30 Years Ago, Maine Changed Its Law To Curb Forfeiture Abuse. Records Show Nothing Has Changed.
from the hereby-mandates-depositing-of-funds-if-law-enforcement-feels-like-it dept
The thing about asset forfeiture is it’s stocked full of perverse incentives. With a minimum of civil paperwork, law enforcement agencies can directly benefit from the property they seize and all without the hassle of having to deal with the uncertainty of criminal proceedings. The property is seized and its former owners are free to go. Minimum expenditure, maximum profit, and it’s all totally legal.
The best way to reform civil asset forfeiture is to attack these incentives. Some states, like Maine, have done this by forcing law enforcement agencies to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund. Highway robbery now enriches the entire state, which won’t be much comfort to victims of forfeiture programs. But there should be fewer victims of forfeiture now that the seizing agency doesn’t have a personal stake in the forfeiture.
Should be. The solution looks good on paper. The execution, however, leaves something to be desired. (via the ACLU)
[D]espite Maine’s forfeiture law’s potential to curb corruption, the state’s Office of Fiscal and Program Review has confirmed that — aside from a single deposit of $4,335 made by the Public Safety Department in 2010 — no recent proceeds from property forfeitures have gone into Maine’s general fund.
The provisions to direct seized cash and property into the state general fund were originally drafted in 1987 and amended in 1999. It is not clear how long this law has not been complied with by state public safety officials.
Well, from the looks of it, the law has not been complied with for most of the last 30 years. Maybe record keeping doesn’t extend that far back, but the fiscal office offered up no evidence suggesting it was complied with more frequently a couple of decades ago.
It is clear agencies are still directly benefiting from civil asset forfeiture. To route around state restrictions, local agencies are bringing in the feds to take advantage of a sharing program that’s not subject to local laws. Federal records show state agencies have taken home $13 million in funds from federal adoption of forfeitures since 2000.
The lack of contribution to the state’s general fund shouldn’t be taken to mean state agencies have abandoned non-federal-assisted forfeiture. A public records request by the Institute for Justice obtained data showing state agencies are still racking up about $250,000 a year in cash forfeitures alone. That should have made its way to the state fund, but there’s no records showing that ever happened.
Rule changes mean nothing if no one’s willing to enforce them. The state legislature made an effort thirty years ago to reform forfeiture, but for the last decade-plus, no one in the state has done anything to ensure agencies are complying with the rules. Law enforcement agencies aren’t going to hold themselves accountable and they’d still like to be the largest — if not the only — beneficiary of seized property. That’s exactly what appears to be happening here. Laws mean nothing if they’re not enforced — a truism law enforcement agencies are keenly aware of.
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, maine
Comments on “30 Years Ago, Maine Changed Its Law To Curb Forfeiture Abuse. Records Show Nothing Has Changed.”
The people seizing assets are the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the laws. Can one be only a little corrupt? (no, it’s the gift that keeps on giving)
Re: Re:
Revenue streams are viewed as a right to many people on the other side of the thin blue line of legality. Funny how they don’t realize their blue line is what is keeping everyone else from trusting them.
Re: Re:
no,no,no — the ideological base premise of all government law is that the lawmakers & law-enforcers are specially selected citizens who are free of normal human foibles — and thus act selflessly in the general public interest. Corruption is as rare as unicorns.
Re: Re: Re:
WATCH OUT!!! It’s a stamped of unicorns!
Re: Re: Re:
That is the bullshit they want you to believe, when you stop believing it you are then referred to as “radicalized”.
Are we sure the police even know about this law? I mean, until there’s a court decision that very specifically states with no ambiguity that all property seized has to go to the general fund and not into the pockets of the police, how are they supposed to know what the law is?
Re: Re:
Ah yes, the old “ignorance of the law is a completely reasonable excuse for breaking it argument”.
Law enforcement is always touting this when they arrest someone for something. The first thing (after Miranda rights, of course) they say is “hey, were you aware of this law? You know, because if you weren’t, I am going to open these cuffs, return the cash I took from you, and let you go about your way.”
Re: Re: Re:
That is because the police, need police. We were supposed to take care of it as citizens, but laws have made that impossible lately.
‘Federal records show state agencies have taken home $13 million in funds from federal adoption of forfeitures since 2000’
so the question to justify the lack of any of this money/assets going to the state is who/how many in the ‘fiscal office’ have been benefitting to the extent as to warrant ‘cooking the books’?
Re: Re:
If the money has come in, but hasn’t gone into the state fund, it’s embezzlement, unless it has been seized by federal agents and the appropriate paperwork has been filed.
If it was seized by state agents, voluntarily given to federal agents, who then gave a portion back to the state agents… that’s illegal at a state level even if the feds say it’s A-OK with them. Receiving ANY outside money, whether it be from the local drug dealer, the local car salesman, or the FBI, should be illegal for state officials and departments. Just because some federal agency is willing to give you stuff doesn’t mean you are legally allowed to accept it.
Don’t states already have laws on the books regarding accepting bribes and kickbacks? Those should apply, even to the FBI.
Civil forfeiture larceny
Civil forfeiture should be allowed only after conviction for a related crime. Anything else is governmental larceny and all the officials involved should be prosecuted for larceny.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
'Not saying you can't, just that I'd prefer you didn't.'
Disgusting, but not surprising. If laws against criminals without badges were treated the same way, where things were prohibited but there was no penalty for violations, and especially no one willing to apply any penalties that there were, no one would be surprised that it didn’t have any notable impact on crime.
Stealing everything they can get their hands on is very lucrative after all, and as such that’s not something they’re going to just give up unless they are forced to, whether that be personal fines or even jail time.