There is Bipartisan Agreement on the 鈥楿ncivility鈥� of Civil Asset Forfeiture
This piece originally appeared at the American Constitution Society's .
鈥淭he FOP that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture revision.鈥� That is what the Fraternal Order of Police said at last week鈥檚 on civil asset forfeiture. And when Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked if FOP stood by those words, the response was 鈥渁bsolutely鈥� 鈥� even though suggested otherwise.
Grassley even offered him some advice, saying that, now is 鈥渘ot the time to oppose needed reforms,鈥� in light of national headlines on .
This should make it clear to everyone that the time is ripe for federal reform. Though work remains to convince some that community policing instead of must be law enforcement鈥檚 number one priority, we should be optimistic.
Grassley said 鈥溾�� and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) believes that 鈥渨e can come together on a bipartisan basis to .鈥�
For months there has been national discourse around civil asset forfeiture and all that is uncivil about it. on both sides of the aisle 鈥� and organizations across the spectrum 鈥� are demanding reform. And rightfully so.
Civil asset forfeiture gives law enforcement the power to take property away from someone who has not been convicted of a crime. And this property can be cash, cars, , and anything else 鈥� like a 鈥溾�� 鈥� that law enforcement believes is connected to a crime. Yes, a woman had her gold cross necklace seized when she was pulled over for a minor traffic violation!
And just how does one go about getting a necklace 鈥� or money, or car, or house back? Well, often they don鈥檛. Due process requirements don鈥檛 require judicial hearings. of federal forfeitures were uncontested over the past few years.
When property owners do get notice and muster the courage to go up against the government, they find the against them. Property owners bear the cost of going to court and the burden of proving their property鈥檚 鈥渋nnocence.鈥� And in almost all instances, property owners are not entitled to counsel.
So, what is driving this practice that sounds unfair, unjust, and un-American? How is it that we still have this 鈥�?鈥� Civil asset forfeiture is big business for law enforcement at all levels 鈥� federal, state, and local. The practice generates billions of dollars annually and law enforcement is permitted to keep the assets it seizes.
Since 2008, state and local police have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth with the help of the federal government. And in 2014 alone, federal forfeiture laws were used to take in dollars. This is why civil asset forfeiture has been called 鈥溾�� and a 鈥�.鈥�
The price that people pay when their property is taken far exceeds the billions it generates. Civil asset forfeiture has long been used to carry out the ineffective and abusive 鈥淲ar on Drugs.鈥� As , 鈥渆ighteenth-century maritime laws are being applied to [today鈥檚] drugs laws and the repercussions are horrendous.鈥� Just as the 鈥淲ar on Drugs鈥� disproportionately impacts people and communities of color, so does civil asset forfeiture.
In the 1990鈥檚, in , 90 percent of the drivers from whom cash was confiscated without arrest were Black or Latino. Then fast forward 20 years, to East Texas, where police seized $3 million dollars in a two year period primarily from African American and Latino drivers.
These civil rights and civil liberties concerns that generated broad support for the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform (CAFRA) Act of 2000 exist today. We all recognize that CAFRA did not go far enough. And now is the time we all come to the table and do something about it.
