Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Balko links to an article in the San Antonio Express News that investigates the patterns in asset and cash forfeiture cases in the town of Tehana, Texas. The results are appalling:
A two-decade-old state law that grants authorities the power to seize property used in crimes is wielded by some agencies against people who never are charged with -- much less convicted of -- criminal activity.Law enforcement authorities in this East Texas town of 1,000 people seized property from at least 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008, and, to date, filed criminal charges against fewer than half, according to a review of court documents by the San Antonio Express-News.
This is the problem with asset forfeiture laws, they flip the presumption of innocence upside down. The laws were ostensibly for the purpose of preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes, allowing the government to seize cash, jewels, homes and vehicles that were bought with drug money or used in the commission of a crime. But if you can seize cash or property without ever even charging the person with any crime, much less convicting them of it, the 4th amendment is pretty much turned into confetti.
Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls "her life savings."Dorman's attorney, David Guillory, calls the roadside stops and seizures in Tenaha "highway piracy," undertaken by a couple of law enforcement officers whose agencies get to keep most of what was seized.
Guillory is suing officials in Tenaha and Shelby County on behalf of Dorman and nine other clients whose property was confiscated. All were African-Americans driving either rentals or vehicles with out-of-state plates.
Guillory alleges in the lawsuit that while his clients were detained, they were presented with an ultimatum: waive your rights to your property in exchange for a promise to be released and not be criminally charged.
He said most did as Dorman did, signing the waiver to avoid jail.
It's time for an all-out legal assault on these laws. The courts must overturn them or the legislatures must repeal them. Guillory is right, this is nothing more than legalized piracy.
Politics
Comments
Yes, it's madness, and yes, it should be recognized as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supremes have carved out a pretty-much universal exception to the Bill of Rights for anything involving the War on Drugs, so I'm afraid we're stuck with legalized armed robbery.
Posted by: Don K | February 16, 2009 10:01 AM
Thank You, Joe Biden for making me safer
Posted by: Vic Vanity | February 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Vic--care to explain how Biden is responsible? Seems like a longshot to me.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | February 16, 2009 11:10 AM
ice9 -
Biden's been a big supporter of the drug war, including expanding the use of asset forfeiture at the federal level. Funnily enough when I did a quick search for something to point you to, turns out one of Ed's stories for the Michigan Messenger was the second hit.
Posted by: mcmillan | February 16, 2009 12:51 PM
Nuts like top blame Biden for all bad drug policy. The so-called "War on Drugs, actually started by Nixon, was apparently really started by Biden when he served on the New Castle County Council. How he did that I don't know. He has pushed for many of the war on drugs policies, as well as many reforms, outlined in this statement by the Drug Policy Alliance Network:
“Sen. Joe Biden is unquestionably one of the chief architects of the modern war on drugs, but is also an unlikely ally in many important fights. He has been at the center of many of our national campaigns; perhaps more so than any other Senator.
“Earlier this year, Sen. Biden surprised many by introducing legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, to completely eliminate the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, leapfrogging more modest reforms put forth by Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Sessions and others. Like many members of Congress, he voted for the legislation in the 1980s that created the disparity. Unlike most though, Sen. Biden has the guts and humility to admit he was wrong.
“Sen. Biden’s groundbreaking bill has seven co-sponsors, including Sen. Obama. It is a sign of how politically popular drug policy reform has become among voters that a major presidential candidate not only co-sponsors a reform bill but nominates the bill’s sponsor as his running mate. That Sen. Biden is willing to be on the same ticket with Sen. Obama, who has indicated he understands the war on drugs isn’t working and called for a new paradigm, may be evidence that his views on drug policy are shifting.
“Sen. Biden has been a strong supporter of treatment and prevention. For instance, he helped write the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, which makes it easier for doctors to prescribe buprenorphine and other replacement medication from their offices rather than special treatment clinics. He was one of only five Senators to vote against confirming President Bush’s drug czar, John Walters, who has a history of short-changing treatment.
“On the other hand, Sen. Biden played a major role in enacting the draconian mandatory minimum sentences, in the 1980s, which have filled our prisons with nonviolent drug law offenders. And he sponsored the law creating the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), giving Bill Bennett and other drug war extremists a national stage and increased power. More recently, he passed the RAVE Act, which makes it easier for the government to prosecute bar and nightclub owners for the drug law offenses of their customers.
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 16, 2009 12:52 PM
The term you're looking for is "armed robbery".
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | February 16, 2009 1:00 PM
Nixon's dead. As we've seen with the anti-vaccine lunacy, having an enemy one can actually focus on is more important to most people than being fair or intellectually honest.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 16, 2009 3:40 PM
"Earlier this year, Sen. Biden surprised many by introducing legislation, co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, to completely eliminate the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity"
The question that raises is how did it eliminate it, and the surprising answer is that Biden's bill, S.1711, would have eliminated it by lowering the mandatory sentences for crack to be equal to those for powder cocaine.
Two alternate bills would have reduced but not eliminated the disparity (both changing it from 100-to-1 to 20-to-1)--a bill from Sessions would have both raised the sentences on cocaine and dropped the sentences on crack, and a bill from Hatch that would just lower the sentences on powder cocaine.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | February 16, 2009 4:21 PM
It seems to me that there is systematic civil rights violation going on here. That means criminal RICO applies. And for once, to an entirely appropriate defendant.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 16, 2009 6:46 PM
Similar situations may well account for the large number of forfeitures mentioned which never resulted in criminal charges.
However, as the case with Dorman shows, it seems some police are refusing to return confiscated money and property even after being show they come from legitimate sources, which is unconscionable. And the conditions under which these seizures are occurring should definitely amount to more than "a black person was found with money."
Posted by: H.H. | February 17, 2009 3:04 AM
H.H., did you miss the part about reversing the burden of proof?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 17, 2009 3:07 AM
Anyone ever think to see if Kopbusters (the ones who caught the Odessa TX police in an illegal search) might be interested in a sting? It's kind of out of their primary focus (drug raids), but it seems like a careful setup with mobile streaming cameras is right up their alley.
Posted by: Dennis | February 17, 2009 12:50 PM
AGGH... this makes me... ARRRGHHH... SO ANGRY.... GRRRAAAHHHHHGHHGH.
Let me know if there's something I can DO to stop this fucking madness.
AAARRGAGGAGHHHRHH.
Thanks.
Posted by: Muse142 | February 17, 2009 2:07 PM
Cash=nontraceability, maddening to the police state.
"Now why would you have so much cash on you?"
Cooperative answer: "Ummm, because I'm on vacation."
Appropriate answer: "Why the fuck are you asking me?"
Posted by: kamaka | February 17, 2009 10:37 PM
Kamaka: I'd say the appropriate answer would be: "Because I've been following the banking news."
Posted by: Mithandir | February 18, 2009 8:46 AM
The ridiculous "War on Drugs" has done far more to corrupt law enforcement worldwide than anything else.
The moronic "War on Drugs" does much, much more harm to families and society than drugs ever have.
The vast majority of what is described as "drug related crime" is actually prohibition related crime. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
Posted by: Donald Rasmussen | March 11, 2009 5:36 PM