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenues, while the other 20 percent goes into the Justice Department’s equitable sharing fund. That fund distributes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to police departments across the country.

    *sigh*

    I get that it may look bad sometimes, but the law is the law, and this law helps fund police departments, so the good really outweighs the maybe-bad.

    1. “I get that it may look bad sometimes, but the law is the law, and this law helps fund police departments, so the good really outweighs the maybe-bad.”

      Some newbie is gonna show up and beat you with the ugly stick…

    2. It’s amazing that a ruling from the 1800’s involving a pirate ship is still considered applicable to modern property, especially since it’s clearly in opposition to the 5th amendment.

      This can’t be brought in front of the SC fast enough, but who knows how they would rule on it these days.

      1. I believe that they have, and it wasn’t very nice.

    3. Well hey…if a bunch of gov’t stooges passed a law so they can fund their parties and sports cars, then clearly it’s righteous.

      WTF was I thinking.

  9. Whew, good thing money isn’t fungible.

  10. the Justice Department puts restrictions on how those funds may be used, to avoid the appearance of corruption.

    But not the substance of corruption.

  11. But the Justice Department puts restrictions on how those funds may be used, to avoid the appearance of corruption.

    Since the S.S. Actual Corruption has already sailed.

    1. That was an incisive and timely comment, Fisty.

      1. It takes time to craft an eloquent word picture. Any idiot can throw together a half-baked notion with pedestrian prose and get a comment posted before everyone else.

        1. *taps sarcometer to see if needle is stuck.

  12. “Thanks for the make your own loaded potato bar, Jamal! Say, I saw little Tasha the other day and noticed she had a few new silver teeth …. y’all wouldn’t happen to be hiding any new illegal funds, would you? I hate to ask, but it’s just that our breakroom refrigerator is on the fritz and between you and me, we all know the Justice Department won’t spend a dime on their own.”

  13. “…improperly spent more than $100,000 in asset forfeiture funds on catering and banquet tickets …”

    Which banquet(s); the Policemans’ Ball or the Police Benevolent Fund. Follow that f’n money. I bet it was not St. Judes Childrens Hospital.

    “…Tennessee officials said they were not aware that using the funds for banquet activities was prohibited. They agreed to refund the expenditures …”

    And what/who will be the source of money for those refunds? Misappropriating funds is an excuse for thee but not for me.

  14. …is thinking there are a few catering companies remembering that they did not charge as much as the police claim to have spent…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.