-
Picture yourself driving
down the road tomorrow,
-
heading somewhere to buy an item
you found on Craigslist,
-
perhaps a nice mountain bike
for 3,000 dollars.
-
At that price, it's probably
one of those bikes
-
with a little electric motor on it --
-
(Laughter)
-
maybe some streamers from the handlebars.
-
(Laughter)
-
The seller has declared this
a cash-only deal,
-
so you have, in the console
of your car, 3,000 dollars.
-
Suddenly, you are pulled over.
-
During the stop, the officer asks,
-
"Do you have any drugs, weapons
or large amounts of cash in your car?"
-
You truthfully answer, "Yes,"
-
not to the drugs or to the weapons,
-
but to the cash.
-
In the blink of an eye,
you are ordered out of your car.
-
The officer searches it
and finds your cash.
-
On the spot, he seizes it,
-
and he says he suspects
it's part of a drug crime.
-
A few days later,
-
the local district attorney files
paperwork to keep your money --
-
permanently.
-
And all of this happens
-
without you ever being charged
or convicted of any crime.
-
Now, you might be saying,
-
"Ah, this would never happen
in the United States."
-
(Laughter)
-
Incidents like this occur
every day in our country.
-
It's one of the most significant threats
to your property rights
-
most people have never even heard of.
-
It's called "civil forfeiture."
-
Most of you are generally aware
of criminal forfeiture,
-
although the term itself
might be a little unfamiliar,
-
so let's begin with forfeiture.
-
When we forfeit something,
we give up that thing,
-
or we're forced to give it up.
-
In criminal forfeiture,
-
someone is charged
and convicted of a crime,
-
and therefore, they have to give up
property related to that crime.
-
For example, suppose you use your car
to transport and deal drugs.
-
You're caught and convicted;
-
now you have to give up
or forfeit your car
-
as part of the sentencing.
-
That's criminal forfeiture.
-
But in civil forfeiture,
no person is charged with a crime --
-
the property is charged
and convicted of a crime.
-
(Laughter)
-
You heard that correctly:
-
the government actually convicts
an inanimate object with a crime.
-
It's as if that thing itself
committed the crime.
-
That's why civil forfeiture cases
have these really peculiar names,
-
like, "The United States of America
v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."
-
(Laughter)
-
Or "The State of Oklahoma
v. 53,234 Dollars in Cash."
-
(Laughter)
-
Or my personal favorite:
-
"The United States of America
v. One Solid Gold Object
-
in the Form of a Rooster."
-
(Laughter)
-
Now, you're thinking:
-
How does something like this happen?
-
That's exactly what I said when
I first learned about civil forfeiture
-
while on a road trip with my wife.
-
No, we did not get pulled over.
-
(Laughter)
-
I was reading about
the history of civil forfeiture
-
as part of my work as a research
director at the law firm,
-
and I came across
one of the cases I just mentioned,
-
"The United States of America
v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."
-
In that case, Carol Thomas
loaned her car to her son.
-
While in the car, her son committed
a minor drug crime.
-
Carol didn't commit any crime,
-
so law enforcement couldn't
convict her and take the car,
-
but they could -- and did --
-
use civil forfeiture
to "convict the car" and take it.
-
Carol was completely innocent,
but she lost her car nonetheless.
-
In other words,
-
she was punished for a crime
she did not commit.
-
When I read this, I was gobsmacked.
-
How could this occur?
-
How is this even legal?
-
It turns out, it began in our country
with maritime law.
-
Early in our republic, the government
sought to fight piracy --
-
yes, actual pirates.
-
The problem was the government
often couldn't catch the pirates,
-
so instead it used civil forfeiture
to convict the pirates' property
-
and take it,
-
and therefore deny the pirates
their illegal profits.
-
Of course, the government could've simply
taken and kept the booty
-
without necessarily
using civil forfeiture,
-
but doing so would have violated
-
our most basic due process
and property rights.
-
Now, the government rarely used
civil forfeiture until the 1980s
-
and the war on drugs.
-
We expanded civil forfeiture law
to cover drug crimes
-
and then later, other types of crime.
-
Canada and the European Union
adopted similar provisions
-
so that now all kinds of people
are ensnared in the forfeiture web,
-
people like Russ Caswell.
-
Russ Caswell owned a small budget motel
in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.
-
His father built the motel in 1955,
and Russ took it over in the 1980s.
-
During the years
that Russ owned the motel,
-
from time to time,
people would rent rooms,
-
and they would commit drug crimes.
-
Russ didn't condone the activities --
-
in fact, whenever he found out about it,
he would immediately call police.
-
Russ was entirely innocent of any crime,
-
but that did not stop the US Department
of Justice from seizing his motel
-
simply because other people
committed crimes there.
-
But Russ's case was not alone.
-
Between 1997 and 2016,
-
the US Department of Justice
took more than 635,000 properties.
