|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
Justice
Department Halts Program Allowing Law Enforcement to Split Proceeds of
Seized Cash, Property
Melissa Quinn
December 28, 2015
The Justice Department is halting a controversial program that allows
law enforcement to keep most of the proceeds of cash and property they
seize from Americans under federal law, sometimes without charging
anyone with a crime.
Now the law enforcement community, which benefits from the program, is
pushing back against the Justice Department, saying its decision could
have negative consequences on public safety.
Just days before Christmas, the Justice Department announced suspension
of its “equitable sharing” program. In a letter to state, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies, the department said it is deferring
payments to the agencies because of cuts to its budget, deepened in the
spending package passed by Congress earlier this month.
“The department does not take this step lightly,” M. Kendall Day, head
of the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture and money laundering
division, wrote in the letter, adding:
We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to
preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing while continuing to
operate the program and meet our other fiscal obligations.
Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2
billion made that impossible.
Day said he remained confident that temporarily suspending the program
will allow the Justice Department to reinstate payments to law
enforcement, writing that by “deferring equitable sharing payments now,
we preserve our ability to resume equitable sharing payments at a later
date should the budget picture improve.”
Under equitable sharing, local and state law enforcement agencies seize
property and cash under federal forfeiture laws and receive a sizeable
portion—up to 80 percent—of the proceeds from what they say are assets
tied to crimes.
Opponents of civil forfeiture view law enforcement’s use of equitable
sharing as a way to circumvent stricter state forfeiture laws.
Civil forfeiture is a tool that gives law enforcement the power to
seize property and cash if they suspect it is connected to a crime.
According to a November report from the Institute for Justice, a public
interest law firm opposing civil forfeiture, state and local law
enforcement agencies received $4.7 billion in forfeiture proceeds from
2000 to 2013 through the Justice Department’s program.
Law enforcement agencies contend that civil forfeiture is a vital tool
needed to combat drug trafficking and money laundering.
In letters to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
and congressional leadership, the leaders of six law enforcement
groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and
the National Association of Police Organizations, warned of the
consequences that ending such efforts would have on the communities
they serve.
“Given the remarkable success of this program, the provisions approved
by Congress and the [Obama] administration are both baffling and
disappointing. The suspension of equitable sharing payments may cause
some agencies across the country to reconsider their ability to
participate in joint task forces with the federal government,” the law
enforcement officials wrote, adding:
The effects of this decision are far reaching and not only a disservice
to law enforcement, but also to the public they are sworn to protect.
In a separate statement, the National Sheriff’s Association said the
Justice Department’s decision will hinder law enforcement agencies’
ability to do their jobs.
“While Congress and the president vacation in peace and tranquility,
law enforcement knows all too well that the criminals, terrorists, and
criminal aliens do not take a holiday,” the group said. “Those seeking
to do us harm can rest easier knowing one less tool can be used against
them.”
Though law enforcement organizations have said suspension of the
program limits the tools at their disposal, civil forfeiture opponents
are cheering the Justice Department’s decision.
“Law enforcement revealed that its true interest in forfeiture is
policing for profit—not public safety,” Lee McGrath, legislative
counsel for the Institute for Justice, said in a statement. He
continued:
The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act does not stop
police and prosecutors from chasing criminals. They’re frustrated
because Congress put on hold their chasing cash. … Many police,
sheriffs and prosecutors want to circumvent state laws because
outsourcing forfeiture litigation to the federal government is
lucrative.
Those opposing civil forfeiture and the equitable sharing program warn
that they provide a perverse profit incentive to law enforcement and
flip the presumption of innocence on its head. Additionally, in many
states, the proceeds of cash and property forfeited go directly into
the agencies’ own coffers.
Despite law enforcement’s ardent support of civil forfeiture, recent
reports show that police are seizing property from individuals and
never charging them with a crime.
In response, some states have moved to reform their asset forfeiture
laws and, in some cases, limit law enforcement’s participation in
equitable sharing.
In New Mexico, for example, Gov. Susana Martinez signed legislation
earlier this year allowing state and local law enforcement to transfer
property to the federal government only if it is worth more than
$50,000, effectively ending the state’s participation in equitable
sharing.
Before passing reforms to its civil forfeiture laws, New Mexico
received more than $41 million in equitable sharing proceeds from the
Justice Department from 2000 to 2013, according to the Institute for
Justice.
The organization ranked Rhode Island, New York, and California among
the worst for their use of equitable sharing, saying the three states
received more than $1.3 billion through the Justice Department from
2000 to 2013.
Read this and other stories with links at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|