Asset forfeiture in drug policy refers to provisions which allow for law enforcement to take the assets of individuals allegedly involved in drug trafficking (either as a buyer or a seller) - These sorts of laws first began shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. Congress enacted forfeiture statues to aid in their collection of customs duties and taxes
- During prohibition, such laws were used to cease automobiles thought to be used in the transport of then illegal liquor.
- The Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970 allowed for the forfeiture of assets related to illegal drug trade. After its expiration in 1978, congress passed legislation which allowed for the forfeiture of, "All monies, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance...and all monies, negotiable instruments, and securities intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter."
- Goal of this legislation was to "take the profit out of crime, paralyze drug operations, eradicate the criminal infiltration of legitimate businesses and labor organizations, and end criminal tactics in business and trade unions."
Contrary to criminal law, in which people are innocent until proven guilty, in the world of asset forfeiture, one must demonstrate that their property is not at all connected to drugs in order to retain possession of it. Exhaustive evidence is required. In approximately 80% of asset forfeiture cases, no individual is ever charged with a crime.
Some examples of questionable use of this statute include:- Man flying to Las Vegas is stopped by customs officials. After drug sniffing dogs detect traces of drugs on the money in his wallet, they seize $9600 from him.
- Government lawyers attempt to have the gold caps removed from the teeth of two accused drug dealers by using the asset forfeiture statute.
- Individuals have had their homes seized as a result of drug related activities of other people staying in their home. Similarly, situations in which property was seized from families with drug dealing husbands and uninvolved wives. Spouse with "some knowledge" of partner's involvement in drug trade must have "acted reasonably" to stop the illicit activity in order to retain possession of his or her assets.
- California incident in which state and federal agents raided the ranch of a man suspected to have been operating a marijuana growing operation. The man was killed during the raid, and the law enforcement agents failed to find any marijuana. An investigation into the incident found that some of the law enforcement agents had an appraisal done of the house only weeks before. This led to the conclusion that they must have had at least some interest in seizing the 5 million dollar ranch.
Criminal justice system agencies are allowed to keep significant proportions of assets seized, and this seems to lead them to pursue cases they stand to benefit financially from. "[Law Enforcement officials have] a guy with a ton of marijuana and no assets versus a guy with two joints and a Lear jet, I guarantee they will bust the guy with the Lear Jet." - A senior customs official. In order to appeal an asset forfeiture, an individual has to go to their local district attorney. However, legislation dictates that the district attorney receives 13.5 cents per every dollar forfeited. How likely are they to overturn the forfeiture? Informants receive up to 25% of the amount forfeited. They remain anonymous throughout the forfeiture proceedings, so the owner of the property has no real way of knowing the truthfulness of their claims.
2000: Government must now prove through an abundance of evidence that the property connected to drug-related offenses should be forfeited. Little evidence suggests that asset forfeiture laws deter illegal drug trafficking, yet they persist. Why? Perhaps because law enforcement agencies stand to benefit financially from them.
|
