The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.There is an eye-opening article by Sarah Stillman in the August 12th-19th issue of the New Yorker describing a legal procedure called civil forfeiture which renders these words absolutely meaningless. You do not have to be convicted of a crime. You do not even have to be charged with a crime! But the police can seize your home, your car, your cash...anything. And surprise, surprise, it is used disproportionately against the poor and minorities. If you're the coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, you have nothing to worry about. (If you want an explanation of that, you'll have to read the article.)
In the twisted logic of forfeiture law as it is applied, property does not have the same legal rights as do people. So you end up with absurd Kafkaesque cases with titles like The United States v. One Pearl Necklace or The State of Texas v. $6,037.
The laws authorizing these seizures go back to the '70s and '80s and they were enacted to target organized crime bosses and drug kingpins. As Civil Libertarians warned us at the time, the short-circuiting of the constitutional legal process is a mistake. Always a mistake. You cut a corner here; you cut a corner there....
Now we have law enforcement entities that rely on forfeitures for a large percentage of their funding, and personnel whose bonuses are funded from forfeitures.
John Boehner and his colleagues want to be measured on how many laws they repeal. Here is something they should go to work on immediately. They should be able to get bi-partisan support.
1 comment:
You know, Gerry, how reluctant I am to disagree with you, and on this matter, I am in general (if not complete) agreement with your synopsis and the author's conclusions.
I am not inclined to support your conclusion that the law should be repealed, but efforts of a Republican, Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judicial Committee tried to reform the law in 1997, it has gotten out of hand again, and something needs to be done.
You are so correct--people in authority have seen fit to disproportionately victimize the poor and minorities, primarily because they can't fight back. Although there was no detailed information, that was probably the case with Philadelphia coach Reid when his two sons were arrested.
I noticed in the article that places like North Dakota where the money goes elsewhere, beyond the control of the authorities who actually make the seizures, seem to have no problems or fewer problems. Just as usual, when money is available for abuse of power, things happen.
Simple steps that break the link between the abusive action and the benefit gained would be a good first step. Human nature being what it is.
When I lived in Sioux City, Iowa, the police would plant a lookout at a fireworks stand in South Sioux City, Nebraska and alert colleagues on the Iowa side that fireworks, illegal in Iowa, were about to be transported over the bridge. If found, your car was confiscated and forfeited. This seems borderline, and it was practiced a bit just as a public warning, more than a way to make money.
Another side note--I had never heard the name "Paul Begala" until today. Then, he is mentioned in the New Yorker article and again in a letter about Sarah Palin published today on the internet. Apparently, Palin had praised Ashton Kutcher, a supporter of Democratic party candidates and causes, and Begala objected to that praise. According to him, Palin's agreement with Kutcher on the virtue of hard work was a "liberal" cause and Palin was not worthy of offering her praise.
This is so reminiscent of the way the small towns in the South did business "back in the day." I hope the backlash on this issue serves to improve the current law that has vital tools for law enforcement in the fight against organized crime and international crime without gutting it.
Again, one step may be to disconnect greedy benefit from the people who perform the action.
Post a Comment