PDA

View Full Version : Asset seizures fuel police spending




Suzanimal
10-12-2014, 06:59 AM
:mad:


Police agencies have used hundreds of millions of dollars taken from Americans under federal civil forfeiture law in recent years to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear. They have also spent money on luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.

The details are contained in thousands of annual reports submitted by local and state agencies to the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, an initiative that allows local and state police to keep up to 80 percent of the assets they seize. The Washington Post obtained 43,000 of the reports dating from 2008 through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“In tight budget periods, and even in times of budget surpluses, using asset forfeiture dollars to purchase equipment and training to stay current with the ever-changing trends in crime fighting helps serve and protect the citizens,” said Prince George’s County, Md., police spokeswoman Julie Parker.

Brad Cates, a former director of asset forfeiture programs at the Justice Department, said the spending identified by The Post suggests police are using Equitable Sharing as “a free floating slush fund.” Cates, who oversaw the program while at Justice from 1985 to 1989, said it has enabled police to sidestep the traditional budget process, in which elected leaders create law enforcement spending priorities.

“All of this is fundamentally at odds with the U.S. Constitution,” said Cates, who recently co-wrote an article calling for the program’s abolition on The Post’s editorial page. “All of this is at odds with the rights that Americans have.”

Of the nearly $2.5 billion in spending reported in the forms, 81 percent came from cash and property seizures in which no indictment was filed, according to an analysis by The Post. Owners must prove that their money or property was acquired legally in order to get it back.

The police purchases comprise a rich mix of the practical and the high-tech, including an array of gear that has helped some departments militarize their operations: Humvees, automatic weapons, gas grenades, night-vision scopes and sniper gear. Many departments acquired electronic surveillance equipment, including automated license-plate readers and systems that track cellphones.

The spending also included a $5 million helicopter for Los Angeles police; a mobile command bus worth more than $1 million in Prince George’s County; an armored personnel carrier costing $227,000 in Douglasville, Ga., population 32,000; $5,300 worth of “challenge coin” medallions in Brunswick County, N.C.; $4,600 for a Sheriff’s Award Banquet by the Doña Ana County (N.M.) Sheriff’s Department; and a $637 coffee maker for the Randall County Sheriff’s Department in Amarillo, Tex.

Sparkles the Clown was hired for $225 by Chief Jeff Buck in Reminderville, Ohio, to improve community relations. But Buck said the seizure money has been crucial to sustaining long-term investigations that have put thousands of drug traffickers in prison.

“The money I spent on Sparkles the Clown is a very, very minute portion of the forfeited money that I spend in fighting the war on drugs,” he told The Post.

About 5,400 departments and drug task forces have participated in the Equitable Sharing Program since 2008. Justice spokesman Peter Carr said the program is an effective weapon to fight crime but should not be considered “an alternative funding source for state and local law enforcement.”

“It removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used to compensate victims, and deters crime,” he said in a statement. “Any funds received through the equitable sharing program are meant to enhance and supplement, not supplant or replace an agency’s appropriated budget and resources.”
:rolleyes:

Money for gear, training

A local or state police agency can seize cash or property under federal law through the Equitable Sharing Program when a federal agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agrees to adopt the seizure under federal law. Federal agencies generally are allowed to keep 20 percent or more of the seizure after an adoption.

‘Your property is guilty until you prove it innocent’

In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, an aggressive brand of policing called “highway interdiction,” which involves authorities seizing money and property during traffic stops, has grown in popularity. Thousands of people not charged with crimes are left fighting legal battles to regain their money.
In September, The Post reported that police across the country became more aggressive in their use of federal civil asset forfeiture laws after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Officials at Justice and the Department of Homeland Security encouraged a technique known as highway interdiction to help in the fight against drugs and terror.

There have been 61,998 cash seizures on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments and processed through the Equitable Sharing Program, according to an analysis of Justice data obtained by The Post. Highway Robbery is more like it.:mad:

Equitable Sharing participants must follow rules contained in a 50-page Equitable Sharing guide that require the proceeds of seizures to be used “by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only.”

Permissible uses include overtime pay, training, building construction and improvements and equipment — everything from file cabinets and fitness gear to automatic weapons, surveillance systems and cars. They also can use proceeds to buy food and drinks at conferences or during disaster operations.

Police generally may not pay ongoing salaries or otherwise support annual budgets. One exception allows for departments to pay salaries of newly hired officers for one year or officers assigned to a drug task force as a replacement “so long as the replacement officer does not engage in the seizure of assets or narcotics law enforcement as a principal duty.”

The Justice Department has about 15 employees assigned to overseeing compliance. Five employees review thousands of annual reports for discrepancies. Justice employees also use analytical tools to search for spending patterns. Several attorneys review all sharing requests for $1 million or more, Carr said, adding that the locals also do their own audits.


