Drug Forfeiture Money

Wow. I went out to do a search on this thing with Lt. Col. (now just Lt.) Bruce Jordan. I figured I'd start with drug forfeiture funds (Google search on "federal drug forfeiture money"). I was really looking for how it worked, what the penalties were for abuse and things along those lines.

What I got was an education. It sounds like a good program but it is so ripe for abuse it may not be worth the benefits.

I'd encourage everyone reading this (all two of you) to go out and do your own search. I had no idea what power this drug forfeiture system gave law enforcement. I read of case after case where money, cars and other items were seized without any crime being committed by the owner. People stopped because they looked like a drug dealer or they did something suspicious and their assets were seized.

Have you ever thought about the huge incentives for law enforcement to find reasons to bust people? If they need a new car, all they have to do is pick out the right one with just the right type owner (as in, they have to be able to intimidate the owner and fit the profile of a drug dealer).

Now I don't think that's happening here in Fayette County. Not at all. After all the county commissioners have raised the Sheriff's budget millions in the past few years until it's finally around $14,000. The drug money is like that extra dollop of really good ice cream on the cake.

Have you ever thought about how much it costs the taxpayers to get the drug money? Last I heard the money coming in was under $500,000 a year. How many man hours do our guys spend outside the county in multi-jurisdictional (is that a word?) drug busts? Who pays for their transportation, the uniforms or clothes, their food, their hotels and whatever else is needed? How much does all of that cost? Is their salary being paid out of drug funds while they're out getting that money or are the taxpayers?

If no one looks at how they're spending the money what's to stop them from buying the latest toys and televisions?

I'm going to be reading more about drug forfeiture dollars. I'm not sure it's such a good idea at all and it sure seems like it's one big headache for everyone, not to mention that it's a tempting pot just waiting for abuse. It appears there have been some reforms, so maybe some of the really bad things have been addressed. But nothing will stop those who can justify abuse from abusing something.

Here's some stories of interest on drug forfeiture funds:

-- http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/385/albuquerque.shtml
Asset Forfeiture: Albuquerque Police Broke Law with Seized Funds 5/6/05
A City of Albuquerque audit of the city police department's use of federal drug forfeiture money has found that the department violated state law and federal guidelines by using seized drug money to pay more than $32,000 in rent for a private armored car company. Under the state constitution, municipalities are barred from making donations to private corporations.
(FreeForm note: At least the City was able to audit the funds. In Fayette County the Commissioners get stonewalled when they try to do what the law says they're supposed to do).

-- http://www.prodane.org/in_the_news/press_releases/stateofcityreview.php
STATE OF THE CITY DRUG POLICY REVIEW (2002)
We recommended eliminating money from drug-related property forfeitures as a funding source for law enforcement. This year we are strengthening that recommendation, with an end-goal of entirely eliminating drug-related property forfeitures. In the meantime, we recommend that any drug-related forfeitures be processed through the state, in which case the money form forfeitures goes into school funding, rather than going through the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), as is the current norm, in which case 20% of the money funds the DEA and 80% is returned to fund drug enforcement efforts here. We believe that this change will help ameliorate potential conflicts of interest that may arise when a law enforcement agency becomes dependent on forfeiture money for part of its operating budget. In addition, quality education is also viewed as a tool in preventing drug misuse.

-- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19697
The Lord giveth, the police taketh away

There are more than a few problems here, however. "Police have become addicted to seizure money," according to Hoover Institution scholar Joseph McNamara, also the former police chief of both Kansas City and San Jose. Kind of a perverse incentive -- seize a car, cash or house and keep them for the department. Even with recent changes in federal law, local governments stand to prosper greatly from forfeiture, regardless of the guilt of the suspect.
But, beyond being used to bolster policing budgets, drug dough sometimes goes to completely ridiculous items, as well. A state audit in Kansas recently turned up record of forfeiture money going toward crayons and coloring books for a drug education program; several hundred dollars, according to the Sept. 18 Kansas City Star, actually went to purchase a remote-control door opener for a police dog.
Might as well let the mutt pee on James Madison's pant leg.
And abuse, as usual, is not unheard of. "One agency actually had disposed of drug money before a judge declared it legally confiscated," reports Karen Dillon in the Sept. 18 Star. "Another agency improperly deposited state and federal money into a local bank account instead of its law enforcement trust fund, as the law requires."

-- http://256.com/gray/presume/1.html
Government Seizures Victimize Innocent Part One: The Overview February 27, 1991.
One of a five part series entitled Presumed Guilty. Copyright, 1991, The Pittsburgh Press Co. Top, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

-- http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072199.html
STATEMENT of Roger Pilon, Ph.D, J.D.Vice President for Legal AffairsB. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional StudiesDirector, Center for Constitutional StudiesCato InstituteWashington, D.C. before the Senate Judiciary CommitteeCriminal Justice Oversight SubcommitteeUnited States Senate Oversight of Federal Asset Forfeiture: Its Role in Fighting Crime July 21, 1999

From a site called "Overlawyered"
A Nebraska state trooper stopped Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 in 2003 in his rental car, then proceeded to seize $124,000 from a cooler in the back seat. According to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (opinion, PDF), Nebraska was within its rights to seize the $124,000 as presumed drug money (it then became the subject of a federal forfeiture action) even though 1) Gonzolez had no substantial or drug-related criminal record; 2) witnesses backed up his claim that the money had been pooled by several immigrants for purposes of buying a refrigerated truck for his produce business. Gonzolez had initially denied carrying money, and a drug-sniffing dog had detected drug residues in the rental car, though the same would probably prove true of many other rental cars. ("Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found", AP/Sioux City Journal, Aug. 19; TheNewspaper.com, Aug. 19; libertarian blogs galore including KipEsquire, Radley Balko, Unrepentant Individual). Mike Cernovich (Aug. 21) analyzes what he finds the dubious maneuvers of the Eighth Circuit panel majority in dodging the requirement of deference to the trial court judge's findings.