Five State Reforms Of Asset Forfeiture

Principled Reforms on Civil Asset Forfeiture:

By David Van -  There has been much debate about the practice of cops and prosecutors taking property from individuals and corporations based on only a notion that the property may have been utilized for committing a crime, or exists as the fruits of the criminal activity.

Five Reforms

1. We can't have each county and city running this cash cow using their own unique rules. A statewide set of rules needs to be created and the state needs to hold all law enforcement agencies accountable.

Either the process has to be simpler so simple folks can protect their property with confidence, or there needs to be an advocacy agency set up and paid for by the state.

2. It shouldn't cost a citizen $3000 in attorney fees to recover $2000 in cash or property. Either the process has to be simpler so simple folks can protect their property with confidence, or their needs to be an advocacy agency set up and paid for by the state.
3. The agency seizing the property needs to prove the case against the property in order to keep any goods. The owner must be able to cross-examine and rebut. A jury trial of the property must convict in order for the seizure to stand. Life, liberty, and property all deserve this fundamental due process.
4. Law Enforcement Agencies need to be funded by their oversight governments, and not at all by "fishing expeditions" conducted by department personnel. Cops and prosecutors need to be taken out of the role of digging for cash to make bonuses or keep their jobs.  All forfeited goods need to go to the general governmental body (city, county, or state) and not kept within the department.
5. There must be convincing proof that the owner of the property had full knowledge and intent for his property to have been used in commission of a crime.  If a criminal uses stolen or 'borrowed' property in a crime; that stolen or borrowed property is not necessarily guilty. Otherwise, community property like sidewalks, libraries, and even courthouses could be seized by the state using the reasoning that "if a crime was conspired or committed on or in the premises, then the premises is a conspirator, as well.".

Summary

  Asset Forfeiture may be allowed within certain perimeters, but the current practice is increasingly abusive and lacks even minimal accountability. Agencies are increasingly becoming enticed to enhance department funding by taking goods through less than honorable means. It is time for a statutory oversight system to protect the reputation of the state of Oklahoma as defenders of constitutional liberty.
  When a law enforcement agency defends the status quo by scaring voters about how decimated the department's operating budget will be if asset forfeiture diminishes; then the case is clear that the department's behavior is motivated by money, rather than public safety.