Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit in Texas over that state's asset forfeiture laws. Their press release says:
Civil forfeiture is a legal fiction that permits law enforcement to charge property with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken away only after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be convicted of any crime to lose their homes, land, trucks, boats or cash.Making matters worse, law enforcement agencies in Texas and many other states get to keep the cash and other assets that they seize giving them a direct financial incentive to abuse this power and the rights of property owners. In Texas, forfeiture funds can even go to pay police salaries. This establishes a perverse incentive structure under which the more property police seize, the nicer their facilities, equipment and automobiles--and the bigger their personal paychecks.
All perfectly accurate. And law enforcement agencies are clearly using this to boost their budgets. We just uncovered this in Michigan, though we haven't published it yet. One major city police department, facing budget cuts, is projecting more than a 200% increase in income from asset forfeitures next year to help offset those cuts. Obviously that only happens if they go out of their way to seize property more than 200% more often.
Here's the basis of this suit:
Small businessman Zaher El-Ali, who goes by Ali, has lived in Houston for more than 30 years. In many ways, his is a classic American immigrant success story, coming to America with only $500 in his pocket, but securing for himself a comfortable American life through honest enterprise. Ali makes a living by restoring cars and homes, then selling them mostly to low-income residents in East Houston, where Ali also lives.In 2004, Ali sold a 2004 Chevrolet Silverado truck to a man who paid him $500 down and agreed to pay the rest on credit. As with all cars bought on credit, Ali held the title to the car until he was paid in full and also registered the car in his name. In July 2009, the buyer was driving the Silverado and was pursued by a police officer on suspicion of drunk driving. When stopped by the police, he was arrested for DWI. Because this was his third DWI arrest, he was imprisoned, pled guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
After the man's arrest, the Silverado was seized for civil forfeiture. It has been sitting in the Harris County impound lot ever since. In July 2009, Ali wrote to the district attorney, telling him of his interest in the truck and attaching copies of the title and registration naming Ali as the owner and asking for its return. The driver has been in jail since July and had stopped making payments. The government responded by filing a civil forfeiture action against the truck: State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado. Through the filing of counterclaims in the case, Ali wants not only to get his truck back but also to stop the state from abusing forfeiture law against all Texas citizens.
Hope he succeeds.
Politics
Comments
IJ reports:
Is there one grown-up in the entire state of Texas' government?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 17, 2010 9:08 AM
Legitimate and necessary cuts in funding have always engendered 'creative' thinking on the part of the deprived. In this case, civil forfeiture was the creative source of funding. It should be found illegal and other legal funding sources found or cops laid off and services cut. If enough cops are laid off and enough services cut, the demand will will fund those services.
In answer to Michael Heath's question, after the Lege made marriage illegal, I'd have to answer 'No'.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 17, 2010 9:53 AM
Michael Heath at #1:
Of course - or do you think setting up and smoothly running such an elaborate racket is child's play? This thing puts Al Capone to shame. Seriously, I can't help but imagine good old Al sitting in his little puddle of lava, looking up at Texas and smiling.
Posted by: Phillip IV | April 17, 2010 10:47 AM
Hey, if the truck had just refused to let a drunk guy drive it, it wouldn't be in so much trouble now.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 17, 2010 11:27 AM
I would prefer a blunter statement yet, along the lines of "The police department is literally funding itself through highway robbery."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | April 17, 2010 11:38 AM
Anyone ever wonder how many cars a year the rental companies lose to this kind of thing? Funny, neither do I.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 17, 2010 12:49 PM
The term you're looking for is "armed robbery".
Posted by: Globle Warren Terrism | April 17, 2010 1:20 PM
Well, if Texas were in the Pixar universe, the suit against a 1994 Silverado might make sense. In that case, the truck would be able to talk and move of its own free will, and probably have a name like Deadeye. Chuck Norris, whose IQ rivals that of a 1994 Silverado, could do the voice.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 17, 2010 8:17 PM
Heck-Mr. Ali should count himself lucky.
I'm surprised that the Texas authorities didn't twist around his (legitimate) claim of ownership of the car to the point where they claim that the owner of the car is responsible for all of the expenses revolving around the arrest and incarceration, and come around seizing all of his other assets (house, pension plan, childrens' college funds, etc.)
Guess I shouldn't give them any ideas.
Posted by: Geoff | April 18, 2010 5:34 AM
Wow... a story about Texas here that didn't bash the state or suggest it leave the union. Never thought I'd see it here...
Posted by: Strange Magic | April 18, 2010 8:54 AM
I hope they win the case - what bullshit; as if governments don't screw us enough. (But though I whine of government robbing me, it's government waste which I abhor; I'm no libertardian.)
Posted by: MadScientist | April 18, 2010 4:18 PM