|
|
|
Yesterday the online magazine Reason published another in a long line of articles about asset forfeiture, this time reporting that small towns police departments in Maine will increase the practice to make up for budget shortfalls. Asset forfeiture is the seizure by the government of property, generally if that property was used in committing a crime.
This, of course, sounds reasonable. Criminals guilty of crimes should be deprived of their ill-gotten gains. But when one considers that in civil asset forfeiture, widely used by the government, the conviction standards are considerably lower and the owner of the property must prove that said property is not subject to seizure rather than the burden being placed on the state as is normally the case in criminal proceedings. It should be clear to any observer that there is a serious potential for conflicts of interest and abuse on the part of the government, especially when there exists a motivation to make up for budget shortfalls.
Consider the case of the Minnesota waitress who, after being left a $12,000 tip in a to-go box, called the police. The police said that if no one claimed the money after sixty days, the woman could have it back. However, a drug dog found marijuana residue on the bills and the police refused to give the money back, offering her $1,000 as a reward instead. Because the money was allegedly “in the proximity of a controlled substance,” it can be legally seized. You can’t walk down the street without being in the proximity of a controlled substance. The woman got her money back only after filing a lawsuit.
If that doesn’t sound too unreasonable, consider the case United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. Here, the proprietor of a motel may lose his business because some of his guests were arrested for drug-related crimes. Notice that the defendant is the property, which itself is “accused of facilitating drug crimes,” and not the owner of the property. Because Massachusetts law is stricter than federal law, which states that the property owner show that they “did all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property,” the police pursued this as a federal case. The burden is on the proprietor to prove that he did everything that he could to prevent his guests from engaging in illegal activity – a virtual impossibility. Imagine if you owned a few thousand acres of land, leased that land to farmers, and some kids grew marijuana there without your knowledge. The state could take your property.
It should also be pointed out that the local police department in the above case is allowed “to keep 80 percent of the proceeds, whereas under state law it would get only 50 percent.” This doesn’t sound like justice.
The Institute for Justice has published a comprehensive report, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” for those who are interested in learning more about this issue. The report says, “It’s time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t lose their property without being convicted of a crime, and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to profit from other people’s property.”
Do you agree?
Word of the Day: Agnomen (noun): A nickname.
On This Day in History: The Peloponnesian War ends (404 BCE). New York requires automobile license plates; the first state to do so (1901).
Halen Allison, of Avoca, is a former United States Marine and has worked as an intelligence analyst for the military and government since 1998, serving in Japan, Afghanistan, and Germany. He has spent most of his adult life writing, both in an official capacity and in his personal life, on topics ranging from current events, history, and politics. After 13 years of travelling, Halen has recently returned to his hometown of Avoca, NY, where he is pursuing a master’s degree in Classical History.
“It is my hope that this blog will help generate interest and discussion in current events and political matters. “I aim to write engaging, well-argued pieces that will draw the reader in and compel him or her to consider perspectives far different from the mainstream.”
Ed Spencer’s professonal experience includes more than two dozen years as a professional journalist, where he was also a noted community activist. He also founded and owned a for-profit financial services firm, as well as a not-for-profit financial and legal services company that also offered training and workshops on issues surrounding persons with disabilities for schools and businesses. He is a pastor, a TEPE parenting educator, and a teacher, facilitator and trainer for Bridges Out of Poverty. He has pastored in five churches, and most recently founded Reverb Ministries in Bath. He is a member of the Bath Citizens Advisory Council and served on the Town of Bath committee that created a comprehensive land use plan.
“I want to present new perspectives and offer sometimes challenging thoughts. As King Solomon wrote, ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’ What remains for us is to rediscover truth. My personal mission statement (is) ‘Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’”
