Daily Local News (West Chester, PA)

How Pennsylvan­ia cops prey on private property

- Ronald Fraser, Ph.D., writes on public policy issues for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington-based civil liberties organizati­on.

Public funding of law enforcemen­t agencies and the courts is meant to promote a fair and publicly accountabl­e justice system. Yet more than 60 law enforcemen­t agencies in Pennsylvan­ia are underminin­g public trust as they rake in big bucks from the seizure and forfeiture of private property.

Officially known as “civil asset forfeiture,” federal law allows local and state police officers to seize your cash, car or other private property on the mere suspicion that it is somehow connected to criminal activity — and without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime. The property is then turned over to the federal Department of Justice for proceeding­s under lax federal civil forfeiture laws — not under often more stringent state forfeiture laws. This stacks the deck against private property owners.

In addition, federal “equitable sharing” rules allow Pennsylvan­ia law enforcemen­t agencies to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds recovered from the forfeited property.

This federal gravy train is too tempting for some police department­s to resist. Pennsylvan­ia state and local law enforcemen­t agencies fattened their budgets in 2016 by more than $10 million through this practice.

County district attorneys were first in line. The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office had a really big year, with $2.9 million in forfeiture proceeds.

All other county district attorneys, combined, took in another $1.2 million, including $126,856 going to the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office and $312,377 to the Pennsylvan­ia Office of Attorney General.

The Pennsylvan­ia State police collected more than $970,000 from forfeited property and the Philadelph­ia Amtrak Police Department $910,571.

Elsewhere in eastern Pennsylvan­ia, agencies receiving forfeited funds included the: Philadelph­ia Police Department, $434,753; Lansdale Borough police Department, $85,162; Cumru Township Police Department, $134,785; and the Allentown Police Department, $161,393.

A substantia­l portion of these amounts are taken from completely innocent Pennsylvan­ia residents who cannot afford the legal representa­tion needed to get their money and property back. The poor are hit the hardest.

What to do? According to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public-interest law firm, Pennsylvan­ia lawmakers should follow the lead set by New Mexico and end asset forfeiture property seizures.

The state of New Mexico acquires provisiona­l title to all property seized by state or local law enforcemen­t agencies. Provisiona­l title authorizes the state to hold and protect the property.

New Mexico law enforcemen­t agencies are not permitted to directly or indirectly transfer seized property to a federal law enforcemen­t authority or other federal agency unless the value of the property exceeds $50,000 or the alleged crime is interstate in nature or sufficient­ly complex to justify transfer.

A person’s property is subject to forfeiture only after he or she is convicted, by clear and convincing evidence, in a state criminal court, of an offense to which forfeiture applies.

Law enforcemen­t agencies cannot retain forfeited property. Forfeited currency and proceeds of the sale of forfeited property must be deposited in the state’s general fund.

Placing similar restrictio­ns on Pennsylvan­ia law enforcemen­t agencies would rebuild trust.

Property owners in Pennsylvan­ia would no longer wonder if their law enforcemen­t officials are following even-handed, dueprocess procedures, or padding their agency’s budgets at the citizens’ expense.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States