-
This means each year,
-
tens of thousands of people
lose their properties
-
in cases in which they're never charged
of convicted of any crime.
-
And we're not necessarily talking about
major drug kingpins
-
or headline-grabbing financial fraudsters
-
whose cases involve hundreds of thousands
if not millions of dollars.
-
Many of these seizures and forfeitures
involve just everyday people
-
like Russ Caswell
-
or you
-
or me.
-
But it gets worse.
-
Are you wondering:
-
Where does all this cash
and property end up?
-
In most places, law enforcement keeps it.
-
And they use it to buy equipment
-
or pay for building repairs
-
or even pay salaries and overtime.
-
This is a clear conflict of interest.
-
It creates a perverse profit incentive
that can distort law enforcement.
-
And this is a problem that's not lost
on those in law enforcement, either.
-
Former chief of police in Rochester,
Minnesota, Roger Peterson,
-
described the choice
that police officers often face.
-
As he described it:
-
suppose I'm a police officer,
-
and I see a drug deal.
-
Now I face a choice:
-
Do I go after the buyer
and remove from the street illegal drugs,
-
or do I go after the seller
-
and get cash for my agency to use?
-
So it's easy to see why
a police officer might go for the cash.
-
It was just such a circumstance
-
that compelled police officers
in Philadelphia to seize an entire house.
-
In 2014, Chris and Markela Sourovelis' son
sold 40 dollars worth of drugs
-
down the street from their house.
-
Forty dollars.
-
The police watched the deal go down.
-
They could've arrested the buyer
and confiscated the drugs,
-
but they didn't.
-
They could've arrested
the Sourovelises' son
-
right there on the street
-
and grabbed 40 dollars.
-
But they didn't.
-
They waited to arrest him at home
-
because then they could seize
their entire house.
-
The house was worth 350,000 dollars.
-
That is what I mean
by a perverse profit incentive.
-
But the Sourovelises' case was no outlier.
-
Philadelphia, the "City
of Brotherly Love,"
-
the "Athens of America,"
-
the cradle of liberty,
birthplace to the Constitution,
-
home to the Liberty Bell
and Independence Hall,
-
the "City that loves you back" --
-
(Laughter)
-
that Philadelphia was running
a forfeiture machine.
-
Between 2002 and 2016,
-
Philadelphia took more than 77 million
dollars through forfeiture,
-
including 1200 homes.
-
Cars, jewelry, electronics --
all of it they sold,
-
the proceeds they kept.
-
And they would have
kept right on doing it,
-
had it not been
for a class-action lawsuit --
-
our team's class-action lawsuit --
-
(Applause and cheers)
-
Thank you.
-
We forced them to change
their forfeiture practices
-
and to compensate victims.
-
(Applause and cheers)
-
When our team first began
researching forfeiture in 2007,
-
we had no idea how much
forfeiture revenue there was.
-
In fact, no one knew.
-
It wasn't until our groundbreaking study,
"Policing for Profit,"
-
that we found federal law
enforcement agencies have taken in
-
almost 40 billion dollars --
-
billion with a B --
-
since 2001,
-
more than 80 percent of that
through civil forfeiture.
-
Unfortunately, we have no idea
-
how much state and local
agencies have taken in,
-
because in many states,
they don't have to report it.
-
So until we reform forfeiture,
-
we'll never know how much
forfeiture activity actually occurs
-
in the United States.
-
And we desperately need reform.
-
Legislatures should abolish
civil forfeiture
-
and replace it with criminal forfeiture.
-
And all forfeiture proceeds
should go to a neutral fund
-
such as a general fund.
-
When forfeiture proceeds stop hitting
law enforcement budgets directly,
-
that is when we will end
policing for profit.
-
(Applause)
-
Now, as you can imagine,
-
law enforcement officials
don't love these recommendations.
-
(Laughter)
-
They stand to lose a lot of money,
-
and they believe civil forfeiture
is an effective crime-fighting tool.
-
The trouble is,
-
it's not.
-
In June 2019, we released a study
-
that found forfeiture does not
improve crime-fighting.
-
And the report also found
-
that law enforcement agencies
pursue more forfeiture money
-
during economic downturns.
-
So when city and county budgets are tight,
-
law enforcement will use forfeiture
to find the money.
-
So it's no wonder, then,
-
that law enforcement officials
predict a criminal apocalypse --
-
(Laughter)
-
if these reforms are adopted.
-
But some states have
already implemented them,
-
and we're pushing for reform
all across the country,
-
because until we reform forfeiture,
-
this is something that could
happen to any of us.
-
It can happen in the United States,
-
it can happen in the United Kingdom,
-
it can happen in countries
throughout the European Union
-
and beyond.
-
People like you and me
and the Sourovelises and Russ Caswell,
-
just doing the everyday stuff of life,
-
can be caught in a scheme
we never thought possible.
-
It is time we end policing for profit
-
once and for all.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause and cheers)