FAIR Act Would Eliminate Department of Justice Program that Enables State and Local Police to Keep Proceeds of Property Seized from Citizens
Momentum Builds in Congress for Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Days after Attorney General Holder Issues Policy Limiting Police Participation in Controversial Department of Justice Program
Bipartisan legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress today that would roll back changes made in the 1980s by Congress to federal civil asset forfeiture laws largely intended to incentivize law enforcement to pursue civil asset forfeitures as part of the rapid escalation of the war on drugs. In the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act. In the House, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced an identical version of Sen. Paul’s FAIR Act.
“It’s encouraging to see strong bipartisan support in Congress for rolling back policies that have perpetuated the failed war on drugs and eroded the public’s trust in law enforcement,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Congress has an opportunity to end the perverse incentives that federal laws give police to take innocent people’s property and run,” said Piper.
Civil asset forfeiture begins when a federal, state or local law enforcement agency seizes property during a traffic stop or other encounter and takes legal action against the property seized from its owner by alleging that the seized property is connected in some way to illegal drugs or other criminal activity. Property owners do not need to be charged or convicted of a crime in order for law enforcement to seize property.
The FAIR Act reforms decades-old federal laws intended to incentivize federal, state and local law enforcement to seize cash, homes, vehicles and other property from citizens. The bill eliminates the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program. For years, advocates have criticized the Department of Justice practice of accepting and processing seized assets from state and local law enforcement agencies through its Equitable Sharing Program, which retains 20 percent of the proceeds from the seizure received from a state or local law enforcement agency and returns up to 80 percent of the proceeds to the state or local law enforcement agency that initiated the seizure. A 2010 Institute for Justice report, Policing for Profit, documented how law enforcement agencies participate in the Equitable Sharing Program in order to bypass state laws that prohibit police departments from keeping the proceeds from civil asset forfeiture or impose a stricter legal standard for seizing property. The Institute for Justice report also found that many law enforcement agencies have come to depend on forfeiture proceeds.
A recent Washington Post investigation has also documented widespread abuse of this practice, including the extent to which the Equitable Sharing Program funnels proceeds to state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as federally-funded anti-drug task forces. Since 2001, the Washington Post found that nearly 62,000 cash seizures totaling more than $2.5 billion have been made without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, which returned more than $1.7 billion of those seizure proceeds to state and local law enforcement agencies. The Washington Post also found evidence that hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces rely on seized cash to support their budgets and that race may be a factor in civil asset forfeiture cases.
“For decades police have used civil asset forfeiture to rob innocent people, taking money right out of their wallets — or even taking their home and their car — without even charging them with a crime,” said Piper. “Like other drug war programs, civil asset forfeiture is disproportionately used against poor people of color who cannot afford to hire lawyers to get their property back.”
The FAIR Act also addresses concerns that federal law enforcement agencies may be adversely incentivized by seizure proceeds. The bill would require that seizure proceeds are deposited in the federal government’s general fund rather than federal law enforcement accounts that currently receive seizure proceeds. It also increases the federal government’s burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings.
The introduction of the FAIR Act comes just days after Attorney General Eric Holder issued an order establishing a new Department of Justice policy prohibiting federal agencies from accepting certain civil asset forfeiture assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies. Holder’s action followed receipt of a letter from key congressional leaders calling on the Attorney General to end the Equitable Sharing program. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and has oversight over the Department of Justice’s civil asset forfeiture program, has named civil asset forfeiture as one of his top legislative priorities for this year.In 2000, a coalition of concerned civil rights and conservative groups was able to push modest reforms to federal forfeiture laws through Congress, but not the level of reforms sought by advocates at the time.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.