
Asset seizures fuel police spending - electic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/cash-seizures-fuel-police-spending/
======
michaellosee
There is an amazing correlation between how much money police seize and what
percentage of that money they can keep. The states that allow police to keep a
high percentage of the money take in many millions per year, and the opposite
is true when that percentage is low. California averaged 24 million in asset
forfeiture per year between 2002-2008, after the feds took their 35% cut, in
spite of offering better than average protection from the law[1].

With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the proceeds
from asset forfeiture went to ALS. I expect ALS would benefit very little but
at least it would save thousands of people from having their assets stolen by
the police. It turns out I'm not the first person to have this idea. The Fifth
Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR)[2] seeks to remove the profit
incentive and conflict of interest from civil asset forfeiture (along with
some other good ideas). There have been other attempts for reform in various
states, but FAIR has a lot of potential to change things at the federal level.

1-[https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-
california](https://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-california)
2-[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2644)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> With this in mind I've wondered what would happen if,say, 100% of the
> proceeds from asset forfeiture went to ALS.

That would certainly _reduce_ the problem, but the correct solution is to
prevent assets from being seized without criminal charges and require them to
be immediately returned without further proceedings if the government fails to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assets are the proceeds of a criminal
enterprise of which the owner/defendant is found guilty.

~~~
michaellosee
Good point. This has me thinking more about the root of the problem. It seems
like the justification they use most of the time is related to drugs. Perhaps
asset forfeiture is a another example of how the war on drugs undermines our
civil liberties, and yet not even John Oliver has framed it that way.

------
lotsofmangos
John Oliver did a segment on this -
[http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks](http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks)

One thing that doesn't seem to be covered is how it changes the motivation to
seize contraband, as it is much more profitable to wait until the contraband
is sold and then seize the money.

~~~
deftnerd
Contraband that is not in-and-of-itself illegal is routinely sold at police
auctions to the public. I'm not entirely sure what happens with the proceeds
of those auctions. I'm pretty sure they go to the local police department in
the same revenue split as cash.

Illegal contraband, such as drugs, are destroyed. The federal government gives
grants to companies or police departments to cover the inflated costs of
destruction.

No matter how police choose to play the game, they get money.

------
tomohawk
This seems to be a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Even if the seizing of assets is legit, the assets should be looked at as
revenue, and should be allocated by the legislature, not the police
department.

It is incredibly unseemly for police to be operating their own private economy
based on forfeited assets that were acquired due to their position/power.

There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be
legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line.

~~~
ScottBurson
Seized assets should sit in escrow until their owner is convicted of a crime
_and_ the assets are shown to the be the fruits of that crime. If that can't
be done within, say, a year -- two, at the most -- the assets should be
returned, with interest.

That, I think, is the most important change to make here. Right now people who
have assets seized are effectively guilty until proven innocent, and I don't
see how that's even remotely Constitutional.

Once that is changed, I agree with you: the money should go to the state's
general fund or the US treasury, not the police department.

~~~
DanBC
How do I pay my legal fees if my seized cash is being held in escrow?

~~~
praptak
You can't, and that is on purpose. You know, if you could pay your legal fees,
so could a drug lord.

~~~
waterlesscloud
If a drug lord has massive amounts of money, that's just a sign the government
has failed in its job to catch him earlier. They don't build up those reserves
overnight. Why should the government be rewarded for failing in their job for
so long?

But aside from that...so what? If the system allows pricey attorneys to
subvert the system, the problem isn't the pricey attorneys...

------
PaulAJ
This article is a distraction from the real issue. Most of the spending
(including the oft-repeated $225 for "Sparkles the clown") is legitimate. The
process of civil forfeiture, on the other hand, is a clear violation of the
constitution.

~~~
TillE
Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments.
Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.

~~~
readerrrr
Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money
is taken, cannot take the process to courts.

~~~
martincmartin
There have been cases that have gone all the way to the supreme court,
including a decision in February of this year:

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/ci...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/civil-
liberties-and-supreme-court)

------
praptak
A more explicit one on this subject, (don't be black while carrying valuables
or police will assume you stole them):
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-
pro...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-
profiling_wittmar10-story.html#page=1)

~~~
jchrisa
I read the whole WaPo article hoping they'd stop listing the things purchased
with the funds (who cares?) and instead talk about where they got the funds
and what percentage of seizures are dubious / fraudulent.

