Restrict asset seizure, forfeiture
A recent legislative audit found a lack of internal controls regarding property seized by law enforcement in Kansas – including in Sedgwick County. But the bigger concern is whether the state grants too much authority to seize and keep or sell assets, especially 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.
The Legislative Division of Post Audit examined whether law enforcement agencies are following legal requirements and best practices for seizures and forfeitures. It sampled six state and local agencies, including the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office.
The audit found that all the agencies adequately safeguarded seized property and had good processes for appropriately using forfeiture proceeds. But it also found that the agencies lacked important controls for liquidating forfeited property and tracking the proceeds.
State law allows the agencies to use forfeiture proceeds on “special, additional law enforcement purposes.” But the audit noted 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.”
One concern the auditors identified with Sedgwick County is that the Sheriff’s Office doesn’t prepare an annual report on seized and forfeited assets for the Sedgwick County Commission, as required by statute. Sheriff Jeff Easter responded that his office thought such a report was not necessary, because commissioners have access to the accounting reports. But he agreed to start preparing an annual report.
Another concern about Sedgwick County – which spent nearly $97,000 in forfeiture funds from 2013 to 2015 – was a lack of specific written policies on the use of forfeiture funds and what expenditures are allowable. Easter said his office follows federal asset forfeiture guidelines but would put that policy in writing.
The audit didn’t find major concerns at the agencies. Overall, they are following state law, and most of the recommendations were related to accounting.
The bigger question is whether law enforcement has too much power and discretion to seize and forfeit the assets.
Kansas received a D-minus grade in a report last year on civil asset forfeiture by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice. It was concerned that forfeitures can occur even when no charges are filed, and it can be difficult for an innocent person to get the property back.
Also, because law enforcement gets to keep the proceeds from selling assets, there is an incentive to seize assets, with or without cause.
Nebraska recently restricted civil asset forfeiture to a few crimes, and only after a conviction has occurred. Kansas should do the same.
This story was originally published August 10, 2016 at 12:05 AM with the headline "Restrict asset seizure, forfeiture."