How does asset forfeiture impact low income communities?

Contents

1 How Asset Forfeiture Impacts Low Income Communities

How Asset Forfeiture Impacts Low Income Communities

Asset forfeiture is a controversial practice that allows police to seize property, like cars and cash, that they suspect is connected to criminal activity. The property can be taken without ever charging someone with a crime. While asset forfeiture is meant to fight crime, it often impacts low income communities the most.

Police and prosecutors say asset forfeiture helps them disrupt drug trafficking and other organized crime by letting them seize illicit proceeds. But civil liberties groups argue the practice goes too far, lacks oversight, and unfairly targets poor people and minorities who may lack the resources to fight back.

What is civil asset forfeiture?

There are two main types of asset forfeiture:

Criminal forfeiture happens after someone is convicted of a crime. This is less controversial.
Civil forfeiture happens without any criminal charges. Police can seize property just by showing there’s a connection, or “nexus,” to possible criminal activity.

With civil forfeiture, the property itself is accused of being tied to crime. Police file a case against the cash, car, home, etc. – not the owner. That means they can take assets without even charging someone, let alone getting a conviction. The owner must then fight to prove their property is “innocent” to get it back.

How asset forfeiture impacts low income communities

While asset forfeiture is meant to fight organized crime, in practice it often ensnares low income people who can’t afford to challenge seizures in court:

Police disproportionately seize property and cash in poor neighborhoods and communities of color. Residents may carry cash because they lack access to banking. And they often lack financial resources to contest seizures.
To get their property back, owners must navigate complex legal proceedings they may not understand. Contesting a seizure can be expensive and difficult without a lawyer.
In many states, police get to keep seized assets and spend the proceeds, creating a profit motive and incentive to take property.
Only about 20% of federal forfeitures are legally contested, in part due to the costs. Of those contested, many get settled because the owner can’t afford drawn out proceedings.
Low income individuals may lose vehicles they depend on for work or to take care of family. The impact can be devastating.

These factors mean poor people often fail to get their property returned even when they’ve done nothing wrong. The practice raises serious civil liberties concerns.

Lack of oversight and abuse

Critics argue the profit incentive leads police to overuse and abuse asset forfeiture. There are many cases of questionable seizures:

  
 Christine Twomey 
2024-03-21
Just had my Divorce case settled 2 months ago after having a horrible experience with another firm. I couldn’t be happier with Claire Banks and Elizabeth Garvey with their outstanding professionalism in doing so with Spodek Law Group. Any time I needed questions answered they were always prompt in doing so with all my uncertainties after 30 yrs of marriage.I feel from the bottom of my heart you will NOT be disappointed with either one. Thanks a million.
  
 Brendan huisman 
2024-03-18
Alex Zhik contacted me almost immediately when I reached out to Spodek for a consultation and was able to effectively communicate the path forward/consequences of my legal issue. I immediately agreed to hire Alex for his services and did not regret my choice. He was able to cover my case in court (with 1 day notice) and not only was he able to push my case down, he carefully negotiated a dismissal of the charge altogether. I highly recommend Spodek, and more specifically, Alex Zhik for all of your legal issues. Thanks guys!
  
 Guerline Menard 
2024-03-18
Thanks again Spodek law firm, particularly Esq Claire Banks who stood right there with us up to the finish line. Attached photos taken right outside of the court building and the smile on our faces represented victory, a breath of fresh air and satisfaction. We are very happy that this is over and we can move on with our lives. Thanks Spodek law 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙌🏼❤️
  
 Keisha Parris 
2024-03-15
Believe every single review here about Alex Z!! From our initial consultation, it was evident that Alex possessed a profound understanding of criminal law and a fierce dedication to his clients rights. Throughout the entirety of my case, Alex exhibited unparalleled professionalism and unwavering commitment. What sets Alex apart is not only his legal expertise but also his genuine compassion for his clients. He took the time to thoroughly explain my case, alleviating any concerns I had along the way. His exact words were “I’m not worried about it”. His unwavering support and guidance were invaluable throughout the entire process. I am immensely grateful for Alex's exceptional legal representation and wholeheartedly recommend his services to anyone in need of a skilled criminal defense attorney. Alex Z is not just a lawyer; he is a beacon of hope for those navigating the complexities of the legal system. If you find yourself in need of a dedicated and competent legal advocate, look no further than Alex Z.
  
 Taïko Beauty 
2024-03-15
I don’t know where to start, I can write a novel about this firm, but one thing I will say is that having my best interest was their main priority since the beginning of my case which was back in Winter 2019. Miss Claire Banks, one of the best Attorneys in the firm represented me very well and was very professional, respectful, and truthful. Not once did she leave me in the dark, in fact she presented all options and routes that could possibly be considered for my case and she reinsured me that no matter what I decided to do, her and the team will have my back and that’s exactly what happened. Not only will I be liberated from this case, also, I will enjoy my freedom and continue to be a mother to my first born son and will have no restrictions with accomplishing my goals in life. Now that’s what I call victory!! I thank the Lord, My mother, Claire, and the Spodek team for standing by me and fighting with me. Words can’t describe how grateful I am to have the opportunity to work with this team. I’m very satisfied, very pleased with their performance, their hard work, and their diligence.