The Chicago link provides a narrow window into that question, and it doesn't
look good.

For instance I have a nice painting on the wall that a friend created. There's
no paper trail of how I got it. Does that mean I continue to own it only at
the pleasure of the police?

I'm less worried about my major assets, but what if someone decided I could
have been using my house as a venue to write code that could be used for
illegal purposes? Do I have to prove every library on my Github account can
only be used for legal purposes or risk having my house and laptop seized?

Is the reason the answers to those questions is "no" merely because I'm white,
prominent, and a political donor? How is this different from Putin's Russia?
(Aside from in degree.)

~~~
rayiner
The reason the answer to these questions is "no" is because ownership in a
civil forfeiture proceeding must be proved by a "preponderance of the
evidence" standard. The difference between a car trunk full of $100 bills and
a painting on your wall is proving that, "more likely than not" the item is
the fruit of criminal activity.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"preponderance of the evidence" is a low standard compared to the "presumed
innocent" standard of criminal trials. It's not helped by the fact that the
judge in civil forfeiture proceedings sometimes has a clear conflict of
interest: cf. Coutroom 478.
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-
civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/)

~~~
rayiner
The key distinction is between punishing you by taking property that is yours
(criminal penalty) and taking property that is not yours in the first place
(civil forfeiture). In a civil context, preponderance of the evidence is the
typical standard. E.g. If I sue you for embezzling my money, I don't have to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get my money back.

I think civil forfeiture has major problems with how it's applied, but it's
pretty internally consistent with the rest of the law.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
There are at least two major difference between civil asset forfeiture and
civil litigation. First, the plaintiff is the government, and the government
has vastly more powers and resources than typical plaintiffs, making it more
difficult for ordinary people to defend against them and more reasonable to
demand from them a higher standard of proof. Second, in typical civil
litigation, the plaintiffs don't seize your house/car/money first and put the
burden on you to initiate litigation to get it all back now that you no longer
have any resources with which to fight that battle.

------
a3n
> “In tight budget periods, and even in times of budget surpluses, using asset
> forfeiture dollars to purchase equipment and training to stay current with
> the ever-changing trends in crime fighting helps serve and protect the
> citizens,” said Prince George’s County, Md., police spokeswoman Julie
> Parker.

He's stealing those assets from the citizens he professes to protect. Do they
have seminars on cynicism at police academy?

------
dghughes
As a Canadian I would often take what people from the US say about police with
a grain of salt but recently it's seems to have become much worse, even my own
government has warned Canadians.

I have to wonder though is this not just policy but also a cultural thing on
the far-left side there's the 20-something Occupy 1%, pro-weed crowd is this
the same thing only on the far-right?

As far back as 1999 my first time to the US by myself I was held at the border
for no reason other than I was traveling alone, I was going to visit a friend
for US Thanksgiving. My car was searched, my suitcase torn apart, held for an
hour. Now I wonder if that means I will be flagged on the system as someone
who was searched even though it was for no good reason.

~~~
joesmo
We live in a police state where the police are allowed to legally rob and even
kill people. The sad part is that hiring "Sparkles the clown" actually makes
people forget this and trust the police. Stupidity of the people is on par
with the vileness of the police. You should consider yourself lucky that that
is the only thing that happened to you, which BTW is standard procedure. I
would say that's SOP only at the border, but it is becoming more common
everywhere within the US, regardless of alleged constitutional rights that are
no longer considered by the police or courts.

~~~
dghughes
I don't think it was SOP, as you say, since I was about to go through when I
casually mentioned to the guard at the booth a woman I know invited me to
Thanksgiving dinner. It was the last question of a series of questions the
guard asked me.

The guard at the border said "I think you're going to stay with her and not
come back but there is nothing I can find that will prevent me from holding
you."

I can't see what going through my entire car would accomplish I had one
suitcase, which they took into the main building, and nothing else was in the
car yet it took them an hour to search it.

Anyway a big FU to the St. Stephen border guards at the crossing in Maine. I
honked to them as I drove back into Canada.

~~~
joesmo
It's very possible they just didn't like you and wanted to make your trip
miserable. Or they were just hoping to find contraband, mainly drugs. Or they
were bored. Or there was no reason. Who knows? From my experience and
research, that is SOP for law enforcement in the US. If they can harass (or
worse) you, they will.

