Civil Asset Forfeiture is one area I do not know enough about, although it's one of the institutions most in need of reform in our law enforcement practices - and that's saying something! EDIT: Just realized how contradictory this line sounds. But from what I know, it certainly seems to be in need of reform.
Quick searches found some more information -
Just 13 percent of Department of Justice forfeitures from 1997 to 2013 were criminal forfeitures; 87 percent were civil forfeitures.
Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner.
Between 2000 and 2013, annual DOJ equitable sharing payments to state and local law enforcement more than tripled, growing from $198 million to $643 million. In all, the DOJ paid state and local agencies $4.7 billion in forfeiture proceeds from 2000 to 2013.
Although the Department of Justice’s forfeiture database tracks more than 1,300 variables about cash and property seizures, not one indicates whether a criminal charge or conviction accompanied a forfeiture. The DOJ carefully tracks and reports forfeiture revenue, but fails to publicly report whether forfeitures target proven criminals.
Further, a good bit of the funds seized from asset forfeiture were spent on overtime, salaries, and pensions - which creates an obvious conflict of interest for police officers, the implication being - "if we don't get enough funds from forfeiture, we may have to let people off as a result".
Civil Asset Forfeiture is one area I do not know enough about, although it's one of the institutions most in need of reform in our law enforcement practices - and that's saying something! EDIT: Just realized how contradictory this line sounds. But from _what_ I know, it certainly seems to be in need of reform.
Quick searches found some more information -
> Just 13 percent of Department of Justice forfeitures from 1997 to 2013 were criminal forfeitures; 87 percent were civil forfeitures.
> Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner.
> Between 2000 and 2013, annual DOJ equitable sharing payments to state and local law enforcement more than tripled, growing from $198 million to $643 million. In all, the DOJ paid state and local agencies $4.7 billion in forfeiture proceeds from 2000 to 2013.
> Although the Department of Justice’s forfeiture database tracks more than 1,300 variables about cash and property seizures, not one indicates whether a criminal charge or conviction accompanied a forfeiture. The DOJ carefully tracks and reports forfeiture revenue, but fails to publicly report whether forfeitures target proven criminals.
Further, a good bit of the funds seized from asset forfeiture were spent on overtime, salaries, and pensions - which creates an obvious conflict of interest for police officers, the implication being - "if we don't get enough funds from forfeiture, we may have to let people off as a result".
Source: http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
This subverse is primarily intended to talk about Libertarian philosophy, values, and ideas. We are not affiliated with the Libertarian Party in any way. All viewpoints and discussion is welcome, as long as it's cordial.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is one area I do not know enough about, although it's one of the institutions most in need of reform in our law enforcement practices - and that's saying something! EDIT: Just realized how contradictory this line sounds. But from what I know, it certainly seems to be in need of reform.
Quick searches found some more information -
Further, a good bit of the funds seized from asset forfeiture were spent on overtime, salaries, and pensions - which creates an obvious conflict of interest for police officers, the implication being - "if we don't get enough funds from forfeiture, we may have to let people off as a result".
Source: http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/