I've been a critic of asset forfeiture by law enforcement since it first started. It seems like a great idea! If a criminal acquires assets such as homes, cars, or land, using funds obtained illegally, then they should not be entitled to keep those assets. That, in principle, makes perfect sense! The assets then should be used to compensate those injured by the criminals. If the assets were stolen, then they should be returned to the people they were stolen from. However if the assets were obtained from an illegal activity such as drugs, prostitution, or gambling, who should get the "loot" from the forfeiture? It would seem logical that the Government should receive the assets, as a representative of the people. However which Government should get the loot? City, State, or Federal? Also how should those funds be used? Somehow, our laws got twisted to make our Police forces benefit from "looting and pillaging" citizens so the police forces were entitled to take an keep any assets they could "capture" without any judicial process. They could pull over a car for a "fuzzy dice hanging from mirror" violation, toss a small bag of marijuana in the back and then claim the owner was a "drug runner." Then they could confiscate and keep the car, and the poor owner would have to spend their own money to hire a lawyer to get their car back. The car would be "guilty until proven innocent" --.!! There have been notorious cases where drug enforcement agencies have seized valuable real estate when pot plants (wild or planted) were discovered on the property. Forfeiture makes sense if we thought that the police forces would only use the right when they really were dealing with a criminal. But who determines that the person is a criminal, unless the person is charged and convicted of being one?
That is not the way our justice system is supposed to work!
It does make sense for the Government and Police to "capture" and "freeze" any assets at the time of the arrest. I'm sure police and prosecutors don't like the thought that a drug dealer might hire an expensive lawyer to defend them using proceeds from their drug business. However, who separates the funds obtained illegally from those that might be legal? The whole process needs to be "adjusted" to protect citizens from police abuse. Changes need to be made to protect citizens, but also capture those assets that might have been obtained illegally before they can be liquidated. It is a shame that police and prosecutors take laws that make sense when passed and then abuse them against good judgement. The "Three Strikes Law" made good sense when we passed it in California, and it was advertised and sold to the public as a way to get people who commit three "violent crimes" off the street. Then the police forces started using it to extort confessions out of people charged with non-violent crimes, and sent far too many people to prison for extended sentences for minor crimes, such as use or sale of recreational drugs. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as an attempt to combat the Mafia. Police forces and prosecutors used that law far beyond what it was intended, and now use it against kids neighborhood clubs, which they call "gangs." That has further violated many of our bill of rights freedoms. Now our California legislature is considering a bill (Senate Bill SB443) that will help reduce some of the unchecked powers our police forces have with asset forfeiture. The bill makes sense! See this article by Steven Grenhut in today's Union Tribune:
FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com
However, it is clear that the Police forces really do like "looting and pillaging" their neighbors. They are fighting hard to keep the right to steal our stuff for their own use, and try to prevent us from getting it back without hiring lawyers at our expense. I really do hope that the bill passes!
