WEBVTT

NOTE Erratic Enforcement: A Survey of Asset Forfeiture Practices in Missouri

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.700
What I'm going to talk to you about is asset forfeiture. How many people in this room have ever heard of civil asset forfeiture?

2
00:00:06.700 --> 00:00:14.900
Okay, well, most people, you don't get that big of a response. Most people have not heard of civil asset forfeiture,

3
00:00:14.900 --> 00:00:21.000
so I'm going to briefly explain what it is for any of you who do not know exactly what it is.

4
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:26.100
Basically, it is a legal process that allows the government to take your stuff,

5
00:00:26.100 --> 00:00:30.580
and they don't have to have had they now this is different from criminal forfeiture

6
00:00:30.580 --> 00:00:38.340
in that they do not have to convict you of a crime in order to take your stuff all they have to do

7
00:00:38.340 --> 00:00:45.300
is show that it's more likely than not that your property was involved in a crime and if you don't

8
00:00:45.300 --> 00:00:51.140
contest it they don't even have to do that because if they take your stuff and then they have it and

9
00:00:51.140 --> 00:00:56.140
And it's just too costly for you to go fight the government, which most of the time it is,

10
00:00:56.140 --> 00:01:01.140
then they can just take it and they don't have to ever go to court to prove anything.

11
00:01:01.140 --> 00:01:08.140
So the idea for civilized forfeiture goes back quite a ways. It actually goes back to biblical times.

12
00:01:08.140 --> 00:01:16.140
There was a concept known as deodans, basically where they thought that any property involved with a crime was, in essence, haunted.

13
00:01:16.140 --> 00:01:35.140
So if a sword was used to kill somebody, people believed that that sword was then infused with that spirit and it couldn't rest until you brought the sword to the king and he would have to either destroy the sword or do something for the good of the community with it and then that spirit could be laid to rest.

14
00:01:35.140 --> 00:01:43.140
And so the idea was always that the property was somehow tainted by the crime that it was involved with.

15
00:01:43.140 --> 00:01:49.140
But in the American context, basically it has been a tool of the drug war.

16
00:01:49.140 --> 00:02:02.140
So in the 1970s, the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, this is what first allowed law enforcement to start seizing property that was involved in the drug trade.

17
00:02:02.140 --> 00:02:09.140
the Federal Reserve, fiat money, fractional reserve banking, Human Action and State, The Theory of Money and Credit

18
00:02:32.140 --> 00:02:41.020
keeps about up to 15% or more of the proceeds and up to 85% of the proceeds of that sale

19
00:02:41.020 --> 00:02:46.960
can then be kicked back to the local or state law enforcement agency that made the initial

20
00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:47.960
seizure.

21
00:02:47.960 --> 00:02:50.980
So I think, you know, I'm in a room with a bunch of economists, I think we can all see

22
00:02:50.980 --> 00:02:54.440
the sort of incentives that are at work here.

23
00:02:54.440 --> 00:02:59.100
If you're a law enforcement agency and you have to make a budget, you have every incentive

24
00:02:59.100 --> 00:03:09.100
Civil Forfeiture of Missouri

25
00:03:29.100 --> 00:03:35.020
go to the law enforcement agencies. So what does the law enforcement agency response to

26
00:03:35.020 --> 00:03:39.180
that? Well, we're just not going to forfeit anything to the state law. We'll bring in

27
00:03:39.180 --> 00:03:46.180
federal, either the FBI or the DEA or some federal agency and use them to make equitable

28
00:03:47.580 --> 00:03:54.580
sharing and so that way they can get the money back as opposed to giving it to the schools.

29
00:03:54.580 --> 00:04:24.580
and so there's a series of articles were run on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch uncovering all this back in the early part of the last decade so the early 2000s and it became a pretty big scandal and they decided that they were going to try to do some reforms so at the state level some of those reforms first 1993 they forbade any forfeiture unless the person was convicted of a felony charge and then in 1999

30
00:04:24.580 --> 00:04:31.540
In 2000, a bunch of more articles in the Kansas City Star showed that forfeiture funds were

31
00:04:31.540 --> 00:04:37.460
not going to schools but back to the police. So then in 2001, there was a reform law that

32
00:04:37.460 --> 00:04:44.460
said that if the state wanted to seize anything from you, it had to, they defined seizure

33
00:04:44.860 --> 00:04:51.540
in such a way that essentially you couldn't take anything for any length of time until

34
00:04:51.540 --> 00:04:58.540
The Federal Reserve, fiat money, fractional reserve banking, Human Action, Man Economy and State, The Theory of Money and Credit

35
00:05:21.540 --> 00:05:28.620
Back in 2001, and that culminated with the passage of CAFRA, the Civil Asset Forbiture

36
00:05:28.620 --> 00:05:35.620
Reform Act, and this allowed for an innocent owner defense, so if you could show that,

37
00:05:35.620 --> 00:05:40.420
you know, while the property may have been used in a crime, you had no knowledge of that,

38
00:05:40.420 --> 00:05:46.520
so hypothetically, if someone stole your car and then used it to sell drugs, if the police

39
00:05:46.520 --> 00:05:49.520
If you ever found that car, they could still take the property.

40
00:05:49.520 --> 00:05:55.520
Well, with an innocent owner defense, they would then have to give the car back to you.

41
00:05:55.520 --> 00:06:02.520
So that's some kind of defense against asset forfeiture, but it's still not a ton.

42
00:06:02.520 --> 00:06:10.520
And also, it provided counsel for any low-income defendants who, if their house was being forfeited,

43
00:06:10.520 --> 00:06:18.120
and also if it's your house that is being forfeited, you can still live in it up until the point that they actually prove the forfeiture.

44
00:06:18.120 --> 00:06:26.920
Anything but your house, they can just take and keep it until you win the case or, you know, if you don't win, you'll never get it back.

45
00:06:26.920 --> 00:06:38.920
Nonetheless, though, federal forfeiture has skyrocketed since then, so it was $338 million in 1996 and we were up to $1.3 billion by 2008.

46
00:06:38.920 --> 00:06:45.920
That is in constant, I believe that's in constant 2008 dollars, by the way, so...

47
00:06:46.760 --> 00:06:52.560
Alright, so, what Caffer did not change. Basically, police still have the incentive to forfeit

48
00:06:52.560 --> 00:06:58.000
through federal law because equitable sharing still exists. The state's burden of proof

49
00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:03.320
at the federal level is still the relatively low preponderance of the evidence. So as opposed

50
00:07:03.320 --> 00:07:08.200
to a criminal law, criminal lawsuit where you would have, you'd have to prove beyond

51
00:07:08.200 --> 00:07:12.800
and a reasonable doubt. In this case, it's just a preponderance of the evidence, so it's

52
00:07:12.800 --> 00:07:17.840
a much lower standard for the state to prove. They can also use what are called forfeiture

53
00:07:17.840 --> 00:07:23.520
waivers, where they say, okay, so we believe that you may have committed a crime, but we

54
00:07:23.520 --> 00:07:28.720
don't have the actual evidence to prove that. However, we can charge you, and you'll have

55
00:07:28.720 --> 00:07:34.000
to go through court and all that, and so what we're going to do is we're going to give you

56
00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:47.000
This property isn't mine, I don't know where it came from, and I'm giving it up right now, and that way we will not charge you with a crime.

57
00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:53.000
This is basically extortion for all intents and purposes.

58
00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:59.000
In Missouri, I'm going to now go through a lot of the data that we've collected.

59
00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:29.000
The use of federal forfeiture has increased, but not state forfeiture, which is not surprising given the incentives that are at play here, so they passed these state level reforms, the use of federal forfeiture dropped by nearly half, at least initially, and then state forfeiture proceeds, sort of remained flat, and then the use of forfeiture bounced back really heavily,

60
00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:59.000
And particularly, right around the time of the recession in 2007, 2008, we think that's no coincidence, we haven't shown anything causally there yet, but we think it stands to reason that a bunch of police departments were hurting for cash and then started, went out and started looking for money wherever they could find it, asset forfeiture was a way that they could do that. And so, yeah, Missouri is increasingly relying on these

61
00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:05.240
Federal Forfeiture Funds. You can see Missouri compared to all the other surrounding states.

62
00:09:05.240 --> 00:09:12.240
So Missouri is the, let's see, a light blue line there. And so the use of it has gone

63
00:09:15.920 --> 00:09:20.760
up immensely. Only Iowa down there, the sort of purple one, has had that increase at the

64
00:09:20.760 --> 00:09:27.760
same amount, but certainly not at the same, you know, we're still at a much higher level.

65
00:09:27.760 --> 00:09:32.520
So, and here's forfeitures per capita for all these states.

66
00:09:32.520 --> 00:09:37.080
Missouri and Nebraska are the two worst out of all of them.

67
00:09:37.080 --> 00:09:42.200
And so about $3 per resident is lost in federal forfeitures

68
00:09:42.200 --> 00:09:43.840
every year in Missouri.

69
00:09:43.840 --> 00:09:47.640
So that's not a ton of money, but that's a lot of money

70
00:09:47.640 --> 00:09:49.800
per, you know, when we multiply it out,

71
00:09:49.800 --> 00:09:52.240
that's about $18 million a year in Missouri.

72
00:09:52.240 --> 00:09:55.520
So it's fairly substantial.

73
00:09:55.520 --> 00:10:00.660
and the police departments are pretty creative in the ways they can work around the state

74
00:10:00.660 --> 00:10:08.080
forfeiture law. So one thing that the St. Louis City was doing a few years back was

75
00:10:08.080 --> 00:10:14.060
that they were towing all these cars that were for minor infractions and then they were

76
00:10:14.060 --> 00:10:21.480
giving the cars to a towing agency that would then hold them and basically the towing agency

77
00:10:21.480 --> 00:10:25.960
and the City Police Department were splitting the money and the Towing Agency was also

78
00:10:25.960 --> 00:10:32.960
allowing the police officers and relatives of police officers to then use those cars

79
00:10:33.320 --> 00:10:40.320
as personal vehicles until people could pay to get them back. This was eventually exposed

80
00:10:40.600 --> 00:10:46.600
by a series of articles in the Post-Dispatch and you can see the reports that we have showing

81
00:10:46.600 --> 00:11:03.600
In 2007, there were 934 seized, 593 in 2008, and then the towing scandal was exposed in July 2008, and immediately the number falls to one.

82
00:11:03.600 --> 00:11:06.600
So it's pretty clear what was going on here.

83
00:11:06.600 --> 00:11:33.600
and also I should emphasize that even the 593 number, that was more than the rest of the state was towing, more than the rest of the state was seizing in terms of vehicles combined, so it was just an obvious flaw that no one was even paying attention to, but it was right there in front of anyone's faces if they had actually cared to look at the reports.

84
00:11:33.600 --> 00:11:43.600
Also, so a lot of these people that have stuff forfeited from them are never convicted or in some cases never even charged with a crime.

85
00:11:43.600 --> 00:11:54.600
So in 2007, there were 612 forfeitures, 253 of those people, there were either no criminal charges filed or they were found innocent.

86
00:11:54.600 --> 00:12:17.600
595, 2008 versus 278, innocent or no charges, 554 to 262. So, we're always looking at about, you know, somewhere around over a third of these people are never charged or found innocent of the crimes that the property is supposedly connected with. So, that's a pretty big problem.

