Civil asset forfeiture and the Shortcut to Serfdom

The Institute for Justice’s report, “Policing for Profit” gets a nod in Conor Friedersdorf’s excellent Forbes piece, “The Shortcut to Serfdom“:

  • – As the Institute for Justice documents:
    • Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today.  Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime.  Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head.  With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

The entire article is worth reading, and I’ll excerpt further:

I regard the actual, ongoing abrogation of civil liberties in America as the clearer, more present danger, as compared to the unintended consequences of “smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises.” Indeed, these issues seem to me unsurpassed in their importance.

Americans are on an assassination list already. Innocents are imprisoned today. SWAT teams took out countless doors in no-knock raids this week. The last two presidents have asserted authority unprecedented in American history… and even when they break the law it goes unpunished.

Neither President Obama nor his conservative critics satisfy me on civil liberties. Were the GOP to nominate a candidate more respectful of my rights in 2012, I’d vote for him or her, and say good riddance to the incumbent. Despite my dislike of his domestic agenda, on the other hand, I’ll vote for Obama’s re-election if his challenger prattles on about doubling Gitmo, more intrusive spying, or any other movement that pushes us farther in the wrong direction.

We can’t afford a nation less solicitous of civil liberties than is already the case.

Forced to choose, I’d rather live in the ACLU’s idea of the perfect America than a country where we repeal Obamacare, eliminate earmarks, and persist in chipping away at civil liberties to fight drugs and terrorists. The former may be a “road to serfdom.” The latter is a shortcut to the same place.

This is an important argument that I concur strongly with. America’s greatest, most vital strength springs from the clearly articulated Constitution protections for free expression, property, and due process. This is the heart of America’s economic power, which is not possible without the free exchange of information, clear rights to and protections for property, and a robust protection for citizens against the awesome power of the state.

Where years of neglect and misplaced trust have allowed law enforcement to directly retain profits through the use of civil forfeiture laws, vital parts of American democracy break down. With a profit motive, even the best among our public servants are seduced into an insidious trap, risking all for that basest of motives: greed.

Civil forfeiture laws and the large federal grants that accompany them bring military-grade equipment, cutting-edge surveillance technologies, and significant unseen costs into America’s cities and states. This is primarily a problem of democracy: the path by which law enforcement priority and protocol was set became gradually a process free of civilian oversight and accountability. We now have law enforcement agencies that operate with complete independence with regard to their mission; worse, since the costs of military equipment and surveillance technologies are now able to be kept off-budget, law enforcement unions have been able to negotiate for better and larger pension plans over time. Anyone even passably familiar with the economics of America’s state and municipal pension plans knows that this process has culminated with hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities facing our state and local governments, risking widespread fiscal insolvency.

Ultimately, there are questions that must be answered at the voter level that sound something like these:

  • What level of law enforcement services are we comfortable paying for?
  • What is the extent of discretion that we can give executive branch agencies?
  • How can we enforce accountability for fiscal decisions and civil rights protection?
  • How far can we let public sector law enforcement unions control the discourse on public safety, national security, and civil liberties?

These are serious questions, and if America is not able to grapple successfully with them, I am afraid that much of the vitality of our national character may be lost. A nation solely facing great fiscal challenges may yet find a way to prosperity; but without robust protections of the fundamental rights to property and due process both markets and democracy are irreparably damaged and any hope of a bright future imperiled.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn

California auditor civil forfeiture reports now available

California forfeiture audits are now available here, from the period 2002-2008. Note the latest available report, 2008, notes $32.7 million as the estimated total value of seizures in California. However, this is not the true total value of 2008 California forfeitures; I estimate roughly $62 million in seizures were diverted through the federal Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing program, allowing California’s state and local law enforcement to directly retain a little over $51 million. For California, this is particularly problematic, as much of this money goes towards directing California law enforcement to prioritize cannabis law enforcement. This money is ultimately retained by state and local law enforcement for the purpose of funding equipment, salaries, and chasing more federal grant money; as you might guess, this dramatically influences California law enforcement incentives and practices. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July:

Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, his budget under pressure in a weak economy, has laid off staff, reduced patrols and even released jail inmates. But there’s one mission on which he’s spending more than in recent years: pot busts.

The reason is simple: If he steps up his pursuit of marijuana growers, his department is eligible for roughly half a million dollars a year in federal anti-drug funding, helping save some jobs. The majority of the funding would have to be used to fight pot. Marijuana may not be the county’s most pressing crime problem, the sheriff says, but “it’s where the money is.”

As California continues to reel under the weight of cuts to state spending, the impacts become more visible as law enforcement starts cutting staff and funding for everything except cannabis law enforcement:

Tight budgets prompted sheriffs’ departments in the state to cut more than 800 positions in the first three months of this year, out of about 30,000. Support for local law enforcement from the strapped state government will fall by $100 million this year, the California Association of Counties expects.

Shasta County supervisors told Sheriff Bosenko last spring that his budget this year would be about $2 million less than last year’s $38 million.

The sheriff laid off 26 people last July, more than 10% of his staff, among them 11 deputies. He eliminated a major-crimes investigator and cut nighttime patrols to two cars from four.

That slowed responses to emergencies, especially after midnight, when an estimated 20% of drivers in the largely rural county 150 miles north of Sacramento have been drinking. The county has higher rates of assault, burglary, drunken driving and domestic violence than big California cities.

To save still more, Mr. Bosenko closed a floor of the county jail and gave early release to 185 inmates, among them 30 convicted drunk drivers. “Those people will probably go out and drink and drive again and hurt people,” the sheriff says. “The criminals know that there’s very limited offender accountability due to our releases at the jail.”

The implications for basic governance and democracy are pretty big. The forfeiture money that is supposed to be flowing into the state general fund travels through federal hands instead and is used to subvert local law enforcement priorities. By changing the priorities of California’s law enforcement, the federal government deprives California’s citizens of setting their own law enforcement priorities. When this means diminished enforcement for things like drunk driving, this means there is literally a tradeoff between the number of deaths from automobile accidents and the amount of money that California’s law enforcement illegally retains in the service of the Department of Justice.

Supporters of Proposition 19 should note that this is a way for the Department of Justice to implicitly leverage hundreds of millions of dollars against the likelihood of passing Proposition 19. Without reforming asset forfeiture laws, it will be nearly impossible for California’s citizens to reform anything that the federal Department of Justice doesn’t want to see reformed. Regardless of your stance on Proposition 19, that prospect should be fairly frightening to anyone who thinks that people should have the right to determine their own laws through a democratic process.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn

Join our email list!

Receive news about forfeiture issues, especially legislative alerts.


Archives