| Another knock on your door |
|
Confiscation based on mere suspicion is the essence of contemporary asset forfeiture. As Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, described it:
The ACLU says... asset forfeiture laws provide the police with a license to steal. Particularly appalling is the list of cases that document the disproportionate impact on minorities due to the use of racial profiling of African American and Hispanic travelers. For the feds, it's organized big business. Check the annual report
The EOAF handles the goods for U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Secret Service , the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation. These Treasury bureaus are joined by the U.S. Coast Guard, for such crimes as:
Notice one thing that these crimes have in common? They're all non-violent crimes. With all the violent crime available for law enforcement to work on, why so much work on non-violent crime?
In the EOAF, the largest single program cost of the Fund is the storage, maintenance and disposal of real and personal property. This function is performed by EG&G Dynatrend, a private firm under contract to the U.S. Customs Service. EG&G provides storage for Treasury’s forfeiture program through a nationwide system of 17 warehouse facilities with a capacity in excess of 470,000 square feet, as well as supplemental facilities provided by over 200 active vendors under contract to EG&G. In FY 2001, EG&G expenses were approximately $32 million. Within the past five years, property auctions have generated more than $125 million for the fund. Let's see... they pay EG&G $32 million/year and get back an average of $25 million/year? Well... they're making money somehow... their Cumulative Results of Operations (retained earnings) at the end of FY 2001 was a total of $237 million. Mere suspicion of a crime, or even an unsubstaniated tip, is often enough to cause property seizure. In fact, the laws are such that they make corruption easy. There is no requirement that a person be convicted of a crime before losing his money or property. Typically, the victims are deliberately not charged with a crime because if they're arrested, they have more rights. Deals are often made, where the arresting officer offers to forget the whole thing if the suspect gives up the money and/or property. Cops now decide which cases to investigate based not on the amount of drugs involved or the possible danger to society, but on the profitability of investigating a case. Because organized criminals are better at covering their tracks than low-level dealers, this often means that the more serious crimes are ignored by cops in favor of the less serious. Law enforcement groups usually get to KEEP the property, if it's something they like, or keep the funds from the sale of the property. That may actually reduce the need for tax funding for the police department (yeah right) or it may be used for other things, like turning themselves into a well-equipped small army. Although asset seizure has increased primarily because of the War on Drugs, it is sure to increase again because of the War on Terrorism. The slightest suspicion of a connection to a "terrorist" group will be used to seize all the property of the victim. A provision in the sweeping anti-terrorism legislation (yeah, the so-called Patriot Act) passed in October 2001 gave federal authorities in such cases the power to seize money that passes through U.S. banks without notifying the foreign government or tracing the money to the target of an investigation. Section 319 of the Patriot Act allows federal authorities to seize money from the foreign bank's correspondent account if they can convince a judge that the money deposited overseas at the bank was obtained illicitly. Asset forfeiture is BIG business. Between 1985 and 1993, the U.S. Department of Justice alone seized assets worth $3.2 billion. The government now uses online auctions to peddle their stolen goods. The greatest danger from asset forfeiture may be that it makes law enforcement units more independent and less accountable... able to thumb their noses at any attempts to reign them in financially. They have control over their own source of income; An insidious effect of asset forfeiture is that its victims are usually unable to present much defense or raise a big fuss afterwards... because they have little or no assets left to work with. The result is that volunteer organizations such as F.E.A.R., and the Institute for Justice are left to provide help, to try to battle against governmental organizations that spend all they need and then re-fund themselves with even more seized goods. Libertarians consider asset forfeiture to be a violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". It has corrupted law enforcement organizations, and financially destroyed thousands of innocent citizens. Check out some of the horror stories and then try to convince yourself that it couldn't happen to you. |
| # -- Posted 6/23/03; 12:11:47 AM |