You may have missed it, but this past week the Department of Justice announced that it would be suspending the “equitable-sharing” program. This is the program that allows local law enforcement agencies to choose to prosecute asset-forfeiture cases federally, instead of locally. This is significant because federal policies allow these municipalities to keep upwards of 80 percent of what they steal seize from citizens. The DOJ sent out a letter last week to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, explaining the bad news:
The purpose of this letter is to explain the financial implications of recent budget legislation on the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program (Program), including equitable sharing. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) enacted in November included a $746 million permanent reduction, or "rescission," of Asset Forfeiture Program Funds. In light of that $746 million reduction, we intended to implement measures similar to those during sequestration in FY 2013 when we continued to make equitable sharing payments but at a reduced amount.
However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, signed into law on December 18, 2015, includes an additional $458 million rescission in the FY 2016 budget. In order to maintain the financial solvency of the Program, the Department has already begun implementing cost reduction measures to absorb the combined $1.2 billion rescission.
Considering how asset forfeiture has been used over the past decade, this is a big win for the citizens of everywhere in the United States. It’s just another nail in the coffin of civil forfeiture laws that have been taking well-earned, non-partisan hits over the past few years. The import of the DOJ’s decision is that it takes away the already abused incentive to use federal law by state and local agencies.
Previous research by the Institute for Justice has shown that when states have stricter forfeiture laws, cops are more likely to pursue forfeiture cases under federal law as a means of bypassing those stricter state restrictions.
In California, for instance, police are allowed to keep 66.25 percent of forfeiture proceeds under state law, but 80 percent if they opt for the federal equitable sharing route. And forfeiture figures reflect this: In 2013, California police forfeited $28 million worth of cash and property under state law, but $98 million under federal law, according to the Institute for Justice's research.
As you can imagine, The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) sent a letter to federal government officials with words and phrases like “profound concern” and “shortsighted” and the ever-threatening “impact on the ability of law enforcement agencies.” Unfortunately, the IACP was “shortsighted” when it allowed its law enforcement agencies to abuse the asset forfeiture programs to enrich their coffers. Oh, they also used to word “unconscionable” because that’s a strong word to use when someone steals your assets. Here’s an example:
It was unconscionable when the local police refused to return my car and money, even though I was never charged with a crime and an investigation showed I had done nothing wrong.
The National Sheriff’s Association tried to take it up a notch in their statement:
The National Sheriffs’ Association is shocked and disappointed by the Department of Justice’s decision to suspend the equitable sharing of Asset Forfeiture Program funds to state, local, and tribal law enforcement. This is yet another blow to those who work every day to prevent terrorism and crime in our communities.
[my emphasis]
Here’s a fun fact: Number of terrorists prevented by the people the National Sheriff’s Association? Zero.