Radley Balko has an article in the latest issue of Reason about the asset forfeiture racket that is filling the coffers of police departments all over the nation. The article begins by recounting the story of a Michigan man, Anthony Smelley, who fell victim to one such racket when he was pulled over in Putnam County, Indiana.
Smelley had $17,500 in cash seized by local law enforcement officers on the premise that it was involved in a drug crime -- despite the fact that they found no evidence of drugs whatsoever and never charged Smelley with any crime at all. Nonetheless, they kept the cash. Smelley's case is hardly isolated:
The Justice Department's forfeiture fund (which doesn't include forfeitures from customs agents) jumped from $27 million in 1985 to $644 million in 1991; by 1996 it crossed the $1 billion line, and as of 2008 assets had increased to $3.1 billion. According to the government's own data, less than 20 percent of federal seizures involved property whose owners were ever prosecuted.
And that's just the federal level; most asset forfeitures take place at the local level, where the local law enforcement agency that seizes the cash typically gets to keep it. And here is perhaps the most appalling aspect of Smelley's case:
Timothy Bookwalter, the elected chief prosecutor for Putnam County, Indiana, did not represent the county in its effort to keep Anthony Smelley's money. Nor did anyone else in his office. Instead, the case was handled by Christopher Gambill, a local attorney in private practice. Gambill manages civil forfeiture cases for several Indiana counties, and he gets to keep a portion of what he wins in court. "My contingency for my own county is a quarter; for the others it's a third," Gambill says.The concept is alarming. If allowing public prosecutors to benefit from forfeiture funds brushes up against due process, allowing an unaccountable private attorney to run forfeiture cases and keep a portion of the winnings rams a steamroller straight through the notion. "This is scandalous," Kessler says. "It's blatantly unconstitutional."
Gambill not only argues and briefs Putnam County forfeiture cases; he also determines which cases the county pursues in the first place. That means nongovernmental forfeiture attorneys are making criminal justice decisions that directly bolster their incomes. "It's really bad policy," David Smith says. "I also don't see how it could possibly be legal."
Mark Rutherford, chairman of the Indiana Public Defender Commission, says he isn't aware of any court challenges to the practice. "It's just sort of accepted here that this is the way things are," Rutherford says. "There are attorneys who have amassed fortunes off of these cases."
This, I would suggest, is the real crime here. This is, quite literally, highway robbery -- only the perps bring a badge instead of a gun.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 

Comments
To be fair, they bring a badge and a gun.
Posted by: Jackson | January 28, 2010 9:34 AM
. . . something about foxes and hen houses should go right here . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 28, 2010 9:53 AM
This happened in Indiana, where public highways are being given to private corporations. Now also a county legal department is privatized on a 'for profit' basis? That's the equivalent of hiring mercenaries to fight wars. ARG!
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | January 28, 2010 10:27 AM
Actually, it's more like hiring mercenaries to declare wars for you, as well as fight them.
Posted by: Skeptical Cat | January 28, 2010 10:39 AM
So the standard for keeping your property is the ability to prove a negative. Brilliant!
Your property exists at the golden graces of the state.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | January 28, 2010 11:06 AM
If I recall, the brits did something like that several hundred years ago with those Hessians...
Posted by: MikeMa | January 28, 2010 12:33 PM
Curiously, I can't help myself in wondering how many people who benefit from these asset forfeitures then turn around and claim that taxes steal their "rightfully earned" monies and are willing to wave "Don't Tread On Me" flags.
I'm afraid irony escapes the majority of people.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | January 28, 2010 12:34 PM
Curiously, I can't help myself in wondering how many people who benefit from these asset forfeitures then turn around and claim that taxes steal their "rightfully earned" monies and are willing to wave "Don't Tread On Me" flags.
I'm afraid irony escapes the majority of people.
As I noted in the article, it's actually been the political right that has been most critical of forfeiture laws (both sides are responsible for putting them into place). Rep. Henry Hyde waged a one-man war to reform the federal civil forfeiture laws in 2000. And the Supreme Court decisions limiting forfeiture have been written by conservative justices, usually over dissent from the liberal ones.
I don't particularly care for either side. Conservative are usually worse on criminal justice and civil liberties issues. But the right has been much better about attacking forfeiture, likely because it's an assault on property rights.
Posted by: Radley Balko | January 28, 2010 1:16 PM
Hmmpph. Just keep your property out of the pool halls and on the straight and narrow and there is no reason fear it will be seized. Me- I have good upstanding property which knows better than to get into any trouble.
/rant
Posted by: ursa major | January 28, 2010 1:53 PM
He should have been fined $500 for being named 'Tony Smelley'
Posted by: steve s | January 28, 2010 3:05 PM
Ursa Major: Me- I have good upstanding property which knows better than to get into any trouble.
Do you share or rent?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | January 28, 2010 6:41 PM
The more accurate equivalency is not with mercenaries but with privateers, commandeering ships and then sharing the booty with the country that gives them shelter. Francis Drake anyone?
Posted by: Keanus | January 28, 2010 10:00 PM
Huh - we must be on the Animal Farm and those are Napoleon's lackeys.
Four feet good, two feet bad!
@Keanus: With any luck they should follow in Drake's footsteps and find the gallows which they have earned.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 29, 2010 3:44 AM
"With any luck they should follow in Drake's footsteps and find the gallows which they have earned"
... but Drake was never hung. He died of disyntery at the age of 55.
Posted by: Marshall Schreiber | February 1, 2010 9:06 PM