Monroe News: Civil forfeiture: Time for reform
February 12, 2015
Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that federal agencies would be cutting back on civil forfeitures was a welcome step, but it didn't go nearly far enough. That's why new legislation introduced last week by Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken., deserves a close look.
Asset forfeitures arose as a way of going after bad guys involved in drug dealing, human trafficking or other criminal enterprises. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies seize cash, luxury cars and other property of wrongdoers and pocket a good share of the proceeds.
It makes sense — up to a point. Unfortunately, the rules allow seizure even when no criminal charges are filed and there's no clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Police agencies tend to assume that when they find someone carrying a large amount of cash, that person is up to no good. Quite often true — but not always.
Rep. Walberg, who represents Monroe County, cites the case of a Michigan grocer, Terry Dehko. In 2013, IRS agents seized his bank account totaling $35,000. They said they suspected him of being a money launderer because every day he would make cash deposits in a bank across the street from his store. Mr. Dehko argues he does this because he feared keeping a lot of cash at his store would make him a target for robbery and because his insurance would cover only up to $10,000 in losses.
No charges ever were filed, but Mr. Dehko still had to fight the IRS in court to recover his money.
In another case, Roderick Daniels was driving down the highway with $8,500 in cash to buy a car when police pulled him over for going 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. Discovering the money, they hauled him off to jail and threatened to charge him with money laundering unless he surrendered the money. Panicked, he gave it to them.
Rep. Walberg says Mr. Daniels got his cash back thanks to media attention and legal pressure. But many people in situations similar to the above have to go to court to recover their seized assets, at their own expense, and often they don't succeed.
And the practice of civil forfeitures has mushroomed. In one year alone, from 2012 to 2013, net forfeitures rose from $1.7 billion to $4.2 billion. The Institute for Justice, which tracks civil forfeiture cases and helps unfairly targeted individuals, says 80 percent of people whose property is seized never are charged with any crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court generally has okayed the practice, but critics say it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Furthermore, there's an inherent conflict of interest because police making decisions to seize assets stand to profit from the procedure. In Michigan, law enforcement gets 100 percent of the proceeds.
Mr. Holder deserves credit for cutting back on the federal role in forfeitures. But his recent action applies only in certain cases in which the feds work with state and local police, pending wider review of federal policy.
It's also unsettling that Loretta Lynch, nominated to succeed him as AG, is now U.S. attorney for a New York state district that critics say heavily is involved in questionable seizures. Asked about this in her Senate confirmation hearings last week, she strongly defended the practice of civil forfeiture and said "there are safeguards at every step of the process" to protect innocent people.
The legislation just introduced by Rep. Walberg and Sen. Paul would raise the level of proof necessary for government to seize assets; increase transparency of forfeiture proceedings; reform IRS practices to protect innocent business owners from seizure, and ensure counsel for individuals defending against forfeiture. Meanwhile, several bills have been introduced in the Michigan House to set limits on forfeitures and provide for increased transparency in forfeiture cases.
The proposed reforms certainly are worth considering, and it appears there is bipartisan concern about abuses — one reason Attorney General Holder has made some changes. It's high time that federal and state lawmakers take a close look at practices that too often look like legalized theft.
This editorial was published by the Monroe Newsin their February 5 edition.
Asset forfeitures arose as a way of going after bad guys involved in drug dealing, human trafficking or other criminal enterprises. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies seize cash, luxury cars and other property of wrongdoers and pocket a good share of the proceeds.
It makes sense — up to a point. Unfortunately, the rules allow seizure even when no criminal charges are filed and there's no clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Police agencies tend to assume that when they find someone carrying a large amount of cash, that person is up to no good. Quite often true — but not always.
Rep. Walberg, who represents Monroe County, cites the case of a Michigan grocer, Terry Dehko. In 2013, IRS agents seized his bank account totaling $35,000. They said they suspected him of being a money launderer because every day he would make cash deposits in a bank across the street from his store. Mr. Dehko argues he does this because he feared keeping a lot of cash at his store would make him a target for robbery and because his insurance would cover only up to $10,000 in losses.
No charges ever were filed, but Mr. Dehko still had to fight the IRS in court to recover his money.
In another case, Roderick Daniels was driving down the highway with $8,500 in cash to buy a car when police pulled him over for going 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. Discovering the money, they hauled him off to jail and threatened to charge him with money laundering unless he surrendered the money. Panicked, he gave it to them.
Rep. Walberg says Mr. Daniels got his cash back thanks to media attention and legal pressure. But many people in situations similar to the above have to go to court to recover their seized assets, at their own expense, and often they don't succeed.
And the practice of civil forfeitures has mushroomed. In one year alone, from 2012 to 2013, net forfeitures rose from $1.7 billion to $4.2 billion. The Institute for Justice, which tracks civil forfeiture cases and helps unfairly targeted individuals, says 80 percent of people whose property is seized never are charged with any crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court generally has okayed the practice, but critics say it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Furthermore, there's an inherent conflict of interest because police making decisions to seize assets stand to profit from the procedure. In Michigan, law enforcement gets 100 percent of the proceeds.
Mr. Holder deserves credit for cutting back on the federal role in forfeitures. But his recent action applies only in certain cases in which the feds work with state and local police, pending wider review of federal policy.
It's also unsettling that Loretta Lynch, nominated to succeed him as AG, is now U.S. attorney for a New York state district that critics say heavily is involved in questionable seizures. Asked about this in her Senate confirmation hearings last week, she strongly defended the practice of civil forfeiture and said "there are safeguards at every step of the process" to protect innocent people.
The legislation just introduced by Rep. Walberg and Sen. Paul would raise the level of proof necessary for government to seize assets; increase transparency of forfeiture proceedings; reform IRS practices to protect innocent business owners from seizure, and ensure counsel for individuals defending against forfeiture. Meanwhile, several bills have been introduced in the Michigan House to set limits on forfeitures and provide for increased transparency in forfeiture cases.
The proposed reforms certainly are worth considering, and it appears there is bipartisan concern about abuses — one reason Attorney General Holder has made some changes. It's high time that federal and state lawmakers take a close look at practices that too often look like legalized theft.
This editorial was published by the Monroe Newsin their February 5 edition.