T?e In I ax?He?f?ge'llFo 1 it ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY I HOW CIVIL FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY? HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS Civil asset forfeiture is a law enforcement tool with a dark side. Meant to ensure that “crime does not pay,” civil forfeiture laws allow police to seize property they merely suspect was involved in criminal activity. In many states, law enforcement authorities can keep whatever they seize as profits—leading some agencies to treat civil forfeiture as a way to raise revenue, often at the expense of innocent property owners. Every American knows that in a court of law they are innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture flips this on its head: Your property is guilty until you prove your own innocence. Arresting Your Property highlights egregious examples of cops seizing homes, money, and cars on dubious grounds. Fortunately, federal and state reforms can stop the abuse of this law enforcement tool, restoring due process protections for citizens caught in civil forfeiture’s pernicious web. To view the booklet online go to: www.heritage.org/ForfeitureReform and to view more examples of the abuse of forfeiture laws visit: www.heritage.org/ForfeitureAbuse TABLE OF CONTENTS How good intentions made bad policy: Federal forfeiture’s history...................4 How civil forfeiture affects an average citizen: Matt’s story.................................6 How hard is it to fight for your money?....................................................................10 Where do forfeiture funds go? Follow the money.................................................12 Equitable Sharing: The link between the feds and the states............................. 13 Shocking examples of unjust civil forfeiture............................................................14 Reforms: What can be done?......................................................................................17 Resources to learn more...............................................................................................18 Endnotes...........................................................................................................................19 HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 3 How Good Intentions Made Bad Policy: Federal Forfeiture’s History Civil asset forfeiture is a tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity. Forfeiture rests on the legal fiction that property itself can be guilty of a crime. This means that police and prosecutors can seize cars, homes, money, or valuables without ever having to charge, much less convict, the property owner with a crime. T he roots of civil forfeiture can be traced back to Medieval English common law, but in the U.S., these laws only came to the forefront during the Civil War and later during Prohibition, to enable the seizure of vehicles transporting illegal alcohol.1 Today, though, the use of these once-dormant laws has expanded exponentially, with the value of forfeitures measured in the billions and instances of abuse catalogued in nearly every state. SO HOW DID WE GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY? During the 1980s, federal and state law enforcement officials dramatically expanded the use of civil forfeiture as a tool in the war on drugs. Their reasoning was simple: By seizing the assets and ill-gotten gains of criminal kingpins, they could remove the financial incentive to commit crime. In 1984, Congress went a step further. It created the Assets Forfeiture Fund and enabled law enforcement agencies to retain the proceeds of their seizures.2 Prior to this reform, forfeiture funds were directed to the General Fund of the Treasury. Agencies now had a direct financial stake 4 ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY in generating forfeiture revenues, creating a perverse incentive for some overzealous investigators to engage in a form of legalized bounty hunting. States quickly followed suit—42 states dangerously shifted their law enforcement priorities toward the pursuit of profit.3 It is not surprising that with these direct financial incentives, civil forfeiture actions skyrocketed. Innocent and guilty citizens alike became targets for forfeiture. In 2000, Congress took up the cause of innocent property owners and passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA).4 CAFRA afforded modest due process protections for citizens but left in place forfeiture’s perverse financial incentives. The result: A system that encourages forfeitures and is stacked against innocent property owners. While many of these forfeitures involve people who have committed crimes, startling stories continue to surface of cops and prosecutors seizing homes, money, and cars on dubious grounds and leaving innocent victims in their wake. As abuses abound, it has become clear that the system is broken and is in dire need of reform. Civil forfeiture proceedings do not carry many of the basic legal protections Americans expect in their justice system: Legal Representation. Anybody who has watched Law and Order knows that in a criminal trial, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided at the government’s expense. No such right exists in civil forfeiture proceedings. Property owners must pay for their own lawyers, an expense that often exceeds the value of what has been seized. It is no surprise, then, that many property owners elect to navigate the impossibly complex forfeiture system alone or never even challenge a seizure in the first place. Burden of Proof. Unlike criminal cases, where the burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in civil forfeiture cases in most jurisdictions the government need only show that property is subject to forfeiture by a “preponderance of the evidence,” a much lower burden. And to seize property in the first place, the burden is lower still—mere probable cause. The bottom line: It is easy for property owners to get pulled into the forfeiture system and incredibly hard for them to escape it. Presumption of Guilt. In a criminal trial, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but in civil forfeiture proceedings in most jurisdictions, this basic legal tenet is flipped. The “innocent owner” defense requires that property owners prove a negative—that they did not know their property was involved in a crime. In effect, property owners must prove their own innocence to avoid forfeiting their property. How does civil forfeiture affect an average citizen? See Matt’s story on the next page. HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 5 MATT RECENTLY GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE AND IS ABOUT TO EMBARH ON A PROMISING CAREER AT HIS FIRST JOB LOCATED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. HIS PROUD PARENTS WISH HIM WELL AND SURPRISE HIM WITH $2000 IN CASH TO GET HIM ON HIS FEET IN HIS NEW LIFE ON THE WEST COAST. EFT. . - AS MATT CROSSES THE DESERT HEADING WEST, ALL. HE CAN THINK. ABOUT IS THIS EXCITING NEW LITTLE DOES HE KNOW THAT HIS . PLATES HAVE JUST MADE HIM A TARGET I?a-qqr . . I .. I . :71 2" 1? ,C?f MATT PARTICULARLY NERVOUS ABOUT BEING IT SEEMS LIKE A NORMAL TRAFFIC STOP WHEN THE OFFICER ASKS FOR HIS LICENSE AND REGISTRATION. 7 CARRYING . LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH WITH YOU: A THEN THE OFFICER ASKS U1 HIM IF HE IS CARRYING ANY - LARGE SLIMS OF MONEY. .1 ?4.23 v?u' . OAR GATE ME TO EET ON FEET. 1w. MOTINE TO CALIFORNIA TO STARTDAB NEW MATT IS BY THE OUESTION, SINCE IT ILLEGAL TO CARRY CASH. ISUT HE TRUSTS POLICE OFFICERS AND HE DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I'l I . APMISSION BEGINS A STARTLING CHAIN OF EVENTS. HE IS STUNNEEJI AS THE POLICE OFFICER SLASHES OPEN HIS BAGS. EMPWING THE CONTENTS OF HIS CAR ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. MATT, A LAW ABIPING Ci] CITIZEN, IS NOT SURPRISEO WHEN THE OFFICER FINDS NOTHING ILLEGAL IN HIS POSSESSIONS. K, UNDAUNTED, THE OFFICER CALLS IN A DRUG DOG. I BELIEVE IFOUR COVER STORY ABOUT MOVING TO CALIFORNIA. DID YOU KNOW As MUCH As RORI OF ALI. LLS. CURRENCY TESTS POSITIVE FOR TRACES OF NARCOTICE. MAKING IT II EAST FOR AN OFFICER TO SEE CURRENCY UNDER THE PRETEXT THAT IT IS 3 AFTER ALL THAT EFFORT. THE POLICE OFFICER FINOS - NO EVIDENCE OF ILLESAL ACTIVITY. NIATT THINKS THE OROEAI. IS ALMOST OVER, BUT THE POLICE OFFICER STILL THAT THE CASH WAS INTOLTEO IN A ORLIC TRANSACTION?24THE OFFICER DECIDES HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE To SEIZE .F . EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT MATT IS A CRIMINAL. MATT IS ANGRY BUT HE HAS NO CHOICE: THE OFFICER TAKES THE CASH, WRITES MATT A . RECEIPT, AND TELLS HIM TO . . MATT ARRIVES IN CALIFORNIA, BROKE BUT DETERMINED TO FIGHT FOR HIS MONEY- . I HE SEARCHES FOR A LAWYER TO REPRESENT HIM. BUT IS DISMAYED TO FIND THAT THOUGH HE IS INNOCENT IT WILL BE A LIPHILL BATTLE. LEISAL FEES WILL COST MORE THAN THE MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN FROM HIM. MATT DECIDES TO CUT HIS LOSSES AND TO LET THE NEVADA POLICE KEEP HIS MONEY. NRASLSLOTHHW ?an. . My TOP LOCAL 5mm: . (I POLICE DEPARTMENT In. EXCEEPED FGRFEITURE - GOALS FOR THE - FUNDS ON A WEEKEND STAFF RETREAT IN LAS AND A - mm ALMA MATER. 11mm hpA butTHE SHOCKING STORY YOU JUST READ IS BASED ON A REAL INSTANCE OF CIVIL ASSET ORFEITURE. How hard is it to fight for your money? PROPERTY SEIZED Seized by Feds Seized by state Forfeiture proceedings conducted in accordance with state law. Adopted by Feds Under CAFRA: CAFRA rules govern all non-customs federal forfeitures. Is this an adoptive forfeiture?3 Under customs laws: • Property <$500,000 • Illegal imports • Conveyance used in controlled substances offenses • Monetary instruments NO YES Agency has 60 days from date of seizure to send notice of seizure & intent to forfeit to interested parties. Agency has 90 days from date of seizure to send notice of seizure & intent to forfeit to interested parties. Court clerk issues arrest warrant in rem. Referred to US Atty for judicial forfeiture proceedings (to be initiated within 90 days of filing in CAFRA cases) Gov’t complaint alleges sufficient facts such that it can meet its burden of proof at trial. Did the gov’t file its complaint on time? NO Administrative/ Non-judicial Forfeiture Reasonable attempts are made to notify all interested parties of the forfeiture action; actual notice is not required. Did the owner receive notice? YES Did the agency meet the deadline? NO U.S. Atty forwards petition to the Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Division in Washington, D.C., for a ruling. YES Property owner must file claim opposing forfeiture within: • 35 days after date of mailing of notice letter, or • 30 days from date of last publication Was petition for remission/ mitigation granted? NO ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY YES Mitigation5: Property owner may argue some relief is warranted, even if not full remission. Agency official must decide whether to grant or deny the petition within a reasonable amount of time. Ruling is not usually subject to judicial review. YES Timely claim with all necessary information is filed. Property owner has 21 days to file an answer to the gov’t’s complaint: • Denying gov’t allegations • Including all affirmative defenses Timely Answer is NOT filed Timely answer is filed. YOU WIN: NO ONWARD TO COURT Government returns property, (for now).2 CAFRA Administrative Forfeiture 10 • Valid interest in the property as owner/lienholder • That he/she is an “innocent owner,” i.e., innocent of the alleged criminal activity. NO Was petition for remission/ mitigation granted? Federal Seizures Federal Judicial Forfeiture Timely claim with all necessary information is filed. To be eligible for remission, must establish4: NO Property claimants must file a claim or statement of interest within 30 days of the date of service of last publication. Customs Administrative Forfeiture Timely claim is NOT filed Is owner eligible? YES Timely claim is NOT filed COLOR CODES Property owner may simultaneously file a petition for remission or mitigation within 30 days of receiving the forfeiture notice. Did the owner meet the deadline to file claim opposing forfeiture? YES YES NO Property forfeited.1 Timely claim is filed Claimant has 20 days to file a claim opposing forfeiture & post a cost bond. • Once/week for 3 weeks in large circulation paper, or • Posted on gov’t website for 30 days Property owner may simultaneously file a petition for remission or mitigation within 30 days of receiving notice. Must be filed with the U.S. Atty for the district where the case is brought. Has there been a finding of good cause for the delay? State Forfeiture Notice of seizure/ intent to forfeit posted: Deadline can be extended an additional 30 days by federal supervisory officials; 60 days by court order. YOU LOSE: Timely claim is NOT filed 1 The agency has made a final determination that all “right, title, and interest in [the] property [is] vest[ed] in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(f). 2 Possession of the property is transferred back to the party challenging the forfeiture. This does not necessarily preclude future forfeiture actions. 3 Adoptive forfeitures have been largely limited by recent, internal DOJ policy. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/16/attorney_general_order_prohibiting_adoptions.pdf. 4 Remission is the return of seized property after some internal administrative process is conducted by the seizing agency. 5 Mitigation is the return of a portion of the seized property, after the owner admits it was used in illegal activity, and if the seizing agency finds extenuating circumstances to justify the return. HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 11 Where Do Forfeiture Funds Go? Follow the Money As Columbia, Missouri, Police Chief Ken Burton described civil forfeiture funds, “It’s kind of like pennies from heaven. It gets you a toy or something that you need, is the way we typically look at it.” “N eed” may be too strong a word. Throughout the country, law enforcement agencies have made some highly questionable purchases with their forfeiture dollars, often depending on the money from forfeiture for a substantial portion of their budgets each year: • The town of Sunrise, Florida, abused forfeiture laws to bring in millions of dollars, but the town did not have the legal staff needed to handle the volume of cases they were bringing and could not use forfeiture funds to pay for new staff. The solution? Use a local law firm instead. The town was knocked by the Justice Department for steering nearly $375,000 to the firm in a sweetheart deal, without even being able to produce a contract for the firm’s services. The town also paid officers working asset forfeiture sting operations more than $1 million in overtime and fringe benefits—all of it financed from the very forfeiture cases they were handling.5 • The District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, Paul Howard, spent thousands of dollars of forfeiture funds on office parties, alcoholic beverages, NBA tickets and other extravagances for his employees. Howard spent another $6,000 in forfeiture proceeds on a home security system for his private residence. In an amazing display of the lax rules governing forfeiture expenses, all of these purchases were deemed above board.6 • The Camden County, Georgia, Sheriff’s office was banned from the federal Equitable Sharing program until the office repaid $662,000 that an audit revealed had been used inappropriately. Over 15 years, the Camden County Sheriff’s office had seized over $20 million in forfeiture funds. The Sheriffs were able to keep and spend this considerable amount of money with relatively few checks and balances. Sheriff 12 ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY Bill Smith used some of it to pay for splurges, like a $90,000 Dodge Viper for their D.A.R.E program that, according to the Sheriff’s spokesperson, is needed because “the whole point of this car is to grab the kids’ attention.” But that wasn’t nearly the worst of it. Smith paid jail inmates $50 a week to renovate and build his weekend home, the Ponderosa, and donated $250,000 to The Citadel, Sheriff Smith’s alma mater, to develop a scholarship in his name. Sheriff Smith was voted out of office in 2008, but the new sheriff, Tommy Gregory, worked to have Camden reinstated in the Equitable Sharing program—by paying off the debt with increased state forfeiture funds.7 • The City of Philadelphia has perfected turning their law enforcement personnel into bounty hunters. According to the Institute for Justice, from 2002 through 2012, Philadelphia seized $64 million in funds, averaging about $6 million a year. The forfeiture tally is incredible: 1,172 homes, 3,290 vehicles, and $44 million in cash.8 They run their forfeiture program like a well-oiled machine—from the cop who seizes the property to the convoluted hoops people have to jump through to contest the seizure at City Hall. The process is dragged out for months, even years, putting property owners at the mercy of office schedulers and a few prosecutors. Facing a steep uphill battle and uneven odds, it is not surprising that many owners give up. Philadelphia law enforcement agencies are dependent on forfeiture revenue: The $64 million forfeiture pot equaled 20 percent of the District Attorney’s office’s general budget. $25 million was used to pay law enforcement salaries, including salaries of the prosecutors who bring the forfeiture actions against property owners.9 For many property owners, it’s not always sunny in Philadelphia. Equitable Sharing: The Link Between the Feds and the States Civil forfeitures are not always executed solely by state and local law enforcement in state courts or by federal agencies in federal courts. Sometimes, the two cooperate. Under a federal program known as “Equitable Sharing,”10 local or state law enforcement authorities that are “directly” involved in the seizure of property that is later civilly forfeited through federal procedures are eligible to receive up to 80 percent of the resulting proceeds. “P articipation” can mean taking part in a federal investigation or participating in a joint task force. Until recently, state and local authorities could also take advantage of a process known as “adoptive forfeiture,” where virtually any type of property could be seized under state law, and then handed off to the federal government for forfeiture under generally more permissive federal forfeiture laws. The originating agency would then receive up to 80 percent of the value of the cash or property. By order of the U.S. attorney general, adoptive forfeitures have been curtailed, but not ended. Federal agencies can still adopt forfeitures under a “public safety” exemption or they can obtain a federal seizure warrant for any property the exemption does not cover. Equitable Sharing is big money for law enforcement agencies. Since 1984, when the Equitable Sharing program was first implemented, more than $5 billion in forfeiture funds has been distributed. In one year alone, Justice Department payouts to state and local authorities totaled $657 million.11 Thousands of police departments and sheriffs’ offices participate; according to The Washington Post, hundreds of them rely on Equitable Sharing payouts for more than 20 percent of their budgets.12 However, there is a significant catch to these funds: They must be used exclusively for “law enforcement purposes.” This puts control of the funds—and their use—solely in the hands of the officials executing the seizures, outside of the control of legislators. Equitable Sharing distorts local and state law enforcement priorities. In many jurisdictions, the forfeiture bounty has been great, but actual arrests and prosecutions have been few, which suggests that some agencies are more concerned with acquiring money than with stopping criminals. And as states enact laws to protect innocent property owners, Equitable Sharing offers a federal means to circumvent them. In many states and on Capitol Hill, a growing chorus of lawmakers and policy experts has denounced this program.13 Starting in fiscal year 2019, the District of Columbia has mandated that all Equitable Sharing funds go directly to the city treasury, which will effectively take D.C. law enforcement out of the program altogether.14 Recently, the Justice Department announced that it would restrict the practice of “adoptive forfeitures,” with several significant exceptions.15 But this administrative change, while laudable, lacks the force of law and could be reversed at any time. It is also filled with caveats and special exceptions and touches only one small part of Equitable Sharing—adoptive forfeitures, which make up a small and diminishing percentage of the entire program. The bulk of the Equitable Sharing program is alive and well. Even taking into account this recent DOJ policy shift, the program deserves the attention of Congress. HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 13 Shocking Examples of Unjust Civil Forfeiture These are just a few examples of innocent victims who have fallen prey to civil asset forfeiture abuse. For more instances go to www.heritage.org/ForfeitureAbuse. G EORGIA — Iraq War veteran Andrew Clyde owns a small gun shop armory in Athens, Georgia. In April 2013, the IRS seized nearly $1 million from the company’s bank account. Without any prior warning, two IRS agents showed up at his work with a seizure warrant. They justified their seizure citing a structuring offense—making repeated cash deposits under $10,000 allegedly to avoid the creation of any record of those deposits. Even after his lawyer proved that all of the money was legitimately earned through lawful activity, the IRS still refused to return his money. Instead, the IRS offered a deal: If he let them keep $300,000, the rest would be returned. Although Clyde decided to fight, after several months of costly (over $150,000 in legal fees) and time-consuming negotiations, he settled before going to trial, forfeiting $50,000. Testifying at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Clyde said, “I did not serve three combat terms in Iraq only to come home and be extorted by my government’s use of civil forfeiture laws, but that is what I feel they have done to me, and I need you to stop it from happening to anyone else.”16 IOWA — In Spirit Lake, Iowa, Carole Hinders owned and operated her restaurant, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food, for nearly 40 years. In August 2013, through a secret warrant and with no warning, the federal government seized Carole’s entire bank account—nearly $33,000. She was not charged with any crime, nor did the government claim that her money was earned through any illegal activity; however, she was told by two IRS agents that they seized her account because she had made several cash deposits of slightly less than $10,000. The IRS viewed this as an attempt to avoid a federal reporting requirement on deposits 14 ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY DID YOU KNOW? The IRS and other agencies can seize and forfeit bank accounts of individuals and small businesses for alleged structuring violations, using a law designed to help combat money laundering. The Bank Secrecy Act requires a bank to file a report for every transaction of more than $10,000 in currency, but there is nothing in the law that says deposits must come from an illegitimate source. The government has increasingly used a law designed to catch criminals trying to launder their ill-gotten gains to target honest citizens. Between 2005 and 2012, more than a third of IRS structuring cases were civil cases where structuring itself was the only alleged offense. Over the same time period, funds seized purely for alleged structuring violations rose to $26.5 million, an increase of 111 percent. Between 2007 and 2013, funds actually forfeited in these cases rose 490 percent.17 The Justice Department recently issued new rules limiting seizures of bank accounts and other financial assets involved in a structuring