Restrict asset seizures, forfeitures
The Legislature should follow the recommendations of state auditors and restrict how assets seized by law enforcement can be used. It also should support an effort by Rep. Gail Finney, D-Wichita, to limit the authority of agencies to seize and sell assets when someone hasn’t been convicted of a crime.
State law allows law enforcement agencies to seize money or property that they suspect was used in certain crimes. A judge can then transfer ownership of those seized assets to the agencies, which can sell the forfeited assets and use the funds.
Agencies are allowed to use these forfeiture proceeds on “special, additional law enforcement purposes.” But an audit last year found that agencies have “broad discretion over how forfeiture proceeds can be used, which creates a risk agencies could begin to depend on them for operating funds.”
The audit also found that the agencies lacked important controls for liquidating forfeited property and tracking the proceeds.
The auditors recommended legislation that would bar agencies from using seized property for salary and benefits. They also recommended reducing a conflict-of-interest concern by prohibiting district and county attorneys from representing law enforcement agencies as private attorneys in forfeiture cases.
These reforms could help safeguard how these assets are used and help reduce the financial incentive for law enforcement to seize assets. But the bigger concern is whether law enforcement has too much power and discretion to seize and forfeit the assets.
Kansas law enforcement can seize assets from people without a warrant if the agency has probable cause that the asset, such as a car or cash, is being used for a crime. And once seized, it can be hard for people to get their property back, even if they were never convicted of a crime – or even charged.
Earlier this month a article in The Eagle reported about a Nevada man who had $32,000 seized from him last March at a central Kansas rest stop. A Kansas Highway Patrol officer suspected that the cash was proceeds from a drug sell. The man has yet to be charged, nor has he been able to get his money back.
Fighting seizure cases can be difficult, especially for someone from out of state. In some cases, the legal costs can surpass the value of the asset taken, so some people don’t even try.
Other states have more restrictions on seizing and selling assets. For example, Nebraska passed a law last year restricting civil asset forfeiture to a few crimes, and only after a conviction has occurred. A bill by Finney is similar.
State law enforcement officials – including Wichita Police Chief Gordon Ramsay and Sedgwick County Sheriff Jeff Easter – oppose Finney’s bill, arguing that civil asset forfeiture helps them combat crime. Forfeiture proceeds also help pay for investigations, training, drug task forces and needed equipment, which reduces the burden on taxpayers.
But our system of justice and personal rights should be based on criminal convictions, not suspicions.
This story was originally published January 26, 2017 at 5:04 AM with the headline "Restrict asset seizures, forfeitures."