WASHINGTON – Some
law enforcement officials are seizing assets and using them for their
own benefit in a conflict of interest that Congress needs to address
with new legislation, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said Wednesday.
Grassley,
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said asset forfeiture —
when law enforcement seizes cash and property suspected of being
associated with illegal activities even if the individual tied to those
items is never charged with a crime — is an important and valuable tool
that should remain in place.
But the Republican lawmaker said the
process is rife with abuse and needs to be fixed by Congress. Grassley
said the current process enables law enforcement officials to take
shortcuts and seize property without any proof of wrongdoing. It also
allows the government to violate the rights of the people it is
responsible for protecting.
"Iowans have raised their
concerns about asset forfeiture with me. It is past time to take
action," Grassley said. "But we should do so while recognizing the value
of civil asset forfeiture. And we should continue to allow proceeds to
flow to law enforcement, so long as there is no direct connection
between any particular asset that is seized and the agency that seized
the asset."
A recent Des Moines Register investigation
found that in Iowa alone, law enforcement agencies seized at least $43
million in forfeitures since 2009. A review of more than 600 cases
showed that in dozens of forfeitures, there was no record of criminal
charges or convictions for criminal activity.
FINDERS, KEEPERS:Stories from the Register's investigation
Sen.
Rand Paul, R-Ky., has proposed legislation that would require the
government to prove the property seized had been used as part of illegal
activity and that the owner had done so intentionally. Grassley also is
working on legislation that would protect innocent people.
The
call for reform has gathered support from Democrats and Republicans in
Washington because of concerns that law enforcement has become too
aggressive in seizing assets. Critics believe federal, state and local
enforcement have incentives to seize property and assets if they can
convert them to their own use.
The process also is difficult for
individuals who try to challenge seizures. The presumption of innocence
and the right to a state-appointed attorney are not available in civil
forfeiture cases. A person who tries to get his or her property back can
often spend more in legal fees than the item is worth.
MORE: What you need to know about forfeiture
"These
procedures are all stacked against property owners to the benefit of
the government, and that's not the way it should be when we are talking
about innocent property owners," said Darpana Sheth, an attorney with
the Institute for Justice.
The nonprofit public interest law firm
has rated Iowa's law one of the worst in the nation for protecting
innocent people from government forfeitures.
Russ Caswell, whose
family-owned motel in Massachusetts was seized by law enforcement
because of claims the property was facilitating drug activity, told the
Senate Judiciary Committee he believed he was targeted because he was
running a mom-and-pop operation and lacked the resources of a big
corporation to defend himself. With the help of Institute for Justice,
he later won in court.
"I have never been charged with or
convicted of a crime my entire life. No one in my family, or any of our
employees, has ever been involved in a crime at the motel concerning
drugs," Caswell said. "To us, the forfeiture case seemed ludicrous."
COMMUNITY FORUM: Reform Iowa civil forfeiture
Chuck
Canterbury, national president with the Fraternal Order of Police, told
the Senate panel his group agreed there is a need for changes to civil
asset forfeiture and said it is committed to working with lawmakers to
make improvements.
But he said some of the proposals — including
imposing a higher burden of proof on law enforcement and preventing
federal agencies from sharing profits from seized property with local or
state bodies — are problematic. He said resource-strapped police
departments depend on the federal government to help them with
investigations, and use the money gained from seizures to help with
safety and other programs.
"To end a decades-long program which is
worth hundreds of millions to our nation's communities and has
documented success in deterring and fighting crime based on anecdotal
media reports is simply not sound public policy," Canterbury said.
Grassley
later scolded Canterbury over his use of the word anecdotal, especially
for those whose assets have been unfairly seized. He said he was
confident local and state officials would be able to find additional
funding if they lost out on money from property seized by the federal
government.
"The public is becoming increasingly discontent with
the record of law enforcement in civil rights," Grassley said. "So from
me, a bit of advice: I think this is the wrong time for law enforcement
to display any kind of tin ear and oppose needed reforms."
No comments:
Post a Comment