violation until after a defendant has been criminally charged or has been found to have engaged in additional criminal activity. While this is a step in the right direction, it still lacks the force of law and could be reversed at any time. exceeding $10,000. The simple explanation for this was that Carole’s small establishment was cash-only; to avoid the danger of keeping large amounts of cash at the restaurant, she made frequent deposits to her bank account. Pro bono representation by the Institute for Justice made it possible for her to challenge the seizure, but the impact on her business was still devastating. After 16 months of litigation, the IRS agreed to return her money—she is one of the lucky ones. “I did not do anything wrong, but they took my money,” said Ms. Hinders. “I was unable to pay my bills for the first time in my life. I had to borrow money, use my credit cards and beg vendors to extend me credit. This nightmare has left me broke, frightened and exhausted.”18 Minnesotans for their own personal use. Among their prizes: Flat screen televisions, jewelry, sports memorabilia, and cash. One seized SUV was returned with 20,000 more miles on it than when it had been taken. Strike Force personnel were accused of physically assaulting those whose property was being seized. In one particularly disturbing incident, an officer attempting to kick a woman kicked her toddler in the head instead. The Strike Force was terminated in 2009 after its unconscionable tactics were made public. Victims of the illegal seizures and abusive tactics were awarded $840,000 in a settlement. Minnesota reformed its forfeiture laws in 2014 to require a criminal conviction before property can be forfeited. 20 MICHIGAN — At the Contemporary Art Museum in Detroit, Michigan, in 2008, a fun night out at a “Funk Night” event for 130 attendees morphed into a scene out of an action movie. Armor-clad police stormed the party with their guns drawn, forced attendees to the floor, and seized 40 vehicles from those in attendance. What heinous crime necessitated this treatment? It turned out that, unbeknownst to Funk Night patrons, the Art Institute failed to get a permit to serve alcohol. Using Prohibition-era reasoning combined with modern civil asset forfeiture law, the police determined that merely attending made everyone complicit. And because the cars were used to transport their users to the party, the cars were also “guilty” and subject to seizure. Police even seized a car parked in a friend’s driveway over a mile away from the Art Institute. Attendees had to pay $900 each to have their vehicles returned. Ironically, one of the patron’s vehicles was stolen from the impound lot—a crime made possible by the Detroit police. Thankfully, a federal district court judge held the Funk Night seizures unconstitutional, calling the incident part of a “widespread practice” of detaining everyone present at a venue without an alcohol permit, searching them, and seizing their cars simply because of their presence.19 NEW YORK — For 27 years, brothers Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch ran Bi-County Distributor Inc., a small business that sold candy, snacks, and cigarettes to local convenience stores. In May 2012, three family business bank accounts totaling more than $446,000 were seized by the IRS. Why? Just like in Carole Hinders’s case, authorities alleged that the Hirsh brothers had committed a “structuring” violation by making repeated cash deposits of less than $10,000. Two years later, none of them were charged with a crime, nor were they able to contest the seizure in front of a judge because federal prosecutors refused to file a forfeiture motion. They were literally left languishing while their money remained frozen. Bi-County was able to survive only because long-time, faithful vendors extended credit, but the toll has been demoralizing. “We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Jeff Hirsch said. “We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”21 In January 2015, after considerable national media attention, including a front page article in The New York Times and an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, federal prosecutors agreed to return all of the seized funds to the Hirsch brothers. MINNESOTA — Minnesota’s infamous Metro Gang Strike Force, a multi-jurisdictional task force, was dissolved over the widespread abuse of civil forfeiture laws. Strike Force personnel seized property from PENNSYLVANIA — In March 2014, police arrested Chris and Markela Sourovelis’s son for selling $40worth of heroin to an undercover police officer. Soon after the arrest, the Philadelphia Police Department raided their home, SWAT-style with guns drawn, and found small amounts of the drug in their 22-year-old HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 15 son’s bedroom. As if it was not shocking enough to learn that their child had a drug problem, the Sourovelises discovered they were now homeless. Their home was being confiscated under civil forfeiture laws, which do not require the property owner to be the one who actually commits the crime.22 After a lengthy legal battle, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office was finally forced to back down in December 2014—a miracle just in time for the holidays.23 TEXAS — Between 2006 and 2008, Tenaha, Texas, established itself as a hotbed for civil forfeiture abuse. Tenaha police executed dozens of traffic stops in which vast sums of money and property were seized, though no criminal charges were filed against drivers or passengers. One of the victims of this abuse, Dale Agostini, had set out to buy restaurant equipment with his fiancée, his young child, and an employee. Tenaha police stopped Agostini for allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road, searched his car, and discovered a treasure trove totaling $50,000 in cash. Although Agostini had proof that the money was clean, police arrested him for money laundering, seized his cash, and turned his child over to child protective services. Police never charged Agostini and returned his child, but it took months before he got his money back. These deplorable tactics generated millions of dollars for Tenaha and prompted a class action lawsuit. The city settled in 2012.24 VIRGINIA—In November 2012, Victor Guzman, a Pentecostal church secretary originally from El Salvador, and his brother-in-law were stopped for speeding near Emporia, Virginia on Interstate 95. The Virginia State Trooper did not issue them a ticket, nor did he charge them with a crime. Instead, the trooper searched Guzman’s vehicle, discovering $28,500 in cash. Guzman explained to the officer that the money came from donations to their church, and did not belong to them. He said that they were carrying the money with the church’s permission in order to 16 ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY purchase a trailer and a parcel of land for their parish, facts later confirmed by church officials. The trooper paid no attention, stating that their stories were “inconsistent” and that they had “disclaimed ownership of the money.” This was not surprising since they told the trooper that the money belonged to the church and any “inconsistency” (more likely a misunderstanding) was probably due to the fact that Guzman’s brother-in-law spoke no English whatsoever and English was Guzman’s second language. The trooper seized the cash and left Guzman with a receipt. Guzman’s church eventually got its money back, but only after a lawyer took on the case pro bono and challenged the seizure in court.25 WISCONSIN — In Brown County, Wisconsin, Joel Greer was arrested by the County Drug Task Force, with bail set at $7,500. As any good mother would, Beverly Greer immediately set to work gathering the funds necessary to free her son. Beverly called the Brown County jail, where Joel was being held, and was explicitly told to bring the bail in cash—even though Wisconsin law allows you to pay for a bond with a cashier’s check, credit card, money order, or cash. A series of visits to ATMs secured the $7,500, and Mrs. Greer reported to the jail to bring her son home. But rather than accept the cash and release her son on bail, Brown County police brought in a drug dog, which alerted to trace amounts of illegal drugs on the bills. Brown County police then seized the cash and refused to release Joel Greer. To justify this, the police simply ignored the ATM receipts proving she had withdrawn the money from her bank and called the cash “drug money.” In reality, it was the family’s hard-earned savings and Mrs. Greer’s disability pay. The Greers didn’t get their money back for four months—and only after an attorney got involved on their behalf. Under Wisconsin law, law enforcement authorities may keep half of any seized amount exceeding $2,000, creating a perverse incentive for local law enforcement authorities to seize first and ask questions later.26 What Can Be Done? Civil forfeiture abuse threatens the integrity of our criminal justice system and ought to concern all Americans. Thankfully, there are a variety of common-sense reforms. These reforms include: Restore Legislative Control of Forfeiture Proceeds by Redirecting Them to the General Fund. Law enforcement should not be a profit center. Lawmakers should bar law enforcement agencies from retaining the forfeiture funds they generate and mandate that these proceeds go instead to a jurisdiction’s General Fund. to face alone. Because of its quasi-criminal nature, claimants who cannot afford counsel should be able to petition a court for the appointment of counsel at the government’s expense, and victorious property owners who retained counsel should be afforded a chance to recoup their attorney’s fees. Eliminate Equitable Sharing. The federal government should not be encouraging state and local law enforcement to bypass state and local laws. Equitable Sharing hampers state efforts to protect innocent property owners and reinforces the profit motives at the core of forfeiture abuse. Internal DOJ policy changes are insufficient; the program should be abolished. Until then, states should consider policy reforms that disallow their law enforcement agencies from bypassing their own laws. Protect Property Owners’ Rights in Administrative Forfeitures. Most federal civil forfeiture cases begin and end in the bowels of a federal agency. Agencies should be required to reform their internal procedures to make the process fairer and more transparent, clearly advising potential claimants about their rights to contest a seizure and to legal representation. Property owners should also be afforded the right to a prompt pre-seizure or immediate post-seizure hearing before a judge. Raise the Burden of Proof. The government should be required to demonstrate that property is subject to forfeiture by “clear and convincing evidence,” a standard significantly higher than the current “preponderance of the evidence.” Reaffirm the Presumption of Innocence. Property owners should not have to disprove the government’s case; rather, the burden should be on prosecutors to demonstrate that owners knew their property was being used in the commission of a crime. Ban “Bartering.” Property owners should not be pressured into waiving their rights on the side of a road or in the heat of the moment. All law enforcement agents should be barred from “bartering”— offering to let property owners go if they sign away their property on the spot. Provide for Indigent Defense. Forfeiture is a highly complex system that most citizens are ill-prepared Ensure Transparency Through Reporting Requirements. Law enforcement agencies involved in civil forfeiture cases should be required to record the details of their seizures and forfeitures. These reports should specify what was seized, the amount or value of the seized goods, the alleged criminal conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, whether anyone was ever arrested for, or convicted of, said criminal conduct, whether the forfeiture action was challenged, the final disposition of the property or currency, and how forfeiture funds have been spent. Provide for Review of Forfeiture Settlements. Given the complexity of forfeiture law and the tremendous pressure that property owners face to settle forfeiture cases (sometimes because they are threatened with criminal charges if they continue to contest the forfeiture), in cases in which a claimant is not represented by counsel, any proposed settlement should be reviewed by a neutral third party, preferably a judge. HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 17 Resources to Learn More Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture By: Institute for Justice www.endforfeiture.com LEGA L LEGA L LEGA L MEMOR MEMORMEMOR ANDU ANDU ANDU M M M Civil Asset Civil Asset Civil Asset Forfe Forfe Forfeiture: and the and the and the Need for iture: Good Need for iture: Good Need No. 151 No. 151 for20,Refor Good Inten Inten John G. Inten April April ReforJohn tions Refor tions20,Gone 2015 2015 Malcolm Malcolmtions m G. Malcolm Gonem GonemAwry Awry Awry John G. Abstrac Abstrac No. 151 April 20, 2015 Abstrac Despite t Despite t Despite t civil asset civil asset civil asset nocent nocent nocent forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture victims victims victims ’s noble has ’s noble has ’s noble and law has swung swung too and law enforcem intention swung too and law enforcem intention enforcem intention too far s, the many s, the many far in favor far in favor ent abuses ent abuses ent abuses s, the many laws, however, laws, however, laws, however, in favor storiesof law stories of law enforcem of law enforcem prove thatwe stories of prove that of in-enforcem prove that of inwe the inin the opposite we must in the opposite in the opposite must themust the pendulum be be careful be careful ent. In reforming ent. In ent. pendulum pendulum direction careful not to direction direction transpare transpare nottranspare not to swingIn reforming to swingnt,reforming . The process . The process . The process swing nt, the forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture nt, the thethe the pendulum severely severely the pendulum severely profit incentive profit incentive profit incentive pendulum should should should n n Civil n Civil Civil asset constrain constrain be constrain be be asset asset made fairer made made fairer too far of forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture ed, and ed, andtoo far of forfeiture ed, and too far of forfeiture fairer a fiction: forfeiture a fiction: forfeiture is based there there should a fiction:should and more andthere is based isand should should based should more more that property that property that who seek should be returned should be who seekshould who beabolished on should beguilty on on property be be be returned returned guilty guilty of be seek abolished greater to profit greater greater of atocrime of a crimebe abolished can be can can be to its to profit a profit oversight orto its original or original posited posited oversight posited feited to feited to oversight feited to crime and therebybe and and. Civil from their to its original from from thereby thereby or . Civiltheir . Civil their into the into the into thethe the the purpose: purpose: illegal ment purpose: illegal sovereign forforforasset asset general general assetillegal activities generalregardless of whether of whether sovereign of whether sovereign regardless ment authoriti ment penalizinregardless activities activities authoritipenalizin authoriti penalizin treasury, treasury, treasury, any individual g those nothingcharged g those . If such es from esindividual charged. If any charged any individual such nothing seeking seeking . If suchesfunds seeking from g those nothing from funds going with or funds were with is ever would would preclude an increase going to Congress wouldanpreclude anwith or convicted were to were increase going increase todeconvicted is ever crime crime related or convicted is ever Congress crime preclude related in their in their de-Congress or their in ofbudgets of adeof a their or their or theirrelated to that law law law enforcea to that property. budgets budgets n The enforcestate legislaturenforcestateto that property. state legislatur n The n The property. or victims’ or victims’ or victims’ he chairmen he chairmen hegoal goal behind goal behind chairmen behindlegislatures and es and es and compensaof compensa compensathis fiction the the developm the developm this fiction this oftion developm fiction have stated of the Senate have stated tion have the the Senate Senate is is is funds. funds. and deprive ent tion funds. ent deprive statedent deprive of a means andaHouse a top priority that reformin and House a top priority that reformin top criminals of a means to criminalsthat House criminals of a means to reformin to g their priority their nefarious of the Judiciary Judiciary Judiciary of the fruits g federalinspecto g federal for them. 1 for them. 1 for of the fruits federal their nefarious nefarious inspecto inspecto fruits them. 1 Committ Committ of civil asset of labor, labor, labor, sometimeof The Departm civil asset The Theees r r GeneralCommitt r General incivil in cases casesasset Departm in cases sometime sometime ees Departm ees how some General (DOJ how how where where whereforfeiture forfeiture forfeiture (DOJ iG) (DOJ ent some entsome ent s s s it may that that particular that particular it may be iG) iG) has of Justice’s of Justice’s federal federal laws laws particular be clear Justice’sit may belaws clear is issuedin of ister their federal agencies has issued ister their ister agencies ishas issued agencies property property clear property their Office Office Office of is in aseveral in a crime, a crime, several forfeiture several crime, forfeiture forfeiture and and and of of was was was the state the state those the and and to critical program critical critical staterecently recently recently used used to use reports those those fundsand to use some used program and local and local and local reports some some funds funds to use announc programs. 2 announc reports announc 2 s. 2 And victims of on to compensa to compensa of authoriti authoriti authoriti And Attorney table Sharing table Sharing compensa ofon ed certain ed certainon s. Andtable ed certain victims victims Attorneyof crime. Sharing es admin-policy Attorney of crime. of crime. te the te the adminthepolicy policy departmeGeneral program program programes te General General es admindepartme departme changes n Regrettab n Regrettab n Regrettab Eric Holder Ericas Eric Holder as part part of changes ntal review as part of changes related ntal review ntal Holder related related review of ly, the ly, ly, the procedure a “first Why Why all to DOJ’s to DOJ’s toWhy to effectuate procedure of the of the federala “first of the federala “firsttostep” DOJ’s Equieffectuate effectuate thetoprocedure step”all this step” allinof this EquiEquis s s in used used used a a a a a intention of this attentionfederal asset intentionin aof“compreh intention civil civil civil “compreh “compreh skewed skewed asset assetskewed attention attention forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture forfeiture s, s, s, civil asset against against against ensive” ensive” ? The answer ? The answer ? The answer are are are asset forfeiture of reform. civil asset forfeiture of reform. civil oferty innocent innocentensive” innocent erty owners program erty owners program program reform. owners forfeiture 3 propis that, is that, .3 .prop. 3 propwhose property that, whose have have been whose property has gone Civil has gone has gonehaveisbeen property despite despite despite Civil asset Civil been awry asset awry awry andmisused misused asset may may its its good its good engage engage engage misused by others may and isforfeiture and forfeiture forfeiture by others eage, 4 that eage, 4 that eage, 4 is in serious in seriousisgood in criminal in is in by others to in is based is based to based on over, that property property propertyactivity. over, in criminalserious over, in criminal activity. to need need activity.need on a fiction, many instances, many instances, Morea fiction,in many instances, can be can be can beMore- on a fiction, Morebegan as began as guilty of guilty of began as albeit one albeit whatguilty of a crime albeit what what one of ancient one of ancient a means a means a crime aThis This paper, This paper, crime of ancient paper, end end has end has a means to a laudable to a laudablelinand andbecome hasand in its entirety, in itsthereby inbecome its entirety, become thereby thereby to a laudable linlinentirety, The Heritage The Heritage The Heritage can be can can forfeited an anforfeited an end in forfeited be found be in end in itself. n n Civil n Civil found at Foundation Foundation Foundation endfound atto at http://report itself. itself. 214 Massachuset 214Civil http://report 214 Massachuset http://report to to asset asset asset Massachuset .heritage.org .heritage.org .heritage.org returned forfeiture returned forfeiture should returned forfeiture should Washington, Washington, Washington, ts Avenue, ts Avenue, ts Avenue, should /lm151 /lm151 to/lm151 NE NE NE DC 20002 DC DC be be be its original (202) 546-4400 (202) 546-4400 (202) 20002 penalizing penalizingto its original purpose: penalizingto its original purpose: 546-4400 20002 heritage.org heritage.org heritage.org purpose: those those who those who Nothing Nothing Nothing profitwritten profit handsome profit handsome who seek seek seek written written handsome to here here here ly Foundation Foundation Foundation illegal activities. illegal activities. ly from to illegal activities. ly from to from be or as an is to be construed or as an is to be construed or as an is to construed theiras their their attempt attempt attempt as as Key Point s T T to aid or Key Point s Key Point s T necessarily necessarily necessarily to aid or to aid or hinder the hinder the hinder the reflecting reflecting reflecting the the the passage passage passage of any bill views of The of any bill views of The of any bill views of The Heritage Heritage Heritage before Congress. before Congress. before Congress. Civil Asset 1. What is FACTSHE FACTSHE Civil Civil FACTSHEET No. 141 ET No. ET No. 141 March 141 March March Forfeiture: Asset Forfeiture: Asset Forfe 26, 2014 26, 2014 iture:26,72014 7 Thing 7 s You Shou Things You Shou Things You Shou ld Know ld Know ld Know 1. 1. What is civil asset What is civil asset civil asset asset forfeitur forfeitur asset forfeitur forfeitur asset forfeitur forfeitur e?enforcem e?enforcem e? civil e is a e is a e is a enforcem civil civil ent officialslegal tool that ent officialslegal tool that ent officialslegal tool that assert has assert allows allows allows to seize assert to seize to institute has has institute institute seize property law law law property property event—be been involved event—be event—be activity. been involved activity.thatbeen involved activity. that thatcause to toinget to get in inget In fact, In fact, Incause cause the theythe they they the certain certain fact, the a liquor a liquor the owner certain doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t institute institute a liquor license. institute criminal criminal criminal owner license. license. and andofstill even even need owner even need of theasset ofstill had had failed had You can and still You can You can theasset thebe failed be be unable asset forfeiturneed to be property property unable unable to be guilty to be be seizing beguilty be totally failed forfeitur forfeitur totally totally property seizing seizing guilty of to stop to stop innocent ofyour prop your prop to stop the governm innocent e proceedi e proceedi e proceedi the governm ofyour prop the governm innocent a crime: a crime: a crime: itself with itself itself erty. erty. civil civil ngs charge withcivil ngs charge with ngs charge involvem involvem ent from erty. ent ent from that police involvement thatthe thatthe the property ent ent 4.inWhat 4. in 4. What from police police property property What in a a crime. a crime. can seize can seize ifvaluables if I’m if I’m valuables can seize your crime. valuables This means This This innocen innocen your car, means meanst? people I’m innocent? car, car, home, without without yourpeople without t? Surely,people home, can’t can’tmoney, can’t have Surely, Surely, with a crime. withmoney, with ever having home, ever having money, have their a crime.or a have crime.their ever having Being innocent Being Being innocen innocen innocen their or innocent innocent There are There are There toinnocent toinnocent to charge t t charge chargedoes or innocent property property are many, does not property taken.t does to return to return to return you you you not many, many, people people people taken. taken. not mean many many mean mean your your your and property and property and being strippedmany being stripped beingthat stories stories property property property stripped the United stories theaUnited theaUnited state has property. The that a state has state ofby of by. The of . The that by law of their ofhas law Supreme their States States States Supreme Supreme enforcem of their money law enforcem money money owner” owner” owner” has held enforcem court court court 2. Why 2.ent. 2. ent. ent. defense defense has held that defense has held that Why would Why would that the would we is not constitut Furtherm Furtherm “innocen of is not constitut the “innocen of “innocen of is not constitut the we ever Furtherm forfeitur forfeitur forfeitur ore, even we ore, ore, ever do ever do t even t t even ionally ionally ionally do innocent innocent innocent e e isinintended in states this? aToday, e is intended this? Today, states where this? required required required Today, owner.civilin states where owner. a tool they is intended to a owner tool they where . to on toon civil civil defense, defense, defense, on you.do give law tool they give give you you. you. can use lawYour law do Your Your thetoburden the burdenyou the burdenyou do have an have haveproperty including can use to go including including enforcem can use to go enforcem enforcem property property an an gountil until you untilisyou after afterisyou ent dealers after ent isdealers is typically drug typically typically organize organize presume provedthatdrug provedthatent is presume prove that is presume While its drug dealers and organize While d While and and itscrime, its your your your d to d to be d to be crime, crime, roots in roots youin you are you are theirmodern their their be guilty property property property guilty guilty are organiza roots in the common organiza organiza modern modern the the innocent innocent innocent therefore therefore therefore common In In In civil forfeitur common law civil civil tions. tions. tions. other other other andwords, and that and forfeitur forfeitur law law should should should words, words, that that on the on are on are are deep, the deep, thedeep, not e is justified e isnot enot you must you must not notbe grounds grounds grounds is be justified justified involved involved involved forfeited you must prove not be forfeited forfeited prove that it allows that it allows that to seize to primaril toprimaril primaril seize the seize in criminal in. criminal prove (1) it allows . (1) (1) that eitherlaw either either had in. criminal the theyassets thatlaw y you lawEquitab had had activity activity that you criminal assets and ill-gotten criminal criminal enforcem yassets and ill-gotten enforcem enforcem were were no knowled no no knowled activity and you were and ill-gotten Equitab knowled and and (2) being Equitab being being s, Sharing s, s, entge that (2)used (2) that using using leent leent ge that ge used thatto that Sharing Sharing gains gains gains to fight leusing to to the property to the property used the property to facilitate toyou you you fight fight your your property facilitate facilitate that your property to to ofagainst ofagainst of these against these these property the the the Payme Payme Payme Statesother alleged and Statesother alleged and Statesthe the commiss the commiss other Unfortun Unfortun Unfortun commiss and nts nts ntsproceeds was was was proceeds proceeds ion of a ion of a ately, civil ately, civil ately, civil allegedion IN IN IN criminal criminal criminal of a crime byMILLIONS byMILLIONS byMILLIONS crime law enforcem laws.enforcem laws.enforcem s. OF DOLLARSasset forfeitur OF DOLLARSasset OF DOLLARSasset forfeitur forfeitur Equitab Equitab Equitab crime $750 $750 $750 ent as a ent as ent as a and many and and e is e is le Sharing is also used many many also of also of Sharing way to way to le way to lee Sharing used to the States its targets ato itsPayme generate generate thegenerate Payments Payments targets to the the public. of its targets the the public. used States States revenue, are innocent public. are innocent are innocent revenue, revenue, nts 2013: $657 2013: 2013: IN MILLIONS IN MILLIONS IN MILLIONS members $657 millionmembers $657 millionmembers million OF DOLLARS of OF DOLLARS of OF DOLLARS 3. But don’t 3. But of $750 3. But $750 $750 don’t don’t Unfortun police target Unfortun police target Unfortun police target $500 only $500 only $500 only criminal ately, no. ately, no. ately, no. innocent innocent innocent There are criminal There are criminal 2013: There 2013: $657 s? s?people s? 2013: $657 are many people people $657 million many many having having having For example, Forstories For million million stories stories example, $500 propertyexample, $500 property $500 of between their of between their of between their property enforcem enforcem seized. 2006 and enforcem ent ent agents 2006 and 2008, seized. ent agents 2006 and 2008, seized. 2008, in a systematagents in Tenaha, in a systemat in Tenaha, in a systemat in Tenaha, law law law $447 $447 ic practice ic practice ic practice Texas, Texas, Texas, $447 $250 $250 $250 property property property engaged engaged engaged of seizing million of seizing million of seizing million from from innocent $250 from innocent $250 $250 no evidence innocent nocash nocash cash and evidence evidence and of and of drivers drivers drivers $447 $447 $447 wrongdo wrongdo with with with absolutel police seizedof wrongdoing. police police absolutel absolutel seized seized ing. million million $188 $188 y $188 y y the home ing. Inmillion Philadel brother,million the home of In Philadel brother,million the brother, home of In Philadel $188 phia, $188 $188 million phia, of two sisters who did who did who did two sisters phia, two sisters million million million trying to trying trying not live whose whose whose $0 $0 $0 to evade not live there, to evade not live there, there, showed evade $0 $0 $0 showed showed the cops. the cops. over over over 2002 a hundred the cops. In Detroit, a up aup up while hundred hundred In 2002 In 2002 while while 2002 2002 2002 2005 2005 2005 cars owned cars owned Detroit, cops cars owned Detroit, cops cops 2005 2005 seized by patrons seized2005 by patrons seized 2010 by patrons 2010 2010 FISCAL FISCAL YEAR YEAR Source: of an art of an FISCAL YEAR 2010 2010 2010 2013 of an 2013 FISCAL FISCALSource: U.S. FISCALSource: U.S. U.S. 2013 Department art Department art Department YEAR Source: YEAR YEAR Source: Source: U.S. Department Civil Asset Forfeiture: Good Intentions Gone Awry and the Need for Reform By: John G. Malcolm The Heritage Foundation of Justice. For more 2013 U.S. Department of Justice. informatio heritage.orgn, please For more visit http://her U.S. 2013 of Justice. Department of Justice. informatio heritage.orgn, please itage.org. 2013 of Justice. For more informatio heritage.org heritage.orgn, please visit http://her itage.org. Civil Asset Forfeiture: 7 Things You Should Know By: The Heritage Foundation of Justice. heritage.org visit http://her heritage.org itage.org. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers www.nacdl.org/forfeiture American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org/assetforfeiture The Forfeiture Racket: Police and prosecutors won’t give up their license to steal By: Radley Balko Reason.com Taken: Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrong-doing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing? By: Sarah Stillman The New Yorker Stop and Seize: Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes By: The Washington Post—6 Part Series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Segment on Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse HBO 18 ARRESTING YOUR PROPERTY Endnotes 1 See Marian R. Williams, Jefferson E. Holcomb, Tomislav V. Kovandzic, & Scott Bullock, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Institute for Justice (March 2010), available at http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf. 2 Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 (1984). 3 Policing for Profit, supra note 1. 4 Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000). 5 See Office of the Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Audit of the City of Sunrise Police Dept’s Equitable Sharing Program Activities (2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2014/g4015003.pdf. 6 See Report: Fulton DA Spent Public Funds on Parties, Athens Banner-Herald (June 7, 2013), http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-06-07/ report-fulton-da-spent-public-funds-parties. 7 Terry Dickson, Camden County Works Way Back into Federal Seized Assets Program, Fla. Times Union, Dec. 7, 2011, available at http://jacksonville.com/news/ crime/2011-12-07/story/camden-county-works-way-back-federal-seized-assets-program. 8 See Fighting the Philadelphia Forfeiture Machine: Philadelphia Deprives People of Their Rights While Trying to Forfeit and Profit from Their Property, Institute for Justice, available at http://www.ij.org/philadelphia-forfeiture-backgrounder. 9 Id. 10 21 U.S.C. § 881(e)(3). 11 See Civil Asset Forfeiture: 7 Things You Should Know, Heritage Foundation Factsheet No. 141 available at http://www.heritage.org/research/ reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know. 12 See Robert O’Harrow Jr., Sari Horwitz, & Steven Rich, Holder Limits Seized-asset Sharing Process that Split Billions with Local, State Police, Wash. Post, Jan. 16, 2015, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html. 13 See Letter from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), & John Conyers (D-MI) to Eric Holder, Attorney General (Jan. 9, 2015), available at http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397679. 14 See Jason Snead & Andrew Kloster, Washington, D.C., Civil Forfeiture Reform: A Model for the States, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4312 (Dec. 5, 2014) available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/washington-dc-civil-forfeiture-reform-a-model-for-the-states. 15 See Attorney General, Order, Prohibition on Certain Federal Adoptions of Seizures by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (2015), available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/16/attorney_general_order_prohibiting_adoptions.pdf. 16 Richard Morgan, IRS Apologizes After Seizures Hammer Small Business, N.Y. Post, Feb. 11, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/lawlets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0] 17 See Dick Carpenter II & Larry Salzman, Seize First, Question Later: The IRS and Civil Forfeiture, Institute for Justice (Feb. 2015) available at http://www.ij.org/ seize-first-question-later. 18 Shaila Dewan, Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required, N.Y. Times, Oct. 25, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/ law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=1. 19 See, e.g., Press Release, Federal Judge Rules CAID Raid Arrests and Car Seizures Unconstitutional, ACLU (2012), available at https://www.aclu.org/ criminal-law-reform/federal-judge-rules-caid-raid-arrests-and-car-seizures-unconstitutional. 20 Office of the Minnesota Comm’r of Pub. Safety, Report of Metro Gang Strike Force Review Panel (Aug. 20 2009), available at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/co/about/Documents/final_report_mgsf_review_panel.pdf. 21 Shaila Dewan, supra n. 18. 22 What’s Yours Is Theirs: A Homeowner Challenges Philadelphia’s Abusive Civil Forfeiture Law, Wall St. J., Sept. 4, 2014, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/ whats-yours-is-theirs-1409702898. 23 Press Release, Institute for Justice, Philadelphians Save Homes from Civil Forfeiture Machine—But Continue Legal Fight over City’s Unconstitutional Program (Dec. 18, 2014), available at http://ij.org/philadelphia-forfeiture-release-12-18-2014. 24 Sarah Stillman, TAKEN: Under Civil Forfeiture, Americans Who Haven’t Been Charged with Wrongdoing Can Be Stripped of Their Cash, Cars, and Even Homes. Is That All We’re Losing?, New Yorker, Aug. 12, 2013, available at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken. 25 Editorial Board, Forfeiture Without Due Process, Wash. Post, Jan. 2, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forfeiture-without-due-process/2011/12/22/gIQAckn3WP_story.html. 26 Jason Snead & Andrew Kloster, Bail Bond Bait and Switch: Police Seize Money from Innocent Mother, The Daily Signal (Dec. 4, 2013), http://dailysignal. com/2013/12/04/capitalizing-mothers-pain-civil-forfeiture-wisconsin/. HOW CIVIL A$$ET FORFEITURE TURNS POLICE INTO PROFITEERS 19 Endorsed By he American Center for Law and Justice T (ACLJ) and its globally affiliated organizations are committed to ensuring that freedom and liberty are viable in the United States and around the world. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for almost 100 years, has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. American Conservative Union Foundation’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform advocates conservative reforms for our justice system. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest individual membership organization of state legislators, is dedicated to promoting free markets, limited government, and federalism throughout the states. The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is an independent research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to advance free-market public policy. The Charles Koch Institute is an educational organization focused on the importance of free societies and how they increase well-being for the overwhelming majority of people. Generation Opportunity is a national, non-partisan organization advocating for economic opportunity for young people through less government and more freedom. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation is Georgia’s statefocused free-market think tank, established in 1991 with the mission of improving Georgians’ lives through public policies that enhance economic opportunity and freedom. The Heritage Foundation develops and promotes public policy solutions that advance free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Institute for Justice, as the national law firm for liberty, engages in cutting-edge litigation and advocacy both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights to private property, economic liberty, free speech, and school choice are denied by the government. Justice Fellowship, the advocacy arm of Prison Fellowship, promotes reforms based on biblical restorative justice principles so that communities are safer, victims are respected, and lives are transformed. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. The NFIB Small Business Legal Center is the voice for small business in the nation’s courts and the legal resource for small business owners nationwide. Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. Reason Foundation advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. Texas Public Policy Foundation is a research institute advancing free enterprise, private property rights, and individual liberty, which launched the Right on Crime initiative in 2010 to promote criminal justice policies that enhance public safety, empower victims, and reduce costs to taxpayers. 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington DC, 20002 (202) 546-4400 heritage.org