Diamond-studded jewelry, a Porsche, gold coins, a $35,000 Rolex—these are just a few of the spoils Virginia cops have poured into their coffers over the last few years, supplementing their budgets through seizures.
As civil asset forfeiture—the practice by which law enforcement can seize property they suspect has been involved in a crime, and keep some or most of the valuables—increasingly comes under fire across the country, the Richmond Times-Dispatch has published an in-depth look at how much Virginia law enforcement profit from seized assets.
Overall, the state has seized $62 million since 2008, $26 million of which has already been doled out to purchase tasers, laptops, body cameras, and other items.
Meanwhile, the Times-Dispatch notes, several agencies in particular seem to have conveniently “perfected” the forfeiture process so that they retain nearly all the assets they seize—over the past seven years, Fairfax County has kept all but 3.10 percent, Hampton all but 6.78, and Richmond all but 8 percent.
The incentive to seize is high—in some instances, police stand to make hundreds of thousands from a single bust:
The Virginia Beach Police Department is by far the state’s leader in assets seized and disbursements received through forfeiture. The agency, which has seized 1,159 assets valued at $5,579,902 since 2008, so far has received $2,760,962 of that sum.
In 2013, Henrico police seized the second-largest single sum in Virginia for one case — $369,126 — from a county heroin dealer who police said kept the cash hidden in vehicles, a safe and other locations in his home. Investigators also confiscated the dealer’s $35,000 Rolex Yacht Master II watch and received an additional $255,000 in forfeited funds through the federal asset-forfeiture program upon his conviction.
Virginia officials insist that their asset forfeiture program is different from the federal program, in which property is treated guilty until proven innocent—in Virginia, law enforcement must go through a court proceeding and prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the property was somehow involved with a serious crime.
Reform advocates counter that this is a very low standard of evidence—the Institute for Justice has graded the state a D- in protecting property owners’ rights.
Citizens whose property is seized are also not given the right to a lawyer. This means that, in many cases, people simply can’t afford to defend their property, and are left helpless against a large bureaucracy intent on retaining their property.
“The problem is, if they’re going to take someone’s property in a quasi-criminal proceeding, you should afford them the right of counsel,” defense attorney David Whaley told the paper. “My biggest objection is that you don’t have a right to a lawyer. They can take your property and you can’t afford to get a lawyer and you can’t compete.”
According to the lead counsel for Chesterfield County’s forfeiture program, in about 75 percent of local cases defendants lose by default because they do not file an affidavit to contest the forfeiture.
“I shouldn’t be able to take all your property and then give you a legal maze to climb through. It’s unfair,” said Whaley.
