The following is the opinion and analysis of the writers:
Back in the last century, there was a time in which traffic cops were paid a commission for each speeding ticket they issued. The idea was that this would incentivize diligence in enforcing the law.
It worked well, maybe too well. Some of the traffic cops became so enthused with the writing of tickets that they wrote them for motorists who were not actually speeding. This contributed to a more sound budget for both the traffic cop and the police department, but the citizenry did not appreciate being falsely charged.
Another set of programs that date back to the 1980s are the “asset forfeiture” programs. These were well intended, like the ticket deal, but also created an unanticipated perverse incentive.
The programs were the spawn of the “War on Drugs.” Federal narcs found themselves pursuing large international criminal organizations that possessed great gobs of money and could make that money disappear until the heat was off, then reopen for business; or worse, go to war with law enforcement. So, laws were created that allowed the narcs to seize property if they presented evidence to a judge that indicated that the property was probably used in a crime. The criminal organization’s bank accounts, cash, houses vehicles, were all up for grabs. It empowered law enforcement to bring down criminal organizations before there were any convictions, trials, or even in some cases, arrests or indictments. It gets worse. The law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor’s offices got to keep the money.
For example, Pima County Sheriffs’ Federal RICO Special Revenue Fund will finance proposed 2021 budget items including $350,000 for law enforcement supplies and $187,500 on training for a total of $887,500 — a pittance compared to the two Cessna aircraft they scored in 2014!
So, like the traffic cops, chasing money became a priority along with chasing criminals for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. Naturally, the use of asset forfeiture laws expanded beyond the defunding of drug cartels.
In fact, according to Arizona state Senator Eddie Farnsworth (R-Gilbert), three-quarters of the forfeiture cases filed by state and county prosecutors were in amounts of less that $10,000. According to Paul Avelar of the Institute for Justice, “Civil forfeiture is the greatest threat to property rights in our nation today, and Arizona’s rigged system is one of the worst in the country.”
Farnsworth has been a true “Steady Eddie” regarding the reining in of the forfeiture fest that has been going on in Arizona. Back in 2017, Farnsworth was able to pass legislation (HB-2477) into law, which upped the legal standard for forfeiture from a “preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence” and made it possible for those going to court to get their stuff back to recover their legal fees.
Farnsworth recently attempted to get another bill (SB-1556) that would have required a criminal conviction before property was seized. “The taking of property without a conviction on the criminal side is reprehensible to me. It is contrary to everything we believe in this country. It’s contrary to due process, it’s contrary to the concept of fairness,” Farnsworth said in a Capitol Media Services article that recently ran in the Star. Law enforcement agencies howl that the money from these forfeitures is necessary, that they are insufficiently funded by their city or county. While that may be true, it is beside the point. I am sure that the traffic cops made similar arguments. We should support Farnsworth in his efforts in getting these forfeitures out of the civil law realm and at least require a criminal conviction before enjoying the spoils of law enforcement.