~~~
dghughes
I'd agree, I got the guys working the Thanksgiving weekend and they were
pissed, took it our on me.

I don't even fit into any often searched groups I'm a pasty white Canadian who
speaks nothing but English. I'm so common and dull I could be a spy and blend
in anywhere.

------
coldcode
The law as it reads is simply too much of an incentive to take everything you
can lay your hands on knowing there is little chance of having to give it
back. Until there is a requirement that the reason for seizure is backed up by
conviction, so you have to give it back later if you can't make the crime
stick.

------
a3n
> “All of this is at odds with the rights that Americans have.”

Had.

------
qwerta
When I was traveling to Russia 15 years ago, relatives warned me not to show
any cash to police.

------
justinator
Nice article, we were just talking about this -

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423035)

This is an amazing amount of coverage in fairly large, established news
organizations.

------
justifier
these seizures infuriate me, but i do think it is interesting that the slant
on a lot of the coverage falls along the lines: 'and look at this stupid shit
they bought with it!'

which leaves me to wonder.. what would be appropriate, or publicly acceptable,
use of the seized funds?

perhaps donating directly to services that hope to solve the problems that the
seizure was made in claim against?

------
q2
Reading of such articles makes me wonder about the reports/ranks given by
transparency international ...etc on corruption. Comment by @icantthinkofone
in this thread indicates this problem can be seen in other organizations too.
If that is true, then corruption is there across all public organizations in
US. In India too, we hear stories of corruption but scale is different. I
conclude, it is explicit in some sectors/countries and
implicit/polished/organized in other sectors/countries i.e. indices such as
corruption,human life quality are just instruments to point out at emerging
countries and show them in negative shades while pushing similar issues in
developed countries silently under carpet and showing them in positive shades
(at least during preparation of ranks). After consistent media focus, damage
will be done and countries will be forever labeled as negative and
leaders,future generations will forever live in that pseudo bubble thinking
that they are inferior/corrupt ...etc to developed ones. (Many Indians think
America/Europe is heaven with no issues like drought/crime...etc).

I included human life quality because as long as systems are working, west
including Europe and America appear good(seeing from very far) but once in a
while catastrophe occurs(due to nature or man-made), then we will see ugly
side (e.g: looting during katrina[1], London riots[2], riots in sweden[3]
...etc) as if that ugly side is suppressed under the weight of systems/rules
rather than genuine intrinsic goodness of people living there[4].

My intention is not to show any one in bad light but to give the conclusion or
correct the myth that just because a country is materially wealthy i.e.
developed, does not mean that there will be no daily issues. If emerging
countries like BRICS understand that, then they pursue all round development
rather than blindly becoming photo copies of west in pursuit of material
wealth and harming themselves like pollution in china[5].

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-
katrina_the_lon...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-
katrina_the_long_road_back/t/looters-take-advantage-new-orleans-
mess/#.UI73ZMVG-Nw)
[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots)
[3][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots)
[4][http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-
no...](http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/why-is-there-no-looting-
in-japan/)
[5][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China)

~~~
Zigurd
This is systemic corruption. As long as the federal government thinks it's
kosher and they take their cut, it's unlikely to show up in international
reports.

------
icantthinkofone
If the Washington Post, and others, would turn the same eye on any other
organization, they would have a field day of things they would find, but it
wouldn't sell as many newspapers. The problem is, they make it sound like all
police have these issues (and others they "report" on) when the reality is far
from it.

Someone will comment, "But the police shouldn't be doing this and it's a
government institution!!", as if such institutions are not run by human beings
but angels from God.

~~~
Omniusaspirer
Oh please, I think the litany of "it's just a few bad apples" has been
disproven enough already. I suppose the _up to 40%_ domestic abuse rates among
police families (4x national average) is lying about the reality as well?

[http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp](http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp)

I don't claim to know what the solution to America's law enforcement problems
are but I have grown increasingly tired of apologists rushing to defend every
police action no matter how abhorrent. Police are an important part of any
modern society and you aren't doing them favors by sparing them all scrutiny.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I should not have to start my iPhone voice recorder and keep my vehicle's
dashcam running during a traffic stop because of fears I would normally have
living someplace like Russia.

~~~
icantthinkofone
If you do, you are the only person I know who does. I've never even heard of
such a thing.

I do not fear the police. I have no need to.

Whatever happend to you that you feel you need to do that? Or is it only
because of something you read on the internet?

