Pubdate: Sun, 02 Mar 2014
Source: Savannah Morning News (GA)
Copyright: 2014 Savannah Morning News
Contact:  http://www.savannahnow.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/401
Author: Benita M. Dodd

GEORGIA'S DIRTY SECRET: ASSET FORFEITURE

There's no doubt that Georgia's law enforcement officials dislike
strings that restrict civil asset forfeiture, which is the power of
law enforcement to seize and keep property suspected of being involved
in criminal activity. They've told state legislators that, time and
again.

For the rest of Georgia, however, it's a problem.

Unlike with criminal asset forfeiture, under civil forfeiture the
owner of the property being seized does not have to be charged with a
crime. Cash, cars, homes and other property can be taken without even
filing charges, let alone convicting the property's owner of a crime.

It's a cash cow and an incentive for excessive enthusiasm, even abuse,
on the part of law enforcement. Why? As an op-ed by Dougherty County
Sheriff Kevin Sproul published in the Albany Journal last year noted,
"Currently, seized property or cash may be used by the law enforcement
agency that made the case against the offender."

"As your Sheriff, I have used such funds to purchase equipment for our
investigators, pay for a website to better track sex offenders, repair
damage from lightning strikes at the jail, and replace equipment that
failed during the year that was not planned for in our budget. ...
Making these purchases using seized funds means that we didn't have to
use tax dollars."

Georgia's sheriffs succeeded last year in halting passage of reform
legislation, although a watered-down version is still alive this year
in the state's legislative session. The resistance is no surprise:
Dougherty County reported seized assets from August 2012 to June 2013
totaled $189,000.

That campaign to reform civil asset forfeiture in Georgia has been led
by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law group, along with
the Georgia Public Policy Foundation and civil rights groups.

The Institute for Justice was in Maryland last week, testifying in
support of reform. It said current laws have departed dramatically
from early laws and fail to provide "adequate procedural safeguards to
protect innocent property owners while providing a loophole that
incentivizes the seizure of property."

Georgia is one state where the property can be seized and held even if
it does not belong to the perpetrator of the crime. If the criminal is
driving the parent's car, for example, or conducting drug deals in a
home owned by someone else, that property can be seized. And the
legitimate owner's fight for its return can be lengthy and expensive.
Meanwhile, the owner is deprived of the use.

Under Maryland's law, all proceeds from civil forfeiture flow to the
state general fund or the local governing body. Under Georgia law,
they go to the law enforcement agency. As a consequence, civil asset
forfeiture has morphed into a revenue-generating enterprise for law
enforcement.

Worse, the process is facilitated because of the lack of procedural
safeguards: "Because it is a civil proceeding, civil forfeiture does
not provide all the legal rights guaranteed to individuals charged
with a crime, such as the right to counsel," the institute said. "The
individual charged with a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence
and the government must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Property owners enjoy no such procedural protections in
civil-forfeiture proceedings."

If law enforcement agencies maintain that some Georgians must suffer
the injustice of property seizure without due process, then all
Georgians deserve transparency in how forfeiture is being used. The
central website where agencies are supposed to report the seizure and
disposal of assets, however, is often an afterthought and unevenly
applied.

Georgia's legislation would give oversight of the proceeds of asset
forfeiture to the state Prosecuting Attorneys Council, tighten the
rules on use of the funds and strengthen reporting requirements.
Uniform reporting requirements will allow policy-makers and citizens
to judge the effectiveness of forfeiture.

The litany of abuse and misuse of the proceeds from civil asset
forfeiture and the accounts of innocent victims of seizure are signs
that Georgians deserve, at the very least, a process governed by
transparency and accountability.

Benita M. Dodd is vice president of the Georgia Public Policy
Foundation, an independent think tank in Atlanta.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt