Civil asset forfeiture hits poor people hardest |
Featured Commentary

Civil asset forfeiture hits poor people hardest

Federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents presented a drug asset forfeiture check worth $561,913.08 to the West Mifflin Police Department in September 2012. (Daily News photo)

Proponents of civil asset forfeiture often claim that it’s an important tool for targeting major drug dealers. We have to deprive them of ill-gotten gains, the thinking goes, and letting police departments and prosecutors’ offices keep those gains provides a good incentive to target the kingpins.

The problem with that argument is that studies on forfeiture frequently show that the typical person whose property is seized is not a kingpin but, at best, a low- or mid-level offender. Most of the time, the person is never convicted of any crime.

Reason magazine and Lucy Parsons Labs — a police oversight nonprofit — obtained the locations of thousands of forfeitures in Chicago and plotted them on a map. The results are pretty striking. The magazine stated: “Altogether, police in Cook County performed 23,065 seizures between 2012 and 2017 using asset forfeiture … .

“Civil liberties groups have often claimed asset forfeiture disproportionately impacts poor and minority communities. When these police seizure locations are mapped, it shows that, although seizures happened nearly everywhere in Chicago and the surrounding area, low-income neighborhoods like the South Side and West Side were more frequently the targets of asset forfeiture.

“This data show what we already know, that the seizures tried by (the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office) overwhelming steal the possessions of poor people,” Lucy Parsons Labs says in a statement to Reason. “The data show that the seizures are clumped in the South and West side, overwhelmingly African-American neighborhoods.”

This isn’t terribly surprising. But it’s nice to have more empirical data to hammer home the point.

Illinois has some of the most pro-law-enforcement forfeiture laws in the country. Police and prosecutors get to keep up to 90 percent of what they seize, and for an innocent person, the process of filing to get seized property returned is onerous and confusing.

The problem only gets worse when you look at low-dollar seizures: “For example, roughly 11,000 seizures in Cook County over the five-year period were for amounts lower than $1,000. …

“While the list of seized items contains common tools of the drug trade such as safes, digital scales and money counters, it also contains things like flashy jewelry, flatscreen TVs, and a copy of the Call of Duty: Ghosts video game.

“‘Not only has law enforcement in Chicago snatched a staggering amount of money through forfeiture in recent years, much of what they have taken is small-dollar properties,’ Dick Carpenter, director of strategic research for the Institute for Justice, says of the data. ‘Despite claims by forfeiture proponents, this is hardly the stuff of vast drug networks and crime bosses.’”

Civil asset forfeiture is basically a license for police to steal from the poor. No, not all police departments do it. But it provides a strong incentive for it. Low-income people are more likely to be targeted, more likely to be seen by law enforcement as potential drug offenders, more likely to have cash taken from them in amounts too small to merit the trouble associated with getting it back, and less likely to have access to legal assistance to get it back even if they wanted to.

Radley Balko writes about criminal justice, the drug war and civil libertiesfor The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.