"U.S. v. 1960 bags of coffee"

...am I reading this right? ..."U.S. vs. 9.6 acres of land and lake?" "U.S. vs. 667 bottles of wine?" "U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc?"
What do all these court cases have in common? They're all federal lawsuits filed against inanimate objects. From 1985 to 1991, the number of such lawsuits increased by 1500%, reaching a total propety value of $644 million. To some, it may seem baffling that something so innocent as a lake could end up having to defend itself in court, however, in the US justice system, such situations have become commonplace since asset forfeiture laws were enacted in the early 70's.
Asset forfeiture laws give law enforcement the right to confiscate property from individuals without furnishing any concrete evidence. To direct a lawsuit against the property of an individual rather than against the individual himself, allows prosecutors to circumvent due process. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights only ensures due process of US citizens, and makes no guarantees of the due process of property, thus creating a readily exploitable loophole in the Constitution: a situation in which the burden of proof is placed on the accused rather than the accuser. Even after the accused is found innocent, government officials often refuse to return seized assets. In order for an individuals to recover lost property, they must first post a bond of $5000. Then, the 2 to 3 year legal proceeding that normally ensue will cost over $10000 more, partly because the plaintiff is responsible for paying the government's legal fees. (even if he/she wins the case) The majority of asset foreiture cases are for small sums, so to most victims, the idea of pursuing the case in court is absurd. As a result, asset forfeitures are rarely contested legally.
These laws were originally created to thwart mobster and large-scale drug dealers; if law enforcement could not accuse them of a crime at least they could diminish their financial power. However, asset forfeiture soon became more of a business than a crime fighting technique, as the seized assets were used to fund the expansion of the forfeiture industry, not to mention the expansion of police salaries.
In 1993, it was noted by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois that 80% of all victims of property forfeiture were never formally charged of a crime. Eric Sterling, a former member of the US House Commitee on the Judiciary who helped craft minimum sentencing drug laws in the late 80's, has recently spoken out against these laws. "There don't have to be drugs," he explains. "People are amazed, 'Well, aren't there drugs?' There don't have to be drugs. All there have to be are witnesses who say, "I saw the drugs," or, 'He said there were drugs.' That's what you need. " Asset forfeiture is often more about making money, then law enforcement, and unfortunately, the groups most effected by such systems are those with the weakest political voice; ie: minorities.
In Volusia County, Florida, law enforcement set up a "forfeiture trap" on I-95, and managed to seize $5000 a day in cash from 1989 to 1992, totalling to $8 million. In 75% of cases, no criminal charges were even filed. Furthermore, according to the Orlando Sentinel, 90% of the victims were black or Hispanic "What this data tells me is that the majority of money being transported for drug activity involves blacks and Hispanics," Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel concludes. After one groundless $19000 seizure from two black men, the Sentinel reports, the deputy read the men their rights: "You have the right to follow us back to the station and get a receipt." However, these men were lucky, compared to a black man in Houston, who was given a receipt for "an undetermined amount of U.S. currency."
Were these cops acting out of racism, or were they simply seeking to profit from an already racist legal system? If the corrupt officers had chosen white victims, it is doubtful that the Volusia operation could ever have continued for so long. It was police opportunism, more than police racism, that caused this injustice These cops were merely exploiting the racism in a judicial system that places little value in the testimony of non-whites. Many expected the Clinton administration to reform forfeiture laws; however, the administration offered no significant reform, letting down its minority constituency.
Sheriff James Hickey of Nueces County, Texas used the money gained through asset seizures to grant himself a retroactive $48000 salary increase just before retiring. However, he was later indicted for embezzlement by a federal grand jury. The number of cases in which police officers are convicted of corruption is disturbing considering that most judges are more than ready to give law enforcement officers the benefit of the doubt over suspected criminals. One can only wonder how many more cleverly orchestrated embezzlement operations asset forfeiture laws enable daily?
It is easy to tell ourselves that incidents of police abuse of power are rare. However, when only 20% of forfeiture cases result in criminal prosecution, while the rest result in the money being funnelled to some undisclosed location, can we really be sure? According to Federal Judge Richard Arnold, some observers are questioning "whether we are seeing fair and effective law enforcement or an insatiable appetite for a source for increased agency revenue." Even government documents acknowledge that asset forfeiture has led to widespread corruption. A September 1992 Justice Department newsletter notes, "Like children in a candy shop, the law enforcement community chose all manner and method of seizing and forfeiting property, gorging ourselves in an effort which soon came to resemble one designed to raise revenues."
Asset forfeiture is sometimes even used to justify the confiscation of homes on scant evidence. In a famous case in Malibu California, 31 police officers broke into the home of 61-year-old Donald Scott equipped with automatic weapons. Hearing his wife scream, Scott came out with a pistol, and was gunned down. The house was searched, but no drugs were found. Police officials claimed that an anonymous informant had tipped them off, however, the supposed informant denied having done so. It was eventually proven in court that the cops had merely been after his $1.1 million property. Donald Scott died trying to protect his property from police burglary.
I always wonder why episodes of this nature never get played on the TV show, "Law & Order", which documents real world criminals being apprehended by death defying police officers in the name of justice. This popular show completely stinks of propaganda designed to foster American respect for law enforcement, and to counteract the images of police racism littering the papers from Rodney King, and other cop orchestrated murders. Many Americans are under the delusion that law enforcement could only ever act as a criminal agency of the government in far-off foreign dictatorships. Obviously, incidents of police brutality and abuse of power in the US are "isolated", and don't reflect any general trend. Therefore, it's perfectly OK to grant our police force uncheck power to claim citizen's assets with no probable cause. As long as they aren't corrupt, and we *know* they aren't corrupt… Don’t we?