Brian Silber Law

Civil Forfeiture Attorney

Free Initial Consultation

(954) 462-3636

Show the Way

Report Suggests Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Little Impact on Drug Use or Solving Crime

By

squad-car-1209719_1920-300x162A report released yesterday questions the value of civil asset forfeiture as a means to reduce crime. While proponents of forfeiture tout its ability to target drug traffickers, the report argues that forfeiture as a practice has not led to reduced drug use. The report also argues that that revenue from forfeitures has only led to a “very small” increase in the number of crimes solved.

In its report, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue,” the Institute for Justice looked at ten years of data relating to the federal equitable sharing program. Civil asset forfeiture is a procedure where law enforcement agencies may take possession of an individual’s property if it is suspected of being involved in a crime. Equitable sharing is a specific form of asset forfeiture where local or state law enforcement team up with the feds on a case.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), civil asset forfeiture is an essential tool to remove “the proceeds of crime” and that “asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals.”

In the case of equitable sharing, 80 percent of the proceeds of any forfeiture goes back to local or state law enforcement agencies while the feds keep the remaining 20 percent. This money is then used to fund local law enforcement operations. Speaking back in 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions presented this as a good thing: “Civil asset forfeiture takes the material support of the criminals and, instead, makes it the material support of law enforcement—funding priorities like new vehicles, bulletproof vests, opioid overdose reversal kits, and better training,” he said.

According to Dr. Brian Kelly, the study’s author, because law enforcement agencies are able to fund themselves through asset forfeiture, they are able to avoid proper governmental oversight. He writes that “in allowing agencies to self-fund, the financial incentive circumvents democratic controls. Agencies acquire forfeiture funds outside the normal appropriations process, enabling spending without legislative approval.”

While several states have made moves to limit civil asset forfeiture or suppress it altogether at the state level, this does not necessarily stop law enforcement agencies from participating in the federal equitable sharing program. For example, in North Carolina, there is no civil asset forfeiture. All forfeitures should be processed criminally. To circumvent this restriction, North Carolina police departments frequently participate in equitable sharing. As well as retaining 80 percent of the proceeds, it is considerably easier to process a civil asset forfeiture through equitable sharing is considerably easier than it is to process a criminal asset forfeiture. Not only is the bar for evidence lower, but defendants have no right to counsel, making it harder for innocent owners to get their property back.

Kelly also found that forfeitures increased during periods of economic stress, with a 1 percent increase in unemployment rates leading to a 9.5 percent increase in the number of assets seized. This suggests law enforcement uses forfeiture to increase their cash flow when local budgets are tight.

“The ability to generate revenue,” concludes Kelly, “is a significant motivator of police forfeiture activity.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2019-06-19 Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue

South Carolina Police Defend Civil Asset Forfeiture

By

squad-car-1209719_1920-300x162Last week, I reported on the state of civil asset forfeiture in South Carolina—that between 2014-16, law enforcement agencies seized property and cash worth at least $17 million with little oversight on how those assets were taken or used.

With 95 percent of the proceeds from civil asset forfeitures going to fund law enforcement, it is clear there are incentives for police in South Carolina to carry out civil forfeitures. This is known to critics of civil asset forfeiture as “policing for profit.” Last week, I reported on gatherings where officers could earn prizes for having the most property seizures.

Jarrod Bruder, executive director at the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association, feels it is important that law enforcement keeps this money. “What is the incentive to go out and make a special effort [if law enforcement doesn’t keep the proceeds from forfeitures]?” he asked. “What is the incentive for interdiction?”

Critics of civil asset forfeiture argue that forfeiture should be tied to criminal charges. These criminal cases, they argue, should include proof that the seized assets were used in a criminal offense. Money the criminal happened to be carrying at this time of arrest should not be taken if it was not involved in a crime. In a fifth of forfeitures, no one was charged with a crime.

Travelers Rest Police Chief Benjamin Ford said he believes the system is fair because property owners are able to fight in court to have their property returned. In only 6 percent of cases, however, was property or cash returned in full to the property owner.

In criminal cases, defendants have access to legal counsel, and a high standard of proof is required for conviction. In civil asset forfeiture, however, property owners must pay for their own lawyers, and the standard of proof to forfeit property is much lower, only requiring “a preponderance of the evidence.” In many cases, it costs more to recover seized property than the property is worth.

Facing these obstacles, many individuals feel it isn’t worth fighting for their property.

A majority of seizures are carried out against African Americans—even though African Americans account for only 30 percent of the state’s population, 71 percent of seizures are against black people. Black men account for the overwhelming majority of these cases.

Jimmy Dixon, Clemson police chief, argues the stream of forfeiture money is essential for the operation of police departments. Cutting this income “could potentially shut down our K-9 unit,” said Dixon. “Overall, our ability to conduct undercover narcotics operations could be stifled.”

Jake Mahoney, a lieutenant at the Aiken Police Department, believes funds would have to be taken from their budget to cover drug enforcement operations.

Derek Cohen, executive director at the conservative criminal justice organization, Right on Crime, argues that the police should be fully funded from the budget allotted to them—money which comes from taxpayer dollars and is fully accountable. It should not, he says, depend on how aggressively a police department carries out civil asset forfeitures.

“No one is saying ‘Don’t fund law enforcement,’” said Robert Johnson of the libertarian Institute for Justice. “What we’re saying is law enforcement should be funded without regard to the amount of money that they receive.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2019-02-03 Civil Forfeiture – Police Defend SC’s System, Say Seized Cash is Vital

Nashville Renews Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Program

By

city-3195717_1920-300x200After a lively debate, the Metropolitan Council of Nashville, Tennessee has agreed to renew its participation in a controversial federal civil asset forfeiture program called “equitable sharing.” Opponents from both the left and the right argue the program encourages “policing for profit.”

Civil asset forfeiture is the legal procedure where law enforcement can seize an individual’s property or cash without filing criminal charges. In most states, all that is required is the suspicion that the property was involved in a crime. In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In Tennessee, in cases where a vehicle is seized, however, the burden of proving innocence lies with the property owner.

Earlier this year, Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam signed into law reforms of the state’s civil asset forfeiture procedures. The new law requires the state’s law enforcement agencies to disclose where money from civil asset forfeitures is spent. Between 2009 and 2014, law enforcement seized $86 million in cash, yet there has been no reporting on where that money was spent. Additionally, while there are statewide records of how much cash was seized at this time, there are no records of how much physical property—for example, vehicles and electronics—were seized during this time.

The libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ) which has long opposed the practice of civil asset forfeiture applauded the changes but sounded a cautionary note. “By itself, improved transparency cannot fix the fundamental problems with civil forfeiture—namely, the property rights abuses it permits and the temptation it creates to police for profit,” said Jennifer McDonald of IJ.

Further, while these reforms apply to forfeitures carried out at the local and state level, they do not appear to apply to the federal equitable sharing program. In the period between 2009-2014, Tennessee law enforcement agencies received an additional $69 million in funds from equitable sharing.

Equitable sharing is a type of civil asset forfeiture where local law enforcement partner with the feds on a case. The federal government keeps 20% of the proceeds; the regional law enforcement agency receives the remaining 80%. As part of the program, the law enforcement agency has to keep the money for itself. In other states where restrictions have been placed on civil asset forfeiture, agencies use equitable sharing to avoid these restrictions and keep the money for themselves.

Critics of civil asset forfeiture and equitable sharing argue the programs give police departments an incentive to seize property, leading to what’s known as “policing for profit.”

Councilman Freddie O’Connell argued against Nashville renewing its participation in the program. He represents a low-income neighborhood. These areas are often the most affected by civil asset forfeiture, and innocent owners may not be able to afford a lawyer to help retrieve their property.

In the end, the argument came down to the city’s need for cash. The fire department and schools are in need of money. The new police oversight board will cost an additional $1.5 million. More money is needed, and equitable sharing provides needed funding for law enforcement.

In voting in favor of continuing equitable sharing, Councilman Doug Pardue, a former police officer vented his frustration. “It’s obvious the damn council isn’t going to help them [Nashville law enforcement],” he said. “They beg for equipment, and that’s what this money is used for.”

The measure passed 25-5 in favor with two abstentions.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Sources

2018-11-30 Civil Forfeiture Approval Shows Nashville is Desperate for Cash

2018-05-22 Tennessee Will Require Law Enforcement to Report Their Forfeiture Spending

Nashville Renews Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Program

By

city-3195717_1920-300x200After a lively debate, the Metropolitan Council of Nashville, Tennessee has agreed to renew its participation in a controversial federal civil asset forfeiture program called “equitable sharing.” Opponents from both the left and the right argue the program encourages “policing for profit.”

Civil asset forfeiture is the legal procedure where law enforcement can seize an individual’s property or cash without filing criminal charges. In most states, all that is required is the suspicion that the property was involved in a crime. In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In Tennessee, in cases where a vehicle is seized, however, the burden of proving innocence lies with the property owner.

Earlier this year, Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam signed into law reforms of the state’s civil asset forfeiture procedures. The new law requires the state’s law enforcement agencies to disclose where money from civil asset forfeitures is spent. Between 2009 and 2014, law enforcement seized $86 million in cash, yet there has been no reporting on where that money was spent. Additionally, while there are statewide records of how much cash was seized at this time, there are no records of how much physical property—for example, vehicles and electronics—were seized during this time.

The libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ) which has long opposed the practice of civil asset forfeiture applauded the changes but sounded a cautionary note. “By itself, improved transparency cannot fix the fundamental problems with civil forfeiture—namely, the property rights abuses it permits and the temptation it creates to police for profit,” said Jennifer McDonald of IJ.

Further, while these reforms apply to forfeitures carried out at the local and state level, they do not appear to apply to the federal equitable sharing program. In the period between 2009-2014, Tennessee law enforcement agencies received an additional $69 million in funds from equitable sharing.

Equitable sharing is a type of civil asset forfeiture where local law enforcement partner with the feds on a case. The federal government keeps 20% of the proceeds; the regional law enforcement agency receives the remaining 80%. As part of the program, the law enforcement agency has to keep the money for itself. In other states where restrictions have been placed on civil asset forfeiture, agencies use equitable sharing to avoid these restrictions and keep the money for themselves.

Critics of civil asset forfeiture and equitable sharing argue the programs give police departments an incentive to seize property, leading to what’s known as “policing for profit.”

Councilman Freddie O’Connell argued against Nashville renewing its participation in the program. He represents a low-income neighborhood. These areas are often the most affected by civil asset forfeiture, and innocent owners may not be able to afford a lawyer to help retrieve their property.

In the end, the argument came down to the city’s need for cash. The fire department and schools are in need of money. The new police oversight board will cost an additional $1.5 million. More money is needed, and equitable sharing provides needed funding for law enforcement.

In voting in favor of continuing equitable sharing, Councilman Doug Pardue, a former police officer vented his frustration. “It’s obvious the damn council isn’t going to help them [Nashville law enforcement],” he said. “They beg for equipment, and that’s what this money is used for.”

The measure passed 25-5 in favor with two abstentions.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Sources

2018-11-30 Civil Forfeiture Approval Shows Nashville is Desperate for Cash

2018-05-22 Tennessee Will Require Law Enforcement to Report Their Forfeiture Spending

Significant Reforms to Civil Asset Forfeiture in Philadelphia

By

agreement-business-businessmen-886465-300x200In 2014, Philadelphia police seized the home of Chris and Markela Sourovelis after their son was arrested for selling drugs worth $40 outside on their property. The police used a process known as civil asset forfeiture to take the property. This is a legal procedure where law enforcement can take someone’s property or cash if it is suspected of being involved in a crime. They can do so without a criminal conviction or even filing criminal charges.

According to the Institute for Justice (IJ), the use of civil asset forfeiture in Philadelphia has gone “unchecked” for years. Until recently, all funds from civil asset forfeiture seizures went directly Philadelphia’s law enforcement.

Between 2012-17, the District Attorney’s Office and the Philadelphia Police Department spent over $7 million from these funds. More than 18 percent of the DA’s annual budget came from civil forfeitures. There was little oversight on these funds: they were used to pay for submachine guns, a website, and even parking tickets.

When Chris and Markela discovered they were not alone, they joined a class-action lawsuit against the city filed by IJ. The suit claimed that the DA’s Office, the City, and the First Judicial District violated due process during seizures.

On Tuesday, the prosecution and law enforcement came to a consent decree agreement—that is, a resolution where there is no admission of guilt or liability—which announced significant changes to the application of civil asset forfeiture in Philadelphia.

Under the settlement, funds from civil forfeitures will no longer go to the Philadelphia PD. Instead, the money will be given to nonprofits. If an arrest is simply for possession of drugs, police may seize the illegal drugs but no property. Law enforcement will now provide a receipt of seized property; the receipt will also contain instruction on how to get the property back. An individual may soon file for the immediate return of property if it affects his or her livelihood—for example, if the person works as an Uber driver and his or her vehicle is seized. A simplified legal process will be put in place, and the process will now be under the control of judges rather than the prosecutors.

Philadelphia’s District Attorney, Larry Krasner, spoke approvingly of the agreement. “This settlement agreement was a long time coming and something our city needs… We will focus on cases where there is a conviction and, thanks to the settlement, residents now have additional protections and a clear process to retake possession of their property.”

“The settlement is going to make civil forfeiture a lot harder to pursue,” said Darpana Sheth of the IJ. “They have a higher standard of proof. They have to show the property owner knew about or consented to the illegal activity.”

In order for the agreement to go into effect, it needs to be approved by Judge Eduardo Robreno. A $3 million fund will be available for people who had property seized to receive compensation. Individuals not convicted of a crime will receive 100 percent of the value of their property. First-time offenders and low-level offenders will receive 75 percent of the value.

“This is a good resolution because it reforms a system that, left unchecked, can prey upon the most vulnerable. People who, in many instances, have no understanding of their rights and no one to fight for them,” said Mayor Jim Kenney. “In short, this settlement makes Philadelphia a more just city.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Sources

2018-09-19 Civil asset forfeiture reform – Don’t Expect Philly DA and Police to Stop Seizing Money Anytime Soon

2018-09-18 Philly Civil Forfeiture Suit Settled, Program Changes Coming