The annual reports from local and state police are required to help “promote public confidence” in the program and to protect against “waste, fraud and abuse,” the guidelines say. But the forms provide few details about what is actually purchased, according to documents and interviews. That is in part because the department leaves it up to local officials to decide how to categorize their spending. There is little room to provide line-item detail.How convenient.

....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/10/11/cash-seizures-fuel-police-spending/

tod evans
10-12-2014, 07:08 AM
The spending also included a $5 million helicopter for Los Angeles police; a mobile command bus worth more than $1 million in Prince George’s County; an armored personnel carrier costing $227,000 in Douglasville, Ga., population 32,000; $5,300 worth of “challenge coin” medallions in Brunswick County, N.C.; $4,600 for a Sheriff’s Award Banquet by the Doña Ana County (N.M.) Sheriff’s Department; and a $637 coffee maker for the Randall County Sheriff’s Department in Amarillo, Tex.

Sparkles the Clown was hired for $225 by Chief Jeff Buck in Reminderville, Ohio, to improve community relations. But Buck said the seizure money has been crucial to sustaining long-term investigations that have put thousands of drug traffickers in prison.


A bit of investigation will undoubtedly prove this money was spent with businesses owned by family and friends of the kops...

Suzanimal
10-12-2014, 07:17 AM
From the comments. :)


ZAMBEZI
9:15 AM EDT
I wonder how much they spend on donuts.


Some of the other purchases made with the stolen money.



One task force used the money for a subscription to High Times, a magazine for marijuana enthusiasts, at $29.99 for a year.



Several departments bought custom-made trading cards, complete with photos and data about their officers. Some, including police in Chelsea, Mass., share them with children in their communities.

“We have found that this is a great way to build trust and foster long-lasting relationships with the youth in our community who get to know officers on a first-name basis,” said Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes.


Dozens of sheriff and police offices paid a total of more than $100,000 for keepsakes known as “challenge coins” and lapel pins that they could share with one another and with local residents.


Scores of departments spent money on vehicles. Many of them were typical police cruisers, but dozens were new and used sports and luxury cars, including at least 15 Mercedes, a dozen Mustangs, a handful of BMWs and two Corvettes.

