Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing gov’t power to seize property

Spread the love

Loading

Barnini Chakraborty:

Motel owner Russell Caswell wasn’t expecting to find himself at the center of a national controversy when FBI agents came knocking on his door.

They said they wanted his Tewksbury, Mass., business – and the land it was on – because they suspected it was a hotbed for drug-dealing and prostitution. The agents, who were working with state and local authorities, told a disbelieving Caswell they had the right to take the property, valued at as much as $1.5 million, through a legal process known as civil forfeiture.

Caswell, 70, fought back, and the case turned into one of the nation’s most contentious civil forfeiture fights ever – and one that legal experts say sheds light on a little-known practice that, when abused, is tantamount to policing for profit.

Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. It differs from criminal forfeiture cases, where prosecutors typically must prove a person is guilty or reach a settlement before freezing funds or selling property. In civil forfeiture, authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.

“You breed a culture of ‘take first, ask questions later,’” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.”

Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture powers give them an effective tool against lawbreakers. Freezing funds and seizing assets allow them to hit alleged criminals, frequently suspected drug dealers, where it hurts the most – their wallets.

Alarmed civil rights groups and libertarians are rallying against the practice. Salzman’s group defended Caswell and won case in federal court last year.

But not every target of civil forfeiture can afford the fight.

In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice created its Asset Forfeiture Fund. One year later, the fund — which holds the proceeds from seized property and is available to be divvied out to law enforcement agencies — brought in $93.7 million. In 2008, the amount had ballooned to $1.6 billion. In 2013, it reached $6.3 billion.

Across the country, many states are stepping up efforts to curb civil forfeiture abuse.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Welcome to to the United Socialist States of America. This is another tactic straight out of the history of socialist take overs. All property must be take by the all powerful State. You can blame both parties for this.

THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACTION even when it target criminal,

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Imminent Domain was created specifically to forestall such bureaucratic seizures, a practice that the power elite in England used to take lands and titles away from those colonists who fell out of favor with the crown. Such seizures by law enforcement started back up in the 1930’s with the excuse being of recouping the government’s costs of going after criminals. Privileged, empowered and often corrupt justices tended to side with law enforcement and approved these thefts of private property, ignored Imminent Domain’s demand of just compensation, and these corrupt practices set legal president. It has since then grown into a trillion dollar business of government greed and corruption.

Ditto
it doesn’t take a so smart person to smell the rat in what is being done,
they should be arrested without any explanations,
AND NO MATTER THE RANK,
this could protect them to be shot on the spot,
with a rightfully angry person,
AND THE MORE HE GET AWAY WITH IT, THE MORE HE WILL DO,

is that what OBAMA did to the RANCHERS WHO LET GO their ranchs,
BECAUSE THEY WHERE HAUNTED BY THOSE CRIMINALS AGENTS,
WE NOW KNOW WHO IS THE MOB AND WHERE THEY ARE,