Forfeiture, or more specifically asset forfeiture, is, “… an enforcement strategy that federal statutes and some state laws support… [authorizing] judges to seize ‘all monies, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance… and all proceeds traceable to such an exchange’” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 546). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.) explains the purpose of asset forfeiture as a means to punish, deter, disrupt, remove tools, return assets to victims, and protect communities (para. 7). Further, there, “… are three types of forfeiture under federal law: criminal forfeiture, civil judicial forfeiture, and administrative forfeiture” (“What We,” n.d., para. 9), each of which are available depending on the circumstances of the crime activity at hand.
What happens to the assets once they are successfully forfeitured? The answer is as complicated as the cases themselves. Zach Glenn (2016) with The Record Herald highlights the impact of state legislation in such matters:
…show more content…
That money can then be spent on training or equipment or donated to victims’ advocacy groups that help those hurt by the drug trade… Forfeiture money also has been spent on drug-related training sessions… [However, two] new laws proposed in Harrisburg – House Bill 508 and Senate Bill 86 – attempt to curtail civil asset forfeiture by requiring a criminal conviction before assets can be seized and requiring the seized funds to go into a county level general fund. (para.
A positive drug test can be treated as a violation of probation. Judges can also require individual offenders to pay for their own drug testing, as they do now in the "drug court" system, if they can afford it. The cost of a test can be $4 to $7 per test. The fact is, tens of millions of dollars in state and federal funds already go to drug testing of criminal offenders through the court system and probation system. If more money is needed, this can easily be appropriated from the hundreds of millions of dollars saved each year by this initiative.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
One aspect of financial incentives lay in the concept of forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies were granted authority to keep the bulk of cash and assets seized when making arrests, which allowed the drug war’s perpetual existence. The drug market then needed to be profitable and successful so that police forces could make money (Alexander, 78-79). A person could be found innocent of a crime and their property could still be subjected to seizure, and “those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, lacking the resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs” (79). Ultimately, this process was highly lucrative for police. Those with assets could buy their freedom, while those who lacked financial means were subject to arrest. Additionally, there was no real justification for many of the raids. For example, some officers took as little as 93 cents in raids, even though by no means could that amount be considered drug money (82). Property could also be considered “guilty”. For example, a woman who knew her husband sometimes smoked marijuana could have her car forfeited since she allowed him to use her car (83). Unfortunately, forfeiture cases are left unchallenged 90% of the time, since the primary targets of this practice cannot afford lawyers to fight the case. Additionally, federal funding to police departments provided incentives for police arrests in the drug war. Law enforcement agencies that made drug-law top priority were given large sums of money, leading to competitions between departments and higher arrest rates (Alexander, 74). And not only cash assets, but military equipment was doled out by the Pentagon to local police departments in hopes that it would increase arrest rates
To search or to seize a person’s property a law enforcer must present evidence to a judge in a court of law that the person has prohibited goods or evidence that the person has been involved in a criminal act.
According to McCaw (2011), civil forfeiture has multiple benefits. One benefit of civil forfeiture is that it does not need a conviction to render a punishment (McCaw, 2011, p. 196). It allows the government to provide a lesser punishment when a criminal conviction is too harsh. For instance, if a juvenile is distributing pictures of underage classmates a prosecutor could decide to forfeit the cell phone instead of charging the juvenile with distribution of child pornography (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). This means that civil forfeitures can act as an alternative to incarceration. Specifically, it can increase revenue for the government through forfeiture funds without the cost of sending someone to prison (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). McCaw (2011) stated
In 1971 Nixon claimed that drug addicts/Dealers steal more than $2 billion worth of property every year. The FBI however the total value of all property stolen in the United States that year was $1.3 billion which was still a big deal anyway .Despite all these kinds of problems, fighting drugs became a crucial weapon in the war on crime.with
What is forfeiture? A basic definition of forfeiture can be found nearly anywhere on the internet, including this one from Merriam-Webster, “the loss of property or money because of a breach of a legal obligation.” According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s website, there are two types of forfeiture, that of criminal and of civil. Criminal forfeiture typically happens after a criminal has already been charged with something after going through a legal process. They will have to give notice to the criminal, and then upon conviction, the government has rights to seize the assets in question from the offender ("Forfeiture."). It is essentially used as a form of punishment for committing a crime ("Forfeiture.").
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
However, legalization will be profitable to global economies in two ways. It will allow for money spent on drug law enforcement to be spent more wisely and will increase revenue. There have been escalating costs spent on the war against drugs and countless dollars spent on rehabilitation. Every year in the United States, ten billion dollars are spent on enforcing drug laws alone. Drug violators accounted for about forty percent of all criminals in federal prisons (Rosenthal 1996).
The President proposed an increase of $100.6 million in 2005 for substance abuse and drug treatment systems, such as clinical treatment or recovery services. Another anticipated budget increase is for drug court programs. With more monies, the extent and value of drug court services will increase. These programs are options to imprisonment with the goal of being drug-free.
...he certainty of restitution, by requiring monetary payment, takes the profit out of crime (Carson).
Hugh cash grants were made to those law enforcement agencies that were willing to make drug-law enforcement a top priority. Ten years into the war on drugs, police departments now had Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) in most major cities. These units were originally formed to handle hostage situations, hijackings, or prison escapes, but it all changed in the 1980’s when law enforcement agencies now had access to military equipment and cash especially for conducting drug raids. Today the most common use of SWAT teams is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home. Dozens of people have been killed by police in the course of these raids, including elderly grandparents, and those who are completely innocent of any crime. The Regan administration let states and local police keep the drugs and money that it seized. This turned into a monetary gain and the drug market became profitable for law enforcement. Suddenly police department could increase their budget on drug bust alone simply by taking the cash, cars and homes of people suspected of drug use or sales. The actual owner did not have to be charged with a
middle of paper ... ... This money could be put to use here, making our countries financial status better. All these things make drug legalization such a hot topic in the world today. There is enough evidence to support either side of this debate.
Federal agencies, primarily the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), enforce federal controlled substances laws in all states and territories, but most drug crimes known to U.S. law enforcement are dealt with at the state level. The drug control initiative which includes interdiction, eradication, lab destruction and law enforcement efforts to disrupt trafficker organizations and distribution. The demand side of the illicit drug equation, supporting treatment programs for addicts and drug abuse prevention programs. Laws in every state and at the federal level prohibit the possession, manufacture, and sale of certain controlled substances -- including drugs like marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin. Law enforcement
With marijuana being illegal, keeping crime-related activities under control costs the United States approximately twenty billion dollars per year (Sledge). According to Brian Bremner and Vincent Del Giudice, “A 2010 study by the libertarian Cato Institute, forecasted that states could save $17.4 billion annually from reduced drug enforcement costs and increased tax revenue, assuming marijuana production and sales were legal nationwide” (11). Several law enforcement hours are exhausted with pursing, questioning, and arresting citizens that are in possession of or consuming marijuana. There would be a decrease in the number of misdemeanor possession cases that are pending hearing. These cases would be dismissed, decreasing costs associated with each case.