America’s founding idea was based in part on the Lockean notion that property rights are essential human rights, along with life and liberty. But in today’s America, property rights are not being respected. Lawmakers need to fix this, and they can do it on a bipartisan basis.
This is not the result of a liberal or socialistic scheme to denigrate private ownership. Rather it is a law enforcement procedure by which owners are deprived of their rights, often without ever being convicted or even charged with a crime. To add insult to injury, their property is considered forfeit unless they can prove their innocence, a standard that turns the Constitution’s plain language on its head.
Thanks to the work of journalists and certain popular entertainers, civil forfeiture is finally becoming a household term. Horror stories like that of Chris and Markela Sourovelis, whose home was seized by the city of Philadelphia after their son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs, are finally being told to a wider audience.
As a result, Americans are finally waking up to the abuses by which police seize cash (especially from motorists who are pulled over) just because they can. They often take property despite lacking any reasonable grounds to believe that it has or had anything to do with a crime.
A few states, including Montana and New Mexico, have acted to limit or abolish this practice. Wyoming is considering similar changes, but California legislators recently defeated their state’s attempt at reform, under pressure from the Obama administration. Even so, calls for change have stepped up as new abuses have been revealed. In July, for example, Okahoma Watch reported that a prosecutor lived for years rent-free in a home that had been taken through forfeiture. In another case, a prosecutor used $5,000 that had been forfeited to pay off his student loans.
Unfortunately, as a new paper on the topic from the Texas Public Policy Foundation notes, local law enforcement can sometimes skirt tough state laws on civil forfeiture by conspiring with the feds. Through a program known as “equitable sharing,” they can process civil forfeitures in some investigations using the more lenient federal rules and still keep 80 percent of the proceeds.
This is one reason Congress needs to act quickly and limit the situations in which forfeitures take place.
But in addition to passing laws limiting civil forfeiture and re-establishing the rights of property owners, states can help reduce abuses by reducing incentives for abuse. In many jurisdictions, police departments are permitted to keep the proceeds of whatever they take through forfeitures. As the report puts it, “These agencies have grown addicted to this unappropriated source of funding, with nearly 40 percent indicating that the money constitutes a necessary income source.”
This should not be. States and municipalities must end this practice and instead commit to funding their police forces adequately. This might mean less funding for bicycle paths, sports stadiums and mass transit boondoggles, but it’s a small price to pay for restoring integrity in government and the rule of law. In cases where forfeitures are appropriate, the proceeds should go straight to the state’s general fund, not into local police budgets.
Moreover, police budgets could be stretched further if less money was spent on expensive toys, so that forfeiture would be less of an issue.
The U.S. Senate held hearings on this issue in April. Congress should vote on and pass the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act, and in the meantime, each presidential candidate should be asked his or her position on this vital issue.
