Like a bad penny, the U.S. Justice Department’s asset forfeiture program has returned. The so-called “equitable-sharing” program allows local police departments, under federal law, to take a large portion of cash and property seized in relation to criminal activity. In many cases, though, the property owners have not been convicted or even charged with a crime.
Since the federal government’s forfeiture policies are more permissive than those of many states, the arrangement allows cash-hungry law-enforcement agencies to keep up to 80 percent of the assets. That can be a sweet deal when it comes to filling in local budget shortfalls. But critics are right to decry it as an unconscionable cash grab that penalizes the innocent as well as the guilty.
When the equitable-sharing program was suspended in December due to federal budget cuts, police departments howled over the sudden loss of cash and resources, which in 2014 totaled $5 billion. Now that the program has resumed, the debate about its morality, fairness and corruptibility will be re-engaged by civil libertarians and other critics.
In Philadelphia, the district attorney’s office is routinely faulted for overly aggressive asset seizures. For example, police there seized the home of a couple whose son had been caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside the property. By contrast, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has set a policy that assets can be seized only after obtaining a conviction.
Asset forfeiture has powerful advocates in law enforcement, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National District Attorney’s Association. They defend the practice even as reports mount of non-criminals having their money and property confiscated.
This is an outrage that merits the attention of both President Barack Obama and Congress. How long will the nation tolerate such an obvious affront to due process just because police support it?
First Published: April 3, 2016, 4:00 a.m.
