08 July 2003




Question of the day (from Jason at Sixth Circuit Law):
"Do you have a problem with the property forfeiture laws insofar as they fund the law enforcement offices that are involved in catching the violators?? Do you think there are some ethical issues attendant with the funds captured by police going to the police that capture them?? Would this sort of arrangement (presumably to give an incentive to law enforcement to ferret out certain types of law-breakers) create an overzealous police force?"
I have a problem with these laws period.

That having been said, I must say that I've not seen anything to indicate that any of the local sheriff/police departments have set forth a policy of grabbing everything they can. Do they take the car of every person who they catch dealing from his car? Yes. Do they take the $600 found in the pocket of someone they arrest for dealing? Yes. However, they do not seem to be targeting people specifically because they are trying to get money; they just take what they stumble across.

I see these laws as serving two purposes. At a level far above my head1, these laws serve to deny a Defendant an adequate defense. In example, should the U.S. government decide that you (a multi-millionare) are guilty of a multi-State, multi-nation, RICO violation and/or multiple tax charges it can come in and seize all your assets so that you cannot possibly defend the charge. You will, of course, get a lawyer appointed to defend you who will give you the best defense the federal government will allot him the funds for. Will you get the legions of forensic accountants, private investigators, and lawyers necessary to go thru the tons of paperwork the government will turn over, make sense out of what it is trying to charge and track down leads across the nation/world? Yeah, dream on. Of course, we all think of this as being used against members of those groups stereotypically associated with gangland activity. But google "asset forfeiture" and "M.D." and you'll see that doctors despise this law because it is used against them as well.

The second purpose is punishment. These laws take the rent money the Defendant had on his kitchen table when they raided his house or the week's pay which he has in his pocket when picked up2. They take the truck he was driving when picked up. Of course, since this civil seizure does not involve possible imprisonment, it is one of the matters for which the courts do not provide counsel3. They hand the papers to the guy while he is locked in jail for seven months, waiting for his criminal trial. Most of the time he doesn't even understand what "Commonwealth v. $762.41" means and even if he does he cannot afford to hire an attorney. The assets are forfeited without him even being able to come to court because he is locked in jail. And the government gets its pound of flesh even if it cannot make its criminal case stick.

I dislike these laws specifically because when I see them in action they are usually taking the rent money or that week's pay from some guy who had two rocks or a bag of marijuana. Maybe twenty dollars of that might have come from selling a rock to the CI or officer but that never stops them from taking it all.



1 However, if there is anyone out there who wants to walk into my office and pay me a $250,000 retainer to defend charges of this sort, I'll be happy to hear you out.

2 There is a large portion of society which operates on a cash and carry basis. For example, construction workers often get paid in cash. As well, a number of people do not have access to credit cards or even checking accounts and either pay things in cash or hold their money until they buy the money order to pay a bill. Consequently, "poor" people will often have a few hundred around.

3 Only possible imprisonment gets appointed representation in Virginia not forfeitures, fines (no matter how massive), or loss of license to drive (which is often far more devastating than even a month or so in jail).

.

No comments: