How do forfeiture laws affect law enforcement budgets?

How Forfeiture Laws Affect Law Enforcement Budgets

Civil asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize assets like cash, cars, and even homes that they suspect are connected to criminal activity. The property owner doesn’t need to be convicted or even charged with a crime for their assets to be taken. The practice is controversial but also incredibly lucrative for police departments and prosecutors’ offices. So how exactly do civil forfeiture laws impact law enforcement budgets and operations?

What is Civil Asset Forfeiture?

Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take assets, like cash, cars, boats, and houses, that they think are tied to criminal activity like drug trafficking or money laundering. To seize property, police and prosecutors just need to show there’s a preponderance of evidence, a lower standard than the beyond a reasonable doubt needed for a criminal conviction.

The owner of the property doesn’t need to be arrested or convicted of a crime. In fact, in most states and under federal law, the forfeiture proceedings are against the property, not the owner. That’s why they’re called civil forfeitures, as opposed to criminal forfeitures which require a conviction.

The practice is based on the legal theory that property used to commit crimes is itself guilty. This allows prosecutors to pursue forfeitures even when there isn’t enough evidence to charge someone with a crime.

How Much Money Does Civil Forfeiture Generate?

While no one knows exactly how much civil forfeiture brings in for law enforcement each year, estimates range from $1 billion to $6 billion annually. That’s a huge chunk of change, especially for local police departments and prosecutors’ offices. A 2020 report by the Institute for Justice examined forfeitures from 2014-2018 and found:

• Federal forfeitures accounted for over $29 billion during those 5 years
• 20 states brought in more than $3.1 billion in forfeiture revenue
• California law enforcement seized over $1 billion in assets
• Texas law enforcement made over $541 million from forfeitures

And those figures don’t even include local and county forfeitures in most states. So it’s safe to say civil forfeiture generates billions for law enforcement agencies across the country.

Where Does the Money Go?

Most states and the federal government have rules dictating where civil forfeiture funds must go. Typically, forfeiture revenue is directed back to the law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices that conducted the seizures. The funds supplement their budgets and are used to pay for equipment, training, vehicles, overtime pay, and other operational expenses.

However, there’s often a great deal of discretion in how the money gets used. For example, a 2020 investigation by USA Today found police in Chicago had spent over $66 million in forfeiture funds since 2005 on “secret” uses like travel, gifts, and even a $5,000 party.

Critics argue this discretion incentivizes aggressive pursuit of forfeitures to boost law enforcement budgets. It’s a process some have called “policing for profit.”

How Reliant Are Law Enforcement Budgets on Forfeiture Revenue?

While civil forfeiture money makes up a tiny fraction of most municipal and state budgets, it can be a much more significant chunk for the individual agencies doing the seizures. A few examples:

• A Texas district attorney’s office used forfeiture funds for up to 40% of its budget.
• A Georgia police chief said losing access to forfeiture would “cripple” their budget.
• Missouri police departments relied on forfeiture for almost 20% of their spending.
• Florida officials argued against forfeiture reform since it could cut resources up to $50 million.

Small police forces can become especially dependent on forfeiture revenue from big busts. In 2019, a Texas sheriff’s department netted $1 million from a single drug seizure along Highway 59. With just 16 employees, that one bust doubled their annual operating budget.

Still, most law enforcement agencies don’t rely on forfeiture as heavily. And officials argue the funds are necessary to supplement tight budgets and combat dangerous crimes.

Does Civil Forfeiture Actually Help Fight Crime?

Many law enforcement officials insist forfeiture is a vital tool for disrupting drug trafficking and money laundering. However, studies on whether forfeiture reduces crime have had mixed results:

• A 2021 study in Nevada found forfeiture led to modest reductions in drug crimes.
• But a 2020 study in North Carolina found forfeiture had no effect on crime rates.
• Some research has found forfeiture leads to more drug arrests but not less drug use.

There are also concerns forfeiture has led to “policing for profit” incentives. For example, studies have found:

• Increases in forfeiture revenue correlate with more drug arrests.
• But no meaningful differences in crime rates.
• Indicating priorities may be revenue, not public safety.

Overall, it seems civil forfeiture may help law enforcement disrupt some criminal activity. But its real impact on public safety and crime rates is debatable.

What Are the Biggest Criticisms?

Civil forfeiture faces growing criticism from across the political spectrum. Some of the biggest concerns include:

• Circumvents due process – Property is taken without convicting, or even charging, the owner.
• Disproportionately affects minorities – Forfeiture falls heaviest on Black and Hispanic communities.
• Policing for profit – Gives law enforcement a budgetary incentive to seize property.
• Tough to challenge – The cost and complexity of fighting a forfeiture often exceeds the value.
• Inconsistent with property rights – Property rights should require a criminal conviction.

There’s increasing agreement forfeiture needs reform. But there is disagreement on how far reforms should go. Most focus on increasing burdens of proof, restricting expenditures, or improving owner protections. But some groups call for eliminating civil forfeiture altogether.

Recent Reforms

In recent years, many states have passed legislation reforming their civil forfeiture laws:

• 38 states now require criminal convictions in some or all forfeitures.
• 25 states have passed reporting requirements and restrictions on expenditures.
• 14 states have raised the standard of proof for forfeitures.
• 3 states – Nebraska, New Mexico, and North Carolina – have abolished civil forfeiture altogether.

There has also been a push for federal reform. For example, the DUE PROCESS Act, which would raise the federal burden of proof standard, has bipartisan Congressional support. But so far, federal reforms have stalled.

Looking Ahead

Civil forfeiture seems likely to remain controversial. Law enforcement argues forfeiture is an important tool to fight crime. But there are valid concerns forfeiture has led to overzealous pursuit of property over public safety.

While reforms have gained steam, forfeiture is still deeply entrenched in many law enforcement budgets. There seems to be growing consensus forfeiture needs more guardrails and oversight. But it remains to be seen whether reforms will go far enough to curb abuses.

The debate over forfeiture involves balancing property rights, due process, and law enforcement resources. It’s a complex issue unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. But the calls for reform aren’t going away.

References

Institute for Justice Report on Civil Forfeiture Revenue
USA Today Investigation on Police Misuse of Forfeiture Funds
ACLU Page on Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Prison Policy Initiative Research on Forfeiture and Crime