Posted on 02/13/2018 10:09:35 AM PST by nickcarraway
By Brian McVeigh, Calhoun County District Attorney and president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association; and Dave Sutton, Sheriff of Coffee County and president of the Alabama Sheriffs Association
The Alabama Legislature is considering legislation that would change the way civil asset forfeitures are handled in Alabama. While well-meaning, some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is an effective crime-fighting tool while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. The result would be more crime.
Unfortunately, several special interest groups have pushed a narrative that law enforcement - police, sheriffs and other authorities - are using civil asset forfeiture to unfairly take money and property from innocent Alabamians.
That narrative is false. Law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture only to go after criminals, and state law already guarantees a process that is clear and fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court. State law also provides built-in safeguards that protect the property of those who have committed no crime.
Dave Sutton.jpg Sheriff Dave Sutton c/o Dave Sutton
What is civil asset forfeiture and why is it necessary?
First and foremost, civil asset forfeiture is a crime-fighting tool. It is used to both deprive criminals of the ill-gotten gains of crimes like drug-dealing and attack the means by which these crimes are committed.
Consider, for example, money seized in a drug raid. Drug dealers trade in cash. Not only do dealers sell their drugs for cash, they also use this cash to buy drugs from their suppliers. Taking just a few thousand dollars in drug money off the street means there is less money to buy drugs and, thus, less drugs being sold.
But it is also important to prevent criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime. We know drug money as well as cash derived from the sale of stolen goods are used to buy vehicles, guns, houses, jewelry and other items. It makes no sense to allow those who traffic in crime to keep the proceeds of their crimes. That would reward criminality.
It is critical that civil asset forfeiture remains a staple in the crime-fighting toolbox.
Here are some important facts to keep in mind.
Law enforcement and prosecutors can't go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime. Alabama law lays out a clear process that prosecutors must follow in going after a criminal's assets and an easy process for people to challenge the forfeiture.
More important, no asset can be forfeited in state court without the approval of a judge who weighs evidence both for and against forfeiture. Even in cases in which the property owner doesn't contest the forfeiture, a judge must still sign off on it. These proceedings begin with public document filings in circuit court and are disposed of in an open and public forum, with all proceeds subject to audit.
In fact, the procedures used in civil forfeitures are the same as those used in every civil lawsuit filed in Alabama. If there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we handle civil forfeitures, then there is also something fundamentally wrong with the way all lawsuits are handled.
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement. Though these changes may sound good, they would hurt public safety and make civil forfeiture less fair.
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
Prosecutors and law enforcement take issue with other parts of the proposed legislation. Alabama passed meaningful asset forfeiture reform in 2014 that strengthened safeguards and built on existing due process protections for criminal defendants, innocent owners and bona fide lienholders. We are always willing to work with lawmakers to strengthen Alabama's laws to fight crime and protect our citizens.
It would be an effective, “tool to fight crime.”
Yes, I was, but I think he knew it. Hopefully, it doesn’t end up being a prediction.
So you are trying to tell us Civil Asset Forfeiture is a tool to fight crime, e.g., drug dealers, pimps, and assorted low-lifes.
Lots of people would take that as a given.
But some of us civilians like to see numbers, and your op-ed doesn't seem to have any.
That worries me.
How about, to bolster your argument that law enforcement should be reimbursed for all their work on investigation, arrest of suspects and subsequent presenting of evidence of a crime to the DA--which are functions historically funded by the taxes we all pay--you give us a summary in round figures of what it costs to do a bust, how much cash and property was confiscated for a given period of time, and--most important to those of us who are not criminals--how much is taken from those who are not even charged.
I'm sure those figures are readily available, so how about it?
If no one claims the assets, then why shouldn’t the state keep them?
This is what many here at FR fail to understand about normal civil asset forfeiture.
That $10,000 in cash that Pedro had in his truck when he was pulled over? That doesn’t belong to Pedro. Ask him. He will tell you it is not his.
This being the normal instance of CAF; why would some stooge here argue that Pedro should keep that money?