presence
10-12-2014, 07:44 AM
http://i.imgur.com/7kcTse5.jpg

William Tell
10-12-2014, 07:49 AM
Utah has banned Civil Asset Forfeiture




Civil Asset Forfeiture
http://www.utahstories.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/civil-asset-forfeiture.jpgDid you know that your private property can be seized and kept by police, even though you have not been charged with a crime? You may be totally innocent of any wrongdoing, but police and state prosecutors can still grab your home, vehicles, bank account and any cash you may have available-everything you own.
Worse, you may never be able to get that property returned.
In the summer of 2012, James R. Wilkes was pulled over by West Valley City police and accused of carrying meth. The Salt Lake County District Attorney seized Wilkes’ truck, his Harley Davidson motorcycle, and $18,000 in cash. Drug charges were dropped, but the D.A.’s office refused to return his property.
Wilkes went to court to prove the money came from his own savings and an inheritance from his late father. He explained that he had a one-year-old child, and was now “penniless.”
The DA’s office finally admitted there was no criminal activity connected to the seized assets but still kept the vehicles and part of the money. Only $14,000 was returned.
The War on Drugs and the War on Liberty
The law under which Wilkes and others had property seized is called ‘Civil Asset Forfeiture.’ It was originally part of the War on Drugs, designed to deprive drug traffickers of the profits from their illicit trade.
However, where money is involved, greed grows. In 1985, the U. S. Department of Justice created the Asset Forfeiture Fund. The following year, the DOJ received more than $93 million dollars worth of forfeited funds and property. According to Forbes Magazine, that escalated to one billion dollars by 2008. In April, the state of Texas used the Civil Asset Forfeiture Law (CAFL) to seize the huge YFZ ranch belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Drivers in nearly every state in the union can be pulled over by police for innocuous offenses such as not having their seat belt visible, then asked if they are carrying any cash. If so, the officer can confiscate it using CAFL as an excuse.
There’s only one state where things like that can’t happen as easily: Utah.
In 2000, a citizen’s referendum called Initiative B was placed on the ballot. It protected private property rights against growing abuses of the forfeiture law, and was passed by a majority.
Now comes the story of how the Utah Legislature was duped by the state’s then-top cop into signing away private property rights during the 2013 legislative session, and how lawmakers then stood up for the public and restored those rights in 2014.
In 2013, a bill was presented to the Legislature by Majority Leader Brad Dee, who represents Davis and Weber counties. Dee says, “This was during the time when John Swallow was Attorney General. I was approached by the AG’s office, and members of that office told me that the bill was just minor tweaks that we would call recodifications of that law.”
The recodification, or rewrite of Utah’s Civil Asset Forfeiture statutes, seemed a good idea on the surface. The laws governing asset forfeiture were scattered throughout Utah code. Dee was told that the bill would bring all those scattered pieces together into one section.
What happened next is explained by Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute, a Utah-based think tank whose mission statement is to “Advance the cause of liberty within the State of Utah,’’ especially where private property is concerned.
Boyack paints a telling picture of the state’s brief Legislative session. He says, “You have 45 calendar days to get through 800 to 900 pieces of legislation. During the last week, things are at a fever pitch. Here was this bill, about 50 pages long, of entirely new text. No legislator, in the last week of the session, was going to read a 50 page bill (in that) limited amount of time, because they need to focus on their own bills. Especially when the legislative sponsor in this case was in the Legislative leadership, and he assured lawmakers that it contained nothing more than technical changes.”
Dee made that assurance because that was what the AG’s office told him.
The new bill passed unanimously. Dee had read the new bill thoroughly before presenting it in the feverish waning days of the session, believing what he had been told by Swallow’s office. Thus, it was easy to miss an important change. The new bill substituted the word “may” for the existing word “shall” throughout. “Shall” means something must be done. “May’’ turns it into a matter of choice.
“The effect of the new version of the bill was to effectively scuttle initiative B,” says Senator Howard Stephenson.
Lawmakers remained unaware of what they had unintentionally done until the Libertas Institute released a paper revealing it. Legislators were appalled. So were major news outlets like the Washington Post, Washington Times and Forbes magazine. News of Utah’s overturning of the citizen’s initiative made headlines across the country—everywhere but one place: Utah. The local watchdogs of the press were obviously not watching; not one of them reported on a change in the state code that could have had a major effect on the citizens of, and even those passing through, Utah.
No Utah news outlet reported on the unanimous Legislative overturning of the private property protection initiative. Not one TV station, not one alternative weekly, not one newspaper. When asked, Terry Orme, Editor and Publisher of the Salt Lake Tribune, said of this momentous change, “The Utah State Legislature deals with hundreds of bills each session. We cover those we feel most affect Utah citizens. We don’t — we can’t — cover them all.”
Even less of an answer came from the Deseret News. David Schneider, the Assistant Managing Editor, basically passed the buck, directing this reporter to Jared Page, a Deputy Managing Editor in the news division. Mr. Page declined to be interviewed.
What makes the local lack of reporting by press watchdogs even more egregious is that the abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture have now begun to surface as the next issue regarding police power. America was stunned by the first issue, the militarization of local police divisions. Americans were outraged by police aggressive force and racism in Ferguson. But the abuses of CAFL are so tremendous that many people refuse to believe it. A very frequent reaction is, “This can’t be happening in America!”
The situation has grown extreme so quickly that there’s a thriving practice of CAFL defense right here in Utah. The law office of Darwin Overson is one example. He warns citizens, “It’s imperative that when your property is seized by the government that you obtain legal assistance from a qualified attorney in order to get your property returned. You’re looking for someone who’s familiar with both civil litigation and criminal defense.”
In other words, don’t go to a divorce attorney for a Civil Asset Forfeiture case.
Overson goes on to say, “In civil cases, the burden of proof is significantly lower than it is in a criminal action. That’s why the government files a civil case for forfeiture. Unless a person is represented by an attorney, they rarely get their property returned.”
Kelly Ann Booth, another lawyer specializing in CAFL defense, has an excellent article on her website; “Driving in Utah: What to Do When You’re Pulled Over.” (www.boothlegal.com/driving-in-utah-what-to-do-when-youre-pulled-over/ (http://www.boothlegal.com/driving-in-utah-what-to-do-when-youre-pulled-over/))
However, while coverage of CAFL increases exponentially in national media, Utah is one place where there may not be much to write about in the future.
In January of this year, during the 2014 session, Senator Howard Stephenson helped sponsor a bill that overturned the 2013 changes to the original referendum. It was a new bill that actually contains additional statutes for private property protection.
He explains, “The bill is very well written, and may have improved upon the language in Initiative B by clarifying the process to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. This whole argument revolves around the 4th amendment, which was very important to our nation’s founders.”
It was passed unanimously by the entire Legislature.
As the old saying goes, all’s well that ends well. In the end, our often-lampooned Legislature did the right thing by restoring private property protection in Utah.
http://www.utahstories.com/2014/10/civil-asset-forfeiture/

Mani
10-13-2014, 02:30 AM
In the end they had to write a bill, which basically went back to the constitution the 4th amendment.



I think it just goes to show you how FUBAR the system is, when you need to write a new ball, giving you your basic rights back....


Good for Utah. This is a huge issue. BOO! On the Utah press, that is completely unacceptable.

phill4paul
10-13-2014, 06:58 AM
In the end they had to write a bill, which basically went back to the constitution the 4th amendment.



I think it just goes to show you how FUBAR the system is, when you need to write a new ball, giving you your basic rights back....


Good for Utah. This is a huge issue. BOO! On the Utah press, that is completely unacceptable.

Would have guessed that it was spelled out clearly in the 5th.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

tod evans
10-13-2014, 07:32 AM
Society is kinda like the poor ol' red-dawg....

There's meat left for a few more ticks....

3216