Forfeiture, or more specifically asset forfeiture, is, “… an enforcement strategy that federal statutes and some state laws support… [authorizing] judges to seize ‘all monies, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance… and all proceeds traceable to such an exchange’” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 546). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.) explains the purpose of asset forfeiture as a means to punish, deter, disrupt, remove tools, return assets to victims, and protect communities (para. 7). Further, there, “… are three types of forfeiture under federal law: criminal forfeiture, civil judicial forfeiture, and administrative forfeiture” (“What We,” n.d., para. 9), each of which are available depending on the circumstances of the crime activity at hand.
What happens to the assets once they are successfully forfeitured? The answer is as complicated as the cases themselves. Zach Glenn (2016) with The Record Herald highlights the impact of state legislation in such matters:
…show more content…
That money can then be spent on training or equipment or donated to victims’ advocacy groups that help those hurt by the drug trade… Forfeiture money also has been spent on drug-related training sessions… [However, two] new laws proposed in Harrisburg – House Bill 508 and Senate Bill 86 – attempt to curtail civil asset forfeiture by requiring a criminal conviction before assets can be seized and requiring the seized funds to go into a county level general fund. (para.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
Even though illegally seized evidence can't be used in criminal court. (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Some states permit such evidence in parole revocation cases where the standard is probable cause.
Martynenko, Natalia, and Eduard Martynenko. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Confiscating Property as a Criminal Law Measure." Internal Security 3.1 (2011): 225-30. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015.
In 1971 Nixon claimed that drug addicts/Dealers steal more than $2 billion worth of property every year. The FBI however the total value of all property stolen in the United States that year was $1.3 billion which was still a big deal anyway .Despite all these kinds of problems, fighting drugs became a crucial weapon in the war on crime.with
According to McCaw (2011), civil forfeiture has multiple benefits. One benefit of civil forfeiture is that it does not need a conviction to render a punishment (McCaw, 2011, p. 196). It allows the government to provide a lesser punishment when a criminal conviction is too harsh. For instance, if a juvenile is distributing pictures of underage classmates a prosecutor could decide to forfeit the cell phone instead of charging the juvenile with distribution of child pornography (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). This means that civil forfeitures can act as an alternative to incarceration. Specifically, it can increase revenue for the government through forfeiture funds without the cost of sending someone to prison (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). McCaw (2011) stated
modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature, narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, ?to establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing is not required.? (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when the war...
M. (2002). Forfeiture. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 714-719). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=tel_a_bethelc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3403000126&asid=aed93538c57de2bcd07ea576034cc631
In 2013, the United States federal government budgeted $25.6 billion on domestic and international drug control. Of that amount, domestic law enforcement consumed the largest share, using $9.4 billion or 37.4 percent of the total. Incarceration operations, the most expensive part of domestic law enforcement, by itself cost $4.53 billion in 2013, or 17.7 percent of all drug control expenditures. The Bureau of Prisons spends $3.5 billion per year holding federal drug offenders in prisons, which is more than half of its total $6.9 billion budget. ,
When the government seizes a property it must be for the public interest. The seized
One aspect of financial incentives lay in the concept of forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies were granted authority to keep the bulk of cash and assets seized when making arrests, which allowed the drug war’s perpetual existence. The drug market then needed to be profitable and successful so that police forces could make money (Alexander, 78-79). A person could be found innocent of a crime and their property could still be subjected to seizure, and “those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, lacking the resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs” (79). Ultimately, this process was highly lucrative for police. Those with assets could buy their freedom, while those who lacked financial means were subject to arrest. Additionally, there was no real justification for many of the raids. For example, some officers took as little as 93 cents in raids, even though by no means could that amount be considered drug money (82). Property could also be considered “guilty”. For example, a woman who knew her husband sometimes smoked marijuana could have her car forfeited since she allowed him to use her car (83). Unfortunately, forfeiture cases are left unchallenged 90% of the time, since the primary targets of this practice cannot afford lawyers to fight the case. Additionally, federal funding to police departments provided incentives for police arrests in the drug war. Law enforcement agencies that made drug-law top priority were given large sums of money, leading to competitions between departments and higher arrest rates (Alexander, 74). And not only cash assets, but military equipment was doled out by the Pentagon to local police departments in hopes that it would increase arrest rates
...ailable, they could be required to go to free rehab programs and support groups because money should not be a factor in attempting to reduce the use of drugs in our world.
The National Association of State Budget Officers expenditure report from the fiscal year 2009 states that 5% of state spending, about $48 billion annually, supports corrections (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2011). The federal government is spending 1.8% of our tax dollars on prisons (Frugal Dad, 2011), which amounts to about $45 billion (Williams, 2009). So, it seems that the states and federal government are sharing the burde...
A former director of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency’s Mexican office once stated:” The heroin market abhors a vacuum.” The truth in this statement can be extended to not only the heroin trade but also the trade of numerous other drugs of abuse; from cocaine to methamphetamines, the illicit drug trade has had a way of fluidity that allows insert itself into any societal weakness. Much like any traditional commodity good, illicit drugs have become not only an economy in and of themselves, they have transformed into an integral part of the legitimate global economy. Whether or not military or law enforcement action is the most prudent or expedient method of minimizing the ill-effects of the illicit drug trade is of little consequence to the understanding of the economic reality of its use in the United States ongoing “War on Drugs”. As it stands, not only has the illicit drug trade transformed itself into a self-sufficient global economy, so too has the drug-fighting trade. According to a CNN report in 2012, in the 40 years since the declaration of “The War on Drugs”, the United States Federal Government has spent approximately $1 trillion in the fight against illicit drugs. Additionally, a report in the New York Times in 1999 estimates that federal spending in the “War on Drugs” tops $19 billion a year and state and local government spending nears $16 billion a year. Given the sheer magnitude of federal, state, and local spending in the combat of the illicit drug trade, one would reasonably expect that the violence, death, and destruction that so often accompanies the epicenters of the drug economy would be expelled from the close proximity of the United States. While this expectation is completely reasonable to the ...
The President proposed an increase of $100.6 million in 2005 for substance abuse and drug treatment systems, such as clinical treatment or recovery services. Another anticipated budget increase is for drug court programs. With more monies, the extent and value of drug court services will increase. These programs are options to imprisonment with the goal of being drug-free.
However, legalization will be profitable to global economies in two ways. It will allow for money spent on drug law enforcement to be spent more wisely and will increase revenue. There have been escalating costs spent on the war against drugs and countless dollars spent on rehabilitation. Every year in the United States, ten billion dollars are spent on enforcing drug laws alone. Drug violators accounted for about forty percent of all criminals in federal prisons (Rosenthal 1996). In 1989, a Republican county executive of Mercer County, N.J., estimated that it would cost approximately one