LEO Funding from Drug Confiscation ???

W

Waitone

New member
Question Set-up

Once upon a time it was considered a really good idea by a highly respected American President to use money and assets seized from the drug industry to supplement law enforcement funding. Initially it was consider neat that all this money taken from the bad guys was used to hunt and arrest the bad guys.

We now see the dark underbelly of that decision. We see a growing arrogance on the part of SOME law enforcement agencies. Particularly objectionable to me is the increasing militarization of law enforcement. At the federal level there is clearly money being spent where it is not needed or ineffectual (I bring to your memory the pictures of Federales snatching Elian Gonzales who were clearly out of place in tactical garb).

The Question

Does anyone out on this forum have any idea how much and what percentage of total funding for various LE agencies comes from drug confiscation????????

The Concern

I have a real concern when the funding of agencies of coersion such as law enforcement (local, state and federal) derive their funding from sources outside the election process. I am abolutely certain that the public would scream loud and long if the military was funded from, say, oil revenues. Why are we not concerned when other agencies of coersion derive at least some of their funding from sources outside the electoral process.

Am I paranoid ?????


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Good intentions gone awry? Possibly.

Each week, the Wall Street Journal has a page or two, paid for by I think the DEA/ATF/FBI, listing seized goods. (This is one of those legal postings in fine print: The kind you see in your local papers you never pay any attention to.)

The goods listed are usually cash, vehicles, travellers checks, and firearms.

Amongst all the fine print is a disclaimer stating the person listed is not necessarily guilty of anything or under investigation. ("Are you still beating your wife?")

Each time I see these, I get a queezy feeling. Something seems a bit out of sorts here.

Regards
 
In ancient Babylon, if you accused someone of being a witch and won the trial, you got to take all their possessions. I guess we've made progress. Now you don't even have to have a trial.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RHC:
In ancient Babylon, if you accused someone of being a witch and won the trial, you got to take all their possessions. I guess we've made progress. Now you don't even have to have a trial.[/quote]

But we still have plenty of witch hunts!
 
Waitone, you'll love this...

In Massachusetts, we're having a ballot question on the subject.
http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elebq00/bq008.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the state Attorney General, and the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

This proposed law would create a state Drug Treatment Trust Fund, to be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, solely for the treatment of drug-dependent persons. The Fund would include fines paid under the state's criminal drug laws; money forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes; and the proceeds from selling property forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes.

The Fund would be administered by the state's Director of Drug Rehabilitation. Money in the Fund would be spent to increase, rather than replace, existing government funding for drug treatment programs. Those programs would be expanded to apply to persons who are at risk of becoming drug-dependent and to include drug abuse prevention through education.

The proposed law would expand eligibility for the program under which a person charged with a drug crime may request a court finding that he is drug-dependent and would benefit from court-monitored treatment. If the court so finds, and the person then successfully completes a treatment program, the criminal charges are dismissed. The proposed law would allow requests to enter this program by persons who are at risk of becoming drug dependent and by persons charged with a first or second offense of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing a controlled substance, or possessing a controlled substance with the intent to do any of those things, or trafficking 14 to 28 grams of cocaine.

The proposed law would change the state law governing forfeiture of money and property used in connection with drug crimes. Land and buildings could not be forfeited if used in a manner that was merely incidental to a drug crime. The state would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that money or property was subject to forfeiture, and the property owner could then try to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money or property was legally exempt from forfeiture. All forfeited money, instead of being divided between the prosecuting agency and responsible police department and used for law enforcement purposes, would be put in the Fund. All forfeited property, instead of being so divided and used, would be sold and the proceeds put in the Fund.

Records of all state and local forfeiture activities would have to be kept and made public unless harm to law enforcement efforts would result. The state Inspector General could audit and investigate these activities. Any official who concealed or diverted any forfeited money or property could be punished by a fine of up to $1000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the rest of the law would remain in effect.
[/quote]

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
What bugs me are those commercials for auctions of confiscated cars.

"Now YOU can get these almost new sports cars and SUV's for pennies on the dollar"

Yeah, sure, if you want to drive a stolen car. I'd like to walk outside the aution carrying a sign "get your stolen cars here!"

TOR
 
Assuming you think forfeiture is a good idea to begin with, then the solution is simple: The funds/proceeds generated by the forfeiture shall go to the general government fund, to be decided how to be spent by the legislature only, and NOT to the LEO making the seizure; this way, the budget for the LEOs remains unchanged and under the control of the legislature, which is at least somewhat accountable to the people. Without the financial incentive, the LEOAs will only curtail people's rights for serious, big drug offenses that are otherwise warranted from a law enforcement perspective only, not a profit motive perspective.
 
Missouri passed such a law, dedicating all forfeiture funds to education. So every time the state and local LEOs make a stop they call in the DEA, who claim it as a federal forfeiture and give some of the money to the local agency, directly defeating the clearly expressed desire of the people of the state.

The KC Star did a long series on this and their files may be available still at their site.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RHC:
Missouri passed such a law, dedicating all forfeiture funds to education. So every time the state and local LEOs make a stop they call in the DEA, who claim it as a federal forfeiture and give some of the money to the local agency, directly defeating the clearly expressed desire of the people of the state.

The KC Star did a long series on this and their files may be available still at their site.[/quote]

Yeah, I read that series. Pretty damning stuff. It's this kind of blatant highway robbery (and I mean that literally) that leads to people muttering darkly about the police as their enemies, and contemplating ambushes and other vigilante actions.
 
The biggest problem with the funding of the war on drugs is that there is no incentive to win the war.
Guess what.. If you win, the funding stops. And many agencies depend heavily on this revenue.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Question

Does anyone out on this forum have any idea how much and what percentage of total
funding for various LE agencies comes from drug confiscation????????[/quote]

The answer:
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for,,,"
Anything, even a penny, is 100% too much. The whole idea throws due process out the window. I would rather see the seized assets burned in public than put to use. That way neither side could profit from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top