OPINION:
The D.C. Council later today will vote on whether to adopt a package of reforms designed to restrict the ability of D.C. law enforcement officials to seize the property of those connected to, but innocent of, wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture has been termed “policing for profit,” because in many states and local jurisdictions law enforcement agencies that seize such property are allowed to keep the cash realized from its sale or the cash itself if that is what is seized, and use it as they will.
In fact, federal authorities, as well as local officials, often include the funds they project will be seized as part of their budgets. Even if those from whom the property is taken are never indicted or convicted of any crime whatsoever, it is often virtually impossible for them to retrieve their property. Houses have been seized and sold by law enforcement in some jurisdictions because someone in the house. usually a teenager or visitor, is arrested on minor drug charges and may or may not later be convicted of a misdemeanor.
In other cases, police stop automobiles for minor reasons such as a broken tail light lens or for failure to signal a lane change, determine the driver to be suspicious, search the vehicle for cash, which they then seize, alleging it must be the fruit of drug dealing even if they find no drugs in the vehicle or have any evidence whatsoever that the driver is involved in drug dealing or drug use. Money has been seized from people transporting it for perfectly legal reasons and is virtually impossible to get back. In some cases, the police call in drug-sniffing dogs, knowing that as a practical matter there is probably enough trace drug residue on most $20 and larger denomination bills to “justify” the seizure.
In June 1999, then-Rep. Henry Hyde, who was then serving as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, persuaded Congress over the objections of the Justice Department and law enforcement officials to pass legislation requiring the federal government to prove that seized property is related to a crime to allow “innocent owners” unaware of criminal activity associated with their property to recover their assets.
By partnering with state and local jurisdictions, the federal government has been able to avoid these and other restrictions on what was considered a runaway program back then, and the practice has grown in the decades since. The greatest growth of civil forfeiture has taken place since President Obama moved into the White House with seizures nearly doubling from 2008 to today.
Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama’s choice to succeed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and has emerged as one of the nation’s chief prosecutorial advocates of civil forfeiture. As The Wall Street Journal noted on her selection, she has bragged that in 2013 alone, her office accounted for more than $904 million in such seizures. A car here, a house there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money, much of which is extorted from innocent victims.
It is our hope that today the D.C. Council will restrict civil seizures here, and that when Ms Lynch seeks confirmation, the Senate will seek her support for real reform of this government abuse.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.