The Department of Justice announced this week that it is resuming its Equitable Sharing program. “Equitable Sharing” sounds like a good thing, but it’s actually too good to be true. It’s just a cute moniker for a monstrosity (rather like the name “Department of Justice”).
Equitable Sharing is a federal program that allows state and local police to get around tough state laws that limit how much property can be taken from citizens without being charged with wrongdoing, let alone convicted of a crime.
By working with the federal government instead of enforcing state laws, money-hungry police departments can exploit these lax federal rules about confiscating people’s property. The feds like this because they get a cut of the loot.
We have discussed civil asset forfeiture in this space many times before. Because it is a civil procedure and it is filed against a piece of property rather than its owner, there is no presumption of innocence.
The Armstrong Economics blog pointed out last week that civil forfeitures by the feds amounted to $4.5 billion in 2014, which is more than the $3.9 billion that all of America’s burglars stole that year. It’s hard to imagine more compelling evidence of gross wrong.
Asset forfeitures and seizures have a place in American law. But their target should be criminals, not people who are neither charged nor convicted. The federal government uses asset forfeiture against people who are merely suspected of making the wrong-sized bank deposits.
State and local police have been caught repeatedly, often on camera, using forfeiture against motorists who happen to be carrying a large amount of cash. The proceeds often go back into police operations, creating a clear conflit of interest and an incentive for the police to become, essentially, highway robbers.
Chief Ken Burton of the Columbia, Mo., Police Department described the funds in a police review board as “kind of like pennies from heaven, you know? It gets you a toy or something that you need, is the way we typically look at it.”
None of this tallies with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says no person in America shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” It’s an abuse.
The onus should always be on government to show that forfeitures are justified. The property owner should never have to prove absence of wrongdoing, which is currently the setup. Government should not be allowed to keep the property of innocent private citizens until, worn down by official recalcitrance and the cost of fighting, they give up and abandon their claim to what’s rightfully theirs.
In a racnorous presidential election year, one might assume that gridlock in Congress is guaranteed. But members of Congress should make a special point of moving forward with plans to reform civil forfeiture. The issue has captured public attention for at least a brief moment, and the push for reform enjoys bipartisan support.
Republicans especially should make restoration of property rights a high priority this year. With the presidential race running as it is, their chances of reelection are being shaken everywhere. Facing the prospects of running behind a badly losing presidential ticket, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., has shown he understands the need to protect his majority by finding or creating a voice and an agenda for his caucus. What better way than by ending a practice so obviously unjust?
Several state governments have already begun the process of reforming civil forfeiture, with New Mexico leading the way. But many state and local law enforcement agencies will continue to take property unjustly as long as the federal government gives them an incentive to do so.
By shutting down the Equitable Sharing program for a few months through a budget recission, Congress has already shown the will to do something. Now is the time to do something more.