87
00:12:17.600 --> 00:12:25.560
Okay, and we also have a vast, vast difference in the way that the counties are interpreting

88
00:12:25.560 --> 00:12:32.120
these laws. Some counties are actually interpreting them in a pretty good way. So the state statute

89
00:12:32.120 --> 00:12:37.920
reads that the property of persons arrested, detained, sorry it says detailed, but detained

90
00:12:37.920 --> 00:12:43.920
or apprehended and not subsequently charged is not subject to forfeiture for that arrest,

91
00:12:43.920 --> 00:12:46.640
Attention or Apprehension.

92
00:12:46.640 --> 00:12:52.440
And so, Boehm County, where the University of Missouri, where Per is, that's probably

93
00:12:52.440 --> 00:12:54.640
one of the best ones.

94
00:12:54.640 --> 00:13:00.480
The average delay between filing for forfeiture and filing of criminal charge there is 4.2

95
00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:01.480
days.

96
00:13:01.480 --> 00:13:07.160
However, the longest delay, 535 days, so, you know, looking at a year and a half.

97
00:13:07.160 --> 00:13:12.320
But then compare that to Franklin County, which is just south of St. Louis County, and

98
00:13:12.320 --> 00:13:18.120
Your average delay between seizures and filing a criminal charge or dismissal is 342 days.

99
00:13:18.120 --> 00:13:24.680
That's the average. So, you know, they seize your stuff and then they wait around, don't

100
00:13:24.680 --> 00:13:29.860
file criminal charges, and take almost a year to give you your stuff back after finally

101
00:13:29.860 --> 00:13:36.080
deciding not to charge you. And the longest delay was 711 days. There was a criminal charge

102
00:13:36.080 --> 00:13:40.000
ultimately filed there, but it took them almost two years to get around to filing the criminal

103
00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:18.000
The federal law has all the perverse incentives in it, so local law enforcement agencies can just go that route and take people's property.

104
00:14:18.000 --> 00:14:24.000
And so one of the things that we should look at doing is removing that financial incentive.

105
00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:29.000
Now, there's nothing that prevents a locality from telling their police department,

106
00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:34.000
look, for every dollar that you seize and get from the federal forfeiture fund,

107
00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:38.000
we're going to offset your budget by taking a dollar away from you.

108
00:14:38.000 --> 00:15:08.000
and that can actually be an attractive solution to a lot of localities because they're trying to save money as well so they can just say, well, you know, we're not going to give you any money if you keep relying on asset forfeiture for your dollars and that has been shown in the literature to reduce the amount of forfeitures that happen. And then also if a defendant's property is held for an unreasonable amount of time, I think anything over a couple of months is, you know,

109
00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:13.200
," obviously pretty unreasonable. That person should be compensated for the loss of their property.

110
00:15:13.200 --> 00:15:19.320
And then, forfeitures should not be a substitute for criminal law, and by that I mean they

111
00:15:19.320 --> 00:15:24.040
shouldn't have these waivers where they can just say, oh well, we don't want to charge

112
00:15:24.040 --> 00:15:29.480
you with a crime, we would just rather take your stuff. If they have the evidence to charge

113
00:15:29.480 --> 00:15:33.640
you with a crime, they should have to go ahead and charge you and fight that battle in a

114
00:15:33.640 --> 00:15:43.140
in a court where the burden of proof is reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence.

115
00:15:43.140 --> 00:15:47.920
And finally, Boone and Buchanan County serve as models for the rest of the state of Missouri

116
00:15:47.920 --> 00:15:56.360
because they actually seem to take the law at its letter and at its spirit and try to

117
00:15:56.360 --> 00:15:59.120
enforce things the way they should be.

118
00:15:59.120 --> 00:16:01.160
So that is pretty much it.

119
00:16:01.160 --> 00:16:06.840
And I can, if anyone is interested afterwards, I can email you a copy of this paper. We're

120
00:16:06.840 --> 00:16:11.800
still sort of going through the editing process, but we're looking for comments from people

121
00:16:11.800 --> 00:16:16.840
who, you know, are familiar with economics and know the literature and that sort of thing.

122
00:16:16.840 --> 00:16:19.840
So we would love to hear back from you. All right. Thank you very much.
