Pubdate: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 Source: Orange County Register, The (CA) Copyright: 2016 The Orange County Register Contact: http://www.ocregister.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321 Author: Nick Sibilla Note: Nick Sibilla is a writer at the Institute for Justice. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) A SECOND CHANCE TO END POLICING FOR PROFIT Circumventing state laws designed to protect Californians from abusive police seizures, law enforcement agencies have routinely seized property from people never even charged with a crime. But later this month, lawmakers are expected to vote on a sweeping overhaul of "civil forfeiture." Numerous scandals have plagued civil forfeiture in California. One of the most infamous was the botched drug raid that killed reclusive millionaire Donald Scott. Searching for a suspected marijuana grow operation, 30 law enforcement officers from seven agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, the DEA, the LAPD and the National Guard, raided Scott's 200-acre ranch in 1992. Rendering the scene downright surreal, personnel from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory were also on site. No drugs were found. Months after the raid, the Ventura County District Attorney concluded that "forfeiture was at least one of the motivating factors" behind the raid. (Tellingly, two of the officers present were from the L.A. County Sheriff's asset forfeiture unit.) Spurred to act, California lawmakers enacted sweeping reforms in 1994. To better protect the due process rights of Californians, law enforcement would first need a criminal conviction before real estate, vehicles and cash under $25,000 could be forfeited to the state. Today, only 10 states require a criminal conviction as a prerequisite in most or all forfeiture cases. Unfortunately, the law failed to address a federal forfeiture program that has incentivized police to do an end-run around California law. If an agency collaborates with the feds, they can collect up to 80 percent of the forfeiture proceeds through "equitable sharing." According to a report by the Institute for Justice, between 2000 and 2013, California law enforcement received almost $700 million from the U.S. Department of Justice. By comparison, agencies collected less than $280 million through state forfeiture laws during that same period. Determined to restore respect for federalism and civil liberties, state Sen. Holly Mitchell and Assemblyman David Hadley are co-authoring Senate Bill 443. Before California agencies could collect funding through equitable sharing, SB443 would oblige that defendants first be convicted of a crime in federal court. The bill would also expand the state's conviction requirement to all types of property and for all amounts. The bill received widespread, bipartisan support in the Senate, but stalled in the Assembly last year. Law enforcement officials typically defend forfeiture laws for "taking the profit out of crime." Yet the Institute for Justice found that, out of all equitable-sharing forfeitures in California from 2000-13, half were under $8,920. Such modest sums are a far cry from confiscating the assets of drug kingpins. Moreover, equitable sharing plainly circumvents state law. Out of the $2.5 billion spent in federal forfeiture funds since 2008, the Washington Post found that "in 81 percent of cases no one was indicted." Speaking on the Assembly floor last year, one lawmaker claimed SB443 was unnecessary because of a federal policy shift. In one of his last acts as attorney general, in January 2015, Eric Holder announced a curb on "adoptive" seizures, one of the most abusive practices involving equitable sharing. Yet that change proved to be rather modest: adoption accounted for only 17 percent of federal forfeiture proceeds collected in California. Critically, Holder's order did not apply to joint task forces and investigations, which comprised the rest of California's federal forfeiture proceeds. By enacting SB443, California can join states like New Mexico and Nebraska, which recently limited forfeiture to convicted criminals and tightly restricted transferring seized property for litigation through equitable sharing. Absent further reform, California agencies will continue to police for profit. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom