Pubdate: Thu, 19 May 2016
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.utsandiego.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Note: Seldom prints LTEs from outside it's circulation area.
Author: Jeff McDonald

U-T Watchdog

ACLU: ASSET SEIZURE HITS MINORITIES

A new report from American Civil Liberties Union says the federal 
government's civil asset-forfeiture program disproportionately 
affects minorities and poor people.

The program allows law enforcement agencies to seize cash and 
property from suspects without an arrest or conviction.

The advocacy group found that almost half of the seizures by the U.S. 
Drug Enforcement Administration in California involve people with 
Latino surnames, calling it an "ongoing attack" on people of color.

Federal drug officials said they had not been given a chance to 
review the group's analysis, but that the pattern seems to simply 
reflect their fight against Latin American drug cartels.

The ACLU provided The San Diego Union-Tribune an advance copy of the 
study. Local law enforcement agencies who participate in the program 
declined to comment on a summary of findings, saying they would wait 
until the report is released today.

As much as 85 percent of the assets seized is paid to agencies that 
are based in communities where the majority of residents are people 
of color, the ACLU study said.

The 10-page report found that California counties with higher 
per-capita seizure rates had annual household incomes that lagged the 
state median.

"Civil asset forfeiture was originally created to take away booty 
from drug 'kingpins,'" the report says. "But the practice has been 
perverted into an ongoing attack on Californians who can't afford to 
fight the government in court, a burden that falls disproportionately 
on low-income people and people of color."

Federal drug officials said the ACLU findings are linked to their 
focus on organized drug smugglers.

"DEA's primary focus is to investigate the major drug cartels and 
other criminal organizations who are smuggling, transporting, 
manufacturing and distributing drugs, and asset seizures result from 
those investigations," Amy Roderick of the San Diego DEA office said 
in a statement.

The ACLU also noted that based on caseload, the top 12 agencies 
participating in the seized-assets program are all in San Diego County.

In her statement, Roderick said the high numbers in this region are 
due to shared regional participation in drug-fighting efforts that 
allocate confiscated assets by proportion. The border region also is 
part of a federal law enforcement zone known as a High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, which may explain the increased caseloads.

According to the study, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department led 
all state law enforcement agencies in terms of number of seizures, 
with 1,511 between 2001 and 2014, netting the department $6.3 million.

San Diego police generated $6.8 million from 1,498 seizures over the 
same period, the ACLU report said. The San Diego County District 
Attorney's Office was third in the state, recording 1,342 cases that 
netted $2.2 million for prosecutors.

The Los Angeles sheriff's and police departments received the most 
revenue from the program, $24.3 million and $18.4 million, 
respectively. The two agencies combined participated in 939 cases 
over 14 years, fewer than police in Carlsbad and Escondido. They 
netted more money per seizure.

Under federal forfeiture rules, the receiving agencies may spend the 
proceeds on virtually any enforcement-related expense.

In recent years, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore directed millions 
of dollars in seized assets to overtime pay and building 
improvements. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis spent proceeds on 
travel and a banquet. San Diego police paid helicopter insurance premiums.

Instituted in the 1980s as a way to combat a rising tide of illegal 
drugs entering the United States, the federal asset-forfeiture 
program allows local law enforcement agencies to keep 80 percent of 
whatever cash and property they seize from drug suspects in 
partnership with federal agents.

Officers are permitted to seize cash and property they suspect may be 
profits from criminal activity, even if no charges are filed. People 
whose assets are confiscated may apply to have their money returned, 
but lawyers say the process can be slow and expensive.

The value of government-seized property has soared over the years, 
from less than $100 million in 1983 to more than $4.5 billion in 
2012, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, which analyzed civil 
asset forfeitures in a 2014 study.

Under state law, a criminal conviction is required for police to take 
property valued at less than $25,000, one reason local law enforcers 
team up with federal agencies to seize assets.

"California should be following California law, not circumventing it 
under federal law so they can keep more of the money," said Margaret 
Dooley-Sammuli, the ACLU of California policy director. "We have to 
strike a balance between due process and the activities of police."

The ACLU study cites several cases. In one, a food-truck owner who 
had $10,000 in cash taken by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies 
without being arrested hired a lawyer. A judge ordered the money 
returned, but by then the money had been transferred to federal jurisdiction.

"At that point, he was advised by his attorney to drop the case 
because fighting the U.S. Government is too expensive and has been 
known to morph from asset forfeiture into deportation of relatives or 
IRS involvement," the study said.

In 2014, the owner of a janitorial service was pulled over by L.A. 
sheriff's deputies, who seized $18,000 in cash she had withdrawn to 
pay her employees, the report said. The woman hired an attorney and 
won a refund of her money, but the process took two years.

San Francisco lawyer Dale Major represents a teenager who last year 
was in a minor accident while on his way to buy a car. Responding 
officers searched the car and found a small amount of marijuana, then 
seized the $4,000 his client had to pay for the car.

"The way the process is now, you're assumed guilty and you have to 
prove your innocence," said Major, whose case was recounted in the 
ACLU report. "There should be a more streamlined process than putting 
people with limited means, and in some cases limited education, into 
a very complicated legal process."

Major said his client, an 18-year-old Asian man, is still trying to 
recover his $4,000. He walks or takes the bus to his job.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom