Rein in Florida civil forfeitures to curb abuses

Civil forfeiture seems like a good idea. Have the government seize the money, homes and cars of people engaged in criminal activity, such as the drug trade, and use that money to boost the budget of law enforcement agencies. Criminals are deprived of ill-gotten gains, prevented from the further illicit use of property and deterred from illegal behavior.

That’s great, in theory. Unfortunately, in practice, civil forfeiture is readily abused by too many in law enforcement. Citizens are having property taken from them without conviction for any crime — other than falling under suspicion, according to a recent report from the Institute for Justice.

Bottom line: It’s time for state and federal governments to rein in this good idea run amok.

And yes, in Florida, seizures are also big business. Local law enforcement agencies responded to a state survey indicating that they conducted almost 19,000 seizure actions over the past five years. There have been more than 4,000 seizures in Florida this fiscal year alone, indicating that seizures are a major revenue stream.

Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) reported that more than $68 million in assets has been seized over the last five years, but conceded the number was probably higher as the information was incomplete.

Taking property without a criminal conviction is possible because of the legal fiction that the government is proceeding against the property and not the individual. Property, such as cash, lacks any Constitutional rights so the burden for the government to seize property is lower than in a criminal case. Law enforcement can seize your money, assets or property based on the belief that it is being used in or is the product of criminal activity.

People can contest the seizure, of course, but this can take time, money and a legal hearing with no guarantee that the property will be returned.

The advantage of the low burden for civil forfeiture is that law enforcement can act against criminal organizations by seizing their assets, even if they cannot yet proceed criminally against an individual.

In practice, civil forfeiture incentivizes law enforcement to seize property whenever possible so as to bring in revenue. Agencies become dependent on the money from civil forfeiture and pressure officers into maintaining high levels of property seizure. But law enforcement should be pursuing justice, not profits.

Last year, Charles Clarke, a 24-year-old college student, was returning home to Florida when authorities at the airport seized $11,000 in cash from him based on the allegation that his bag smelled of marijuana. Officers claimed that they believed the money to be related to illegal drugs. No drugs were found on Clarke or in his bags. Nonetheless, his college savings were taken from him. His loss was a win for law enforcement: 13 state and federal police agencies filed a claim for a share of the cash.

A 2009 lawsuit exposed law enforcement in the east Texas town of Tenaha for using civil forfeiture during traffic stops to seize the property and cars of out-of-state drivers. The money was used for things such as food catering and purchasing a popcorn machine.

While such cases might seem unusual, in truth, civil forfeiture is far too common. Our state’s civil forfeiture laws are better than some, but we still earn a “D+” in the Institute for Justice’s Policing for Profit report.

Our law enforcement agencies can do better. But truthfully, many won’t do it on their own. That’s why state and federal governments must limit the use of civil forfeiture, and institute real oversight to prevent abuse.