Pubdate: Thu, 30 Mar 2017
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Aruna Viswanatha

DOJ WATCHDOG: MANY DEA ASSET SEIZURES DON'T HELP INVESTIGATIONS

The Drug Enforcement Administration regularly seizes money or goods it
believes are related to criminal activity, but in a recent sample of
100 such cases, more than half didn't aid investigations or produce
arrests or prosecutions, an internal Justice Department watchdog said
Wednesday.

The report, by the Justice Department's inspector general, could
provide fuel to critics who say law enforcement authorities have too
much latitude, and an improper financial incentive, to seize property
suspected of ties to criminal activity. Such "asset forfeiture" has
long been a contentious subject among criminal justice experts and
professionals.

The DEA seized $4.15 billion in assets in the 2007-2016 fiscal years,
according to the report. The agency accounts for most federal
seizures. The seizures in the report were from the 2012 fiscal year.

The inspector general's office said it examined a pool of seizures
that may have been "particularly susceptible to civil liberties
concerns," and said the DEA could verify that "only 44 of the 100
seizures" helped advance an investigation. The pool included only cash
seizures that occurred without a court-issued warrant and without the
presence of narcotics, the office said.

"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance
an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the
appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in
seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or
prosecution," the report said. After being seized, the money can often
be used for law enforcement purposes.

The Justice Department's criminal division responded that the sample
pool was small and outdated, and that it found that 81 of the sampled
forfeitures were "likely tied" to a criminal investigation or
prosecution.

"The decision to forego building a statistically representative set of
cases fundamentally undermines the...ability to extrapolate findings
and make informed judgments about the use of asset forfeiture," said
Kenneth Blanco, the acting head of the criminal division.

Critics of asset forfeiture have raised alarms for years about the
practice, an outgrowth of the 1980s war on drugs that has enabled
states and the federal government to take billions in cash, homes,
cars, jewelry and other property suspected of being linked to crime.
Under federal law and in many states, someone doesn't have to be
convicted for the government to take his assets. Authorities only have
to show, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the assets
were connected to a criminal activity.

Prosecutors say forfeiture laws help ensure that drug traffickers,
white-collar thieves and other wrongdoers can't enjoy the fruits of
their misdeeds, and that the rules curb crime by depriving criminals
of the tools of their trade.

While the inspector general's office suggested asset forfeiture could
benefit from more oversight, it also cautioned about the consequences
of restricting the practice in some cases.

The Justice Department in 2015 said it would no longer participate in
asset seizures by local police agencies. The inspector general's
office said Wednesday those limits have financially affected law
enforcement in Nebraska and North Carolina, and it recommended the
agency monitor whether the changes had hurt cooperation between
federal and state law enforcement.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had expressed support for the asset
forfeiture program as a Senator from Alabama.

The inspector general also said the Justice Department doesn't use
aggregate data to evaluate seizure operations and determine whether
they benefit criminal investigations, and it recommended the agency
develop ways to collect that data.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt