Every day in the United States, law enforcement agencies across the country seize the assets of individuals who are suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Many law enforcement departments have come to rely quite heavily on seized cash to fund the future activities of the department. Seized assets often allow police and sheriff”s departments to purchase new vehicles, computers, weapons and other items needed to equip their officers. So, on the surface, especially in a bad economy, with lots of government cutbacks, it sounds like a good thing. But, is it really a good thing?
John Burnett, a reporter for National Public Radio, who has done considerable investigative work on the issue, reported that “Justice Department figures show that in the past four years alone, the amount of assets seized by local law enforcement agencies across the nation enrolled in the federal program – the vast majority of it cash – has tripled, from $567 million to $1.6 billion. And that doesn”t include tens of millions more the agencies got from state asset forfeiture programs.”
In this country, the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. There are some who are questioning the legality, based upon the 4th Amendment, of having their assets seized and never being charged with a crime, especially since the law enforcement agencies making the seizures are adding funds to help run their own departments with each additional seizure they make. As far as I know, it isn”t a crime to carry a large amount of cash on your person. But, some individuals, who were never charged with a crime, have had their cash seized by the police who stopped them for minor infractions. In some cases, individuals have had to go to court to try to get all of their money returned to them.
In December of last year, the St. Louis, Missouri Police Department was busted when it was discovered they had been keeping a “slush fund” of seized cash for many years. An audit revealed that the department had amassed about $6 million in seized funds of which much could have been and should have been returned to the rightful owners. The department had been earning interest on their multi-million dollar account and using it for whatever they deemed necessary.
St. Louis defense attorneys had been complaining for a long time that “the department kept their clients” money long after prosecutors had passed on the 14-day window to file formal seizure lawsuits.” In response to the revelation of what the department had been doing St. Louis defense attorney Tim Hogan said, “That”s what the mob does.”
Obviously, the number of law enforcement agencies in the country that have done or are doing something like what the St. Louis Police Department did is very small. But, the fact that it has been done creates suspicions. The current environment, especially due to the War on Drugs, is such that the “suspect” is responsible for proving that they came by any seized money legally, in order to have any hope of getting their money back. Granted, most cases of seized money involve illegally gained funds, but, not all. And, in a situation in which the cops don”t have to prove that seized money is related to illegal activities, it certainly opens up the possibilities for departments to hold on to seized money they shouldn”t keep.
In a perfect world, law enforcement agencies wouldn”t become addicted to the “dirty money” collected from seizures of alleged illegally gained dollars. Their equipment purchases would be handled through the normal budgeting process, funded by tax dollars from the government entity to which the agency is connected. And, all of the seized funds, that don”t have to be returned to owners, would be used for programs or projects unrelated to police work. The existing conflicts of interest would be eliminated. I don”t see this happening soon, but it should.
Gary Dickson is the Record-Bee publisher. He can be reached at gdickson@record-bee.com or 263-5636 ext. 24.
