FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Put Seized Assets into Public Defense

Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed limits on civil asset forfeiture enacted during Obama’s presidency on July 19, unilaterally expanding the power of law enforcement officials to seize private property without a warrant. Civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to take property suspected of being involved in a crime without formally charging the owner of the property, was overgrown even before Sessions’ regulatory rollback.

Predatory regulations encourage for-profit policing. Law enforcement agents know that they receive money back from the federal government whenever they seize assets, thereby encouraging them to seize these assets more and more frivolously to fund their agency. Ideally civil asset forfeiture would be abolished altogether, but it will almost certainly endure the Trump administration. To mitigate harm, the government should require law enforcement to give 80 percent of seized assets to underfunded public defense programs. Though funneling the assets into public defense won’t refund citizens who have been robbed by law enforcement, it will provide a sizable disincentive for officers to seize funds unnecessarily.

Sessions reinstated the Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to seize property, send it to a federal government fund, and receive up to 80 percent of the assets’ value as a kickback directly to the department. Since Equitable Sharing strikes a deal between the federal government and local law enforcement, it leaves state legislatures out of the picture.

Many states––such as Maine, Indiana, and North Carolina––impose stricter regulations on civil asset forfeiture than the federal government does. Because these agencies work directly with the federal government when they use the Equitable Sharing Program, they are allowed to bypass state laws. In fact, states that have more stringent forfeiture laws see more agencies participate in Equitable Sharing.

Forfeiture has grown from just under $94 million seized each year in 1986 to over $4.5 billion in annual takings by 2014. Eighty-seven percent of the forfeitures from 1997 to 2013 were civil rather than criminal, meaning the assets can be taken without a conviction.

A study done by the Institute for Justice, a pro-civil liberties organization, found that Equitable Sharing programs increase for-profit policing policies. Cops know that they can take private property with impunity and put up to 80 percent of its value directly into their departments’ coffers.

Many people, especially the poor, lack the legal resources to fight these unjust forfeitures. The value of seized assets often pales in comparison to court costs, and the law enforcement agencies know this. As of 2014, asset forfeitures exceeded burglaries in amount taken, nationwide.

To disincentivize this predatory policing, the federal government should strike down Equitable Sharing and mandate that at least 80 percent of civilly-seized assets are given to local public defense.

Public defense programs are chronically underfunded nationwide. A study by the American Bar Association states that although public defense funding rose to just under $5.3 billion in 2008, many areas “remain in crisis.” Funneling money from civil asset forfeiture to public defense provides a solution to two problems plaguing our criminal justice system––predatory seizures and underfunded public representation.

If Equitable Sharing is abolished and law enforcement officers know the bulk of the money they seize will go to public defense, not their agency’s bank account, they will take civil asset forfeiture much more seriously. Rather than shaking down innocent civilians for pocket change at a traffic stop, cops will view forfeiture as a serious undertaking that will financially support defendants in local courts.

The U.S. government needs to change the way law enforcement views civil asset forfeiture. Under Equitable Sharing, law enforcement agencies are reminiscent of Scrooge McDuck swimming in pools of ill-gotten money. These officers should instead regard civil asset forfeiture as a last resort in all situations. Only by giving these seizures direct consequences will the government change this predatory outlook.

The FBI website claims asset forfeiture is used to “disrupt, dismantle, and deter those who prey on the vulnerable for financial gain.” Unfortunately, the multi-billion dollar civil asset forfeiture program preys on U.S. citizens, at least in its current form. Using money from asset forfeitures to increase the quality of public defense will curb this injustice.

Dylan Moore is currently a Young Voices Advocate and an undergraduate student at Indiana University. Follow him on Twitter @d_v_moore.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail