Today's Sunday LA Times (23 Aug 15) had an editorial advocating SB433 (sponsored by State Senator Holly Mitchell --Democrat from LA) currently being considered by California's legislature to put some more restrictions on the seizure of assets by police agencies. Three days ago, the San Diego Union Tribune published an editorial by David Bejarano, the Chula Vista Police Chief arguing against the law.
Since the 1980s I have been concerned about the infringement on our civil liberties by the police being permitted to confiscate our property without proving our guilt. The situation has continued to become worse, as the amount of assets seized continues to increase. It is sort of like allowing our US Army soldiers or battalions to keep any money, land or assets they might capture in war. Throughout the first millennium that practice was called "looting and pillaging" and the "rewarding fun" of doing that was one of the main recruiting tools used by Roman Emperors, Crusaders, and Attila the Hun to conscript soldiers.
I can understand David Bejarano and the California Police Chief's Association position. They are frustrated, feel they don't have enough budget to fight what appears to be an endless and overwhelming war on drugs. The funds obtained through seizures can help them do their job. I can also sympathize with his argument (using a hypothetical transnational drug organization) that there are situations where huge amounts of assets could be "laundered." before a the defendant is found guilty. Yes, in cases like that, the assets should be "frozen" to prevent them from moving them out of reach before a trial. However, as is so often the case, when the police are given a "tool" they abuse it. Police agencies have used the forfeiture process to blackmail people into testifying (maybe lying) against others in order to get their property back. They have seized homes from owners who's tenants have done drug deals. They have "planted" evidence in order to be able to seize property from unwitting citizens. The process of getting property returned is so expensive and cumbersome (guilty until proven innocent) that innocent people have lost almost everything they owned to fight it.
On the other hand, David Bejarano, and the Police Chiefs clearly have a conflict of interest in arguing against the law. Police departments are clearly beneficiaries of the current arrangement.
It is clear that forfeiture is primarily used as a weapon in the drug war. I haven't heard many cases where it has been used in cases involving other crimes, such as prostitution, gambling, etc. I agree that recreational drugs are a scourge on our society and we do need to try to stop people from abusing them. However I do not believe that our current approach focusing on interdiction is the right one. As a result of our drug war, the US has a larger percentage of our population locked up in prisons than any other country in the world. Are we really a "free" country? Or are we being subjugated by the "Police-Industrial" complex who make huge amounts of money (much more than the "street value" of drugs seized) to seize and hold our property hostage, monitor our finances,track our travels, read our email, and listen to our phone calls,
I hope SB433 passes. It isn't a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction of putting some controls on the process to protect citizens from abuse, while still allowing our police departments to do their job.
Since the 1980s I have been concerned about the infringement on our civil liberties by the police being permitted to confiscate our property without proving our guilt. The situation has continued to become worse, as the amount of assets seized continues to increase. It is sort of like allowing our US Army soldiers or battalions to keep any money, land or assets they might capture in war. Throughout the first millennium that practice was called "looting and pillaging" and the "rewarding fun" of doing that was one of the main recruiting tools used by Roman Emperors, Crusaders, and Attila the Hun to conscript soldiers.
I can understand David Bejarano and the California Police Chief's Association position. They are frustrated, feel they don't have enough budget to fight what appears to be an endless and overwhelming war on drugs. The funds obtained through seizures can help them do their job. I can also sympathize with his argument (using a hypothetical transnational drug organization) that there are situations where huge amounts of assets could be "laundered." before a the defendant is found guilty. Yes, in cases like that, the assets should be "frozen" to prevent them from moving them out of reach before a trial. However, as is so often the case, when the police are given a "tool" they abuse it. Police agencies have used the forfeiture process to blackmail people into testifying (maybe lying) against others in order to get their property back. They have seized homes from owners who's tenants have done drug deals. They have "planted" evidence in order to be able to seize property from unwitting citizens. The process of getting property returned is so expensive and cumbersome (guilty until proven innocent) that innocent people have lost almost everything they owned to fight it.
On the other hand, David Bejarano, and the Police Chiefs clearly have a conflict of interest in arguing against the law. Police departments are clearly beneficiaries of the current arrangement.
It is clear that forfeiture is primarily used as a weapon in the drug war. I haven't heard many cases where it has been used in cases involving other crimes, such as prostitution, gambling, etc. I agree that recreational drugs are a scourge on our society and we do need to try to stop people from abusing them. However I do not believe that our current approach focusing on interdiction is the right one. As a result of our drug war, the US has a larger percentage of our population locked up in prisons than any other country in the world. Are we really a "free" country? Or are we being subjugated by the "Police-Industrial" complex who make huge amounts of money (much more than the "street value" of drugs seized) to seize and hold our property hostage, monitor our finances,track our travels, read our email, and listen to our phone calls,
I hope SB433 passes. It isn't a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction of putting some controls on the process to protect citizens from abuse, while still allowing our police departments to do their job.
No comments:
Post a Comment