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
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail