Asset Forfeiture = Stealing From Innocent People

Asset forfeiture laws allow police to confiscate property which is believed to have been obtained through criminal activity. The idea is that people who break the law shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their crimes. Unfortunately, asset forfeiture requires minimal evidence, often resulting in people losing property to law-enforcement without even being charged with a crime. Despite reforms at the state and federal level, we continue to hear horror stories about police taking advantage of these policies and confiscating property from innocent people.

As the struggling economy takes its toll on local law-enforcement budgets, police face an increased temptation to abuse their forfeiture powers. Mix in a little racial profiling and the situation quickly escalates into a shocking pattern of gratuitous civil rights abuses:

TENAHA — You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border if you’re African-American, but you might not be able to drive out of it — at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.

That’s because the police here have allegedly found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead, they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: voluntarily sign over your belongings to the town or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.

More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, Ohio, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with or convicted of any crime. [Star-Telegram]

It’s a perversion of justice on several levels. First, nearby Shreveport is a popular gambling destination, thus it’s common for motorists in the area to travel with larger-than-usual amounts of cash. This is perfectly legal, of course. Given that officers have confiscated property from 147 people who were never charged with a crime, it seems impossible for police to genuinely believe all of them were involved in something illegal.

Worse yet, when civil rights attorneys began investigating the situation, they were able to locate 40 victims of the forfeiture policy and only one was white. Racial profiling appears to dictate which motorists are targeted for asset forfeiture, as has often been the case in other high-profile forfeiture controversies.

How to Protect Yourself

Unfortunately, if you’re caught in an out-of-control situation like this, there’s no easy or perfect way to handle it. The first and most important step is to remain calm. Becoming agitated will only escalate the situation, so stay cool even if you’re being treated unfairly.

Keep in mind that police will often use threats and intimidation to convince you to waive your rights. In a forfeiture situation, officers will often claim that you’ll be charged with money laundering if you don’t sign over the property. Don’t buy it. If they had evidence to charge you with a crime, chances are they would already have placed you under arrest. Ask to speak with an attorney and don’t sign anything.

If you’re arrested or any property is taken from you, contact a lawyer immediately.

Continued

If You Don’t Think Police Use Racial Profiling, Read This

The town of Homer, Louisiana is embroiled in a racially-charged controversy after a white police officer shot and killed an elderly African-American man in front of his family and friends. Witnesses say police planted a gun on the victim after shooting him and federal investigators are now working overtime to sort the whole thing out.

Of course, questionable police shootings and allegations of severe misconduct are tragically common and it will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers. What really shook me up about the story was a quote from Homer Police Chief Russell Mills, who was asked about his department’s treatment of minorities:

“People here are afraid of the police,” said Terry Willis, vice president of the Homer branch of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People. “They harass black people, they stop people for no reason and rough them up without charging them with anything.”
That is how it should be, responded Homer Police Chief Russell Mills, who noted the high rates of gun and drug arrests in the neighborhood.

“If I see three or four young black men walking down the street, I have to stop them and check their names,” said Mills, who is white. “I want them to be afraid every time they see the police that they might get arrested.” [Los Angeles Times]

Arrested for what? Being black? A professional police department should not be a source of intimidation for citizens who’ve done nothing wrong. It’s just an appallingly racist and inappropriate remark coming from the chief of police in a town plagued by racial tension. Chief Mills’s mentality pretty much tells you everything you need to know about how things got this bad.

Skeptics in the debate over racial profiling will often begin by telling you that police never use racial profiling, then conclude by implying that black people are all criminals who must be stopped and searched at every opportunity. It’s an absurd contradiction. As long as I can still find police chiefs publicly boasting of racial bias in the newspaper, I fail to understand how anyone could claim racial profiling isn’t a serious problem.

Continued

Illinois v. Caballes: Dog Sniffs & You

Illinois v. Caballes
543 U.S. 405 (2005)

In Illinois vs. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not need reasonable suspicion to use drug dogs to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.

This decision stems from the case of Roy Caballes, who was pulled over for speeding and subsequently arrested for marijuana trafficking after a drug dog was brought to the scene and alerted on his vehicle. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that a drug sniff was unreasonable without evidence of a crime other than speeding.

In a 6-2 ruling, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when police use a dog sniff during the course of a legal traffic stop. Justice Stevens wrote the Opinion of the Court, finding that since dog sniffs only identify the presence of illegal items — in which citizens have no legitimate privacy interest — the Fourth Amendment does not apply to their use. Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, pointing to studies showing that drug dogs frequently return false positives (12.5-60% of the time, according to one study).

What this ruling means:

Continued