Why?
Not only is your post racist, but you are missing the point. Civil asset forfeiture has been abused over and over by police and sheriff's departments to rob people of their meager assets on a whim. People with out of town plates are especially vulnerable, because it takes time and money to return to the jurisdiction to attempt to get it back. The cops know this, especially if they're looking to purchase some neat new SWAT gear.
Besides "Pedro" having his money confiscated, he also loses his truck, meaning his way to get to work. In many cases, the amounts confiscated are far less than $10k, and people have to hire a lawyer if they ever expect to get it back. No police officer has the right to take my assets on a suspicison of illegal activity. If you think they should, I advise you to never carry cash to purchase a used vehical.
I was going to reply but after reading yours I’ll just quote it as it’s the best.
anyone in favor of any form of this prior to a conviction is scum, a traitor and deserves to be beaten nearly to death with a ball peen hammer before being set on fore, the remains to be removed from the United States or its territories.
NO American can be in favor of this, in any way, shape of form; they are no countryman of mine and may they and their offspring be cursed forever.
So, would you support all this revenue going directly to the state’s general fund, as opposed to the agency/court/jurisdiction that stole it?
Strangely, they don’t use this on 99% of the felons in jail or prison, or else we wouldn’t have to pay for such institutions. If everyone incarcerated was guilty, doesn’t that mean their livelihood should be impounded, according to the writer? Yet, we don’t.
I can see locking up assets that are in question, but localities pocket this money and use it, never to return it.
This practice must stop.
Yeah, I got the gist. However, my indignation over asset forfeiture initially overrode the humor. I’m working on that fault and learning to laugh at our overlords and their machinations.
Very effective. So would preemptive death sentences for all demographics associated with crime....
I said many here at FR fail to understand the very basics of CAF.
You had to immediately prove my point.
Then you had to double down on stupid by not knowing that Pedro is as Caucasian as you are I. How could my post be racist?
Then you tripled down by making assumptions that I never even brought up. “Pedro also loses his truck”?
Whatever.
So, would you support all this revenue going directly to the state’s general fund, as opposed to the agency/court/jurisdiction that stole it?
___________________________________________________
I don’t really care where it goes. As long as it does not go back to the drug cartels.
I disagree vigorously, I believe the best way to get rid of a Bad Law is to Require Mandatory Strict Enforcement.
All Public Servants and Public Officials suspected of Criminal Wrongdoing shall be subject to 100% Civil Asset Forfeiture forthwith.
When they bust a drug dealer, they take EVERYTHING he owns, without exception, A public Servant, Official or an Officer of the Court is no better and deserve the same.
a simple ballot initiative would suffice to force the issue.
Additionally, it is very difficult to fight a civil asset forfeiture proceeding when the government you are fighting has limitless resources and your own resources have been seized by said government.
... while the seized vehicle is being intentionally abused and trashed by officers and agents. The I-10 corridor is notorious for innocent out of state travelers being targeted because they're driving a nice vehicle. They're then required to come back to try to regain their property, which is being used and abused, typically by undercover officers, while supposedly impounded. Vehicles have even been seized in speed traps. This isn't just Alabama, though. Other states are worse.
yes FRiend. i don’t like your “legal fiction” much either. a better way is surely available. however i would comment that it is the original intent of the Constitution that is paramount and must be our guide when legislating and effecting operational law enforcement at all levels of the Republic. and as always, the fear and anger running the desire for the simplistic is just as much Justice’s enemy as is the admittedly blundering machinery and massive power which must as a “necessary evil” be given to the State. there is no perfect solution to anything this side of heaven.
God bless.
I’ve seen articles in the past about places that have changed the revenue from going to the local cops to the state. For some reason, the cops no longer feel the need to steal money from random folks anymore.
Read a few of these asset-forfeiture stories and come back and explain why those were justified:
http://fear.org/1/pages/victim-stories.php
Until then, everything is merely alleged.
The author states having to wait for conviction is the problem.
I agree completely. If criminal charges are not filed within 10 days, the money needs to be returned immediately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.