Thank you team!
  
 Anthony Williams 
2024-03-12
Hey, how you guys doing? Good afternoon my name is Anthony Williams I just want to give a great shout out to the team of. Spodek law group. It is such a honor to use them and to use their assistance through this whole case from start to finish. They did everything that they said they was gonna do and if it ever comes down to it, if I ever have to use them again, hands-down they will be the first law office at the top of my list, thank you guys so much. It was a pleasure having you guys by my side so if you guys ever need them, do not hesitate to pick up the phone and give them a call.
  
 Loveth Okpedo 
2024-03-12
Very professional, very transparent,  over all a great experience
  
 Bee L 
2024-02-28
Amazing experience with Spodek! Very professional lawyers who take your case seriously. They treated me with respect, were always available, and answered any and all questions. They were able to help me very successfully and removed a huge stress. Highly recommend.
  
 divesh patel 
2024-02-24
I can't recommend Alex Zhik and Spodek Law Firm highly enough for their exceptional legal representation and personal mentorship. From the moment I engaged their services in October 2022, Alex took the time to understand my case thoroughly and provided guidance every step of the way.

Alex's dedication to my case went above and beyond my expectations. His expertise, attention to detail, and commitment to achieving the best possible outcome were evident throughout the entire process. He took the time to mentor me, ensuring I understood the legal complexities involved to make informed decisions. Alex is the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with and has made a meaningful impact on me.

I also want to acknowledge Todd Spodek, the leader of the firm, who played a crucial role in my case. His leadership and support bolstered the efforts of Alex, and his involvement highlighted the firm's commitment to excellence.

Thanks to Alex Zhik and Todd Spodek, I achieved the outcome I desired, and I am incredibly grateful for their professionalism, expertise, and genuine care. If you're in need of legal representation, look no further than this outstanding team.
Load more
 Google rating score: 4.9 of 5, based on 736 reviews 

A man had $11,000 seized during a traffic stop but was never charged with a crime. It took him two years and a lawyer to get his money back.
Customs agents seized $41,000 from a Christian band, claiming it was drug money. The band was held for hours but never charged. A judge later ruled the seizure was baseless.
A family’s $50,000 savings was seized during a traffic stop. Despite no evidence of drug activity, they had to fight in court for over a year before getting their money back.

There are many cases of people having cash, cars or homes seized over minor crimes or with little evidence. And once property is seized, getting it back can be extremely difficult and expensive without legal help.

Lack of government oversight

Another issue is agencies don’t have to report much data on forfeitures, making it hard to analyze trends and abuses. And in many states, agencies get to keep the assets they seize, which critics argue distorts policing priorities:

A 2020 federal report found limited data makes it “difficult to determine how often seizures occur, indicators of program effectiveness, and whether seizures disproportionately impact minorities and low-income communities.”
Letting police keep seized assets creates a “profit motive” some experts say leads agencies to over-rely on the practice.
Most states don’t require tracking or reporting on forfeitures. This limits oversight and transparency.

With little oversight, critics argue forfeiture is misused, overused, and prone to abuse.

Disproportionate impact on minorities

Studies suggest asset forfeiture also disproportionately impacts minorities:

A 2020 study found Black drivers accounted for over 1/3 of cash seizures in Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, despite making up only 15% of drivers.
Black men were found to account for 35% of cash seizures but only make up 14% of the population in Philadelphia.
A national study found significant racial disparities in forfeitures, even after controlling for crime rates and demographics. The authors noted “a persistent pattern of discrimination.”

Critics argue this reflects broader racial biases in policing and the justice system.

Reform efforts

There have been some efforts at the state and federal level to reform forfeiture laws and add protections:

Some states now require a criminal conviction before assets can be forfeited.
Others have raised the legal standard for seizures, or limited how agencies can use forfeiture proceeds.
There are also calls for more data collection, reporting requirements, and community oversight.
On the federal level, there have been proposals to limit “equitable sharing” payments where local and state police collaborate with federal agencies.

But many critics argue reforms haven’t gone far enough. Meaningful change will require lawmakers to closely examine how forfeiture is used and develop stronger protections for property rights.

The impact on low income communities

Asset forfeiture, especially civil forfeiture, raises serious civil liberties concerns. While further study is needed, available evidence suggests it disproportionately ensnares those most vulnerable and least able to fight back. Losing property can be devastating for low income families. Reform advocates argue the practice must be reined in with stronger oversight and protections to prevent abuse.

Police and district attorneys argue asset forfeiture is an important tool for disrupting organized crime by targeting illicit proceeds. But there are real concerns about overuse and abuse, lack of transparency, and harm to poor communities. With reform, perhaps asset forfeiture could be made fairer and more accountable. But as things stand, it seems poised to remain controversial.