Asset Forfeiture
Asset forfeiture can result from law enforcement agency seizure of property at time of arrest
When someone is found in possession of drugs, no matter how small the quantity, his money and other property are often seized by the arresting officer. Later, depending on how the case works out, the money and property may be returned. But most often, these assets are forfeited through a civil court proceeding and become the property of the arresting agency.
Cash becomes part of the agency's funds. Cars and trucks may be used by the department or sold at auction. Guns may be used or destroyed. One of the most controversial tools of the drug war is asset seizure/forfeiture. In theory, forfeiture was meant to punish drug kingpins by taking money, cars, boats, real estate, and other luxuries gained through the profits of drug trafficking.
In practice, however, police stops may result in horrific abuses, where people are literally robbed of their rent money and never even convicted of a crime. Nationally, over 80% of assets are seized without any charges being filed.
In 1999, the Arkansas legislature amended its forfeiture law in order to curb some of the more outrageous abuses of seizure and forfeiture. Police agencies are now required to inventory and report all seized items to the state drug director's office. An asset tracking method is finally in place. Still, a review of the records reveals abuses.
Law enforcement officers in some jurisdictions take even small amounts of cash, even though it is recognized that small amounts of cash are not likely to be involved in drug crimes. Many officers operate under the idea that even a tiny amount of drugs in someone's possession justifies taking all the money he or she might have.
Amounts under $500 are common. For example, a quick review of the asset seizure tracking record for 2000 reveals amounts such as $10.44, $18, $8, $5, $15, $20, $16.66, $6.14, and $18.20. Obviously these are not the cash fortunes of drug kingpins.
Law enforcement agencies also fail to follow the requirements of the new law. A follow-up on one case in Washington County showed that drug task force officers served a search warrant and subsequently arrested a Winslow man for possession and sale of marijuana. A total of five charges were filed. The arrest record shows an entire list of items seized at the time of the arrest, including a variety of drugs, scales, guns, and cash in the amount of $1105. However, the report filed with the state drug director's office listed only the cash.
The court record shows that some or all of the guns were returned to the defendant's parents. There is no mention of guns in the state report. There is no record of the disposition of any of the other items seized.
The file numbers of records filed in local jurisdictions do not match the tracking numbers of the state records. The file numbers of items forfeited do not match any other records. It is virtually impossible to derive any comprehensive overview of asset seizures and forfeitures in the State of Arkansas, in spite of the 1999 legislative reform.
Law enforcement and prosecutors have no incentive to make such an overview more accessible. Officers at the arrest scene operate by the "rule of first grab." Whoever grabs the cash first gets to deliver that prize to his agency.
Once a local agency has $20,000 in its forfeiture account, a funding formula decided by the prosecutor sends a percentage to the state crime lab. The balance is divided among the prosecutor, city, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, according to who was involved in the arrest. Law enforcement agencies have become dependent on this flow of money, vehicles, guns, and other property to support their daily operations.
There is no requirement that a person be convicted of a crime before losing his money or property. Deals are often made, where the arresting officer offers to forget the whole thing if the suspect gives up the money and/or property. Other times deals may be made between the prosecutor and the defendant, where assets are forfeited in exchange for a reduced charge.
Defendants who want to reclaim contested property may find themselves in a Catch 22 situation where they must prove their own property "innocent" of a crime in order to regain possession. And since forfeiture is a civil proceeding, defendants do not have access to a public defender to regain their money, car, or other property.
While many police officers and prosecutors handle seized assets in an honorable manner, others do not. In many instances, the public has begun to lose respect for law enforcement agencies who seem to take money, cars, and other property simply to benefit themselves. Not only is respect for the law eroded by asset forfeiture practices in Arkansas, but the attitudes of law enforcement have become hardened as well.
One prosecutor, in defense of forfeiture, stated that he believed very little abuse occurred. He said that officers only wanted to take the profits out of the drug trade. But a few moments later, his remarks revealed an unpleasant truth. "If you don't let the police keep what they seize," he said, "they won't seize anything."
Other states take a different approach. In Missouri, for example, forfeited assets go directly into the Department of Education. In 19 states, all or some of the money supports programs that combat the drug problem. Some states use the money to pay for drug rehabilitation or mental health care.
In Arkansas, forfeited assets of between $1.5 and $3 million per year could go a long way in helping fund pro-active programs for youth, like anger management or tutoring. For kids who end up with substance abuse problems, forfeited assets could help pay for better quality treatment programs, available on demand, affordable for any family, programs that would include good nutrition and top-notch counseling and other people-building services.
Further reforms in Arkansas asset seizure/forfeiture are needed, such as measures approved in the 2000 elections by voters in Oregon and Utah, where a person now must be convicted of a crime before police can take his money or property.
By moving in the right direction for asset forfeiture reform and by dedicating the proceeds to important pro-active approaches to troubled youth, Arkansas can provide more prevention-oriented human services while restoring public respect for law enforcement. It's time for positive investments.
Link:
FEAR - Forfeiture Endangers American Rights www.fear.org
News
UA-F Student Body Votes YES on SAFER Initiative
Sunday, May 17, 2009
After two previous attempts to gather sufficient signatures to place a SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation) initiative before UA students, campus organizers were successful in March to quality their...
Blog
Why not start at home?
Monday, Oct 20, 2008
I know he was serious when he said he wanted to help. There was passion behind his expression, the result of years of frustration and even anger about policies that...
Social Networks
Stay connected to DPEG