Law enforcement authorities in this East Texas town of 1,000 people seized property from at least 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008, and, to date, filed criminal charges against fewer than half, according to a review of court documents by the San Antonio Express-News.
Virtually anything of value was up for grabs: cash, cell phones, personal jewelry, a pair of sneakers, and often, the very car that was being driven through town.
Some affidavits filed by officers relied on the presence of seemingly innocuous property as the only evidence that a crime had occurred.
Tenaha's mayor told Lufkin/Nacodoches TV station KTRE that the city is "just trying to get drugs off the roads." However, he told the E-N that the town used the seized cash and goods to buy a new patrol car and expand the police station.
An editorial in the Longview News-Journal denounced the practice, which seems to target minority drivers.
Something is terribly askew here. In too many towns, not just Tenaha, out-of-town motorists are targeted, indeed profiled, often by race. Someone pulled over who carrying a lot of cash is presumed guilty, even if no drugs or other contraband is found. Once money is seized, the owner has to go to court, pay lawyers and endure an arduous process to have any chance of recovering the money — even if no charges are ever filed. Too many law enforcement agencies view such tactics as efficient ways to fund new toys — such as police cars, fancy weapons and such.
This story attracted national attention from Reason magazine writer Radly Balko, who noted that:
Asset forfeiture outrages have been generating great copy for 20 years. The public gets angry, and maybe a few people spotlighted in the local newspaper investigation get some portion of the property back. But then it's back to business as usual, at least until the next report.
Section 59.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure makes all property considered contraband "subject to seizure and forfeiture under this chapter." The state's burden to prove that the property is contraband is not the reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction, but the lower threshhold of a preponderance of evidence needed in civil cases. The burden therefore falls on the owner to prove that the property is not contraband.
The criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast noted back in January that the Texas Senate's Criminal Justice Committee will consider overhauling this law. The committe's interim report listed seven recommendations to reform asset seizure, including state oversight of how local agencies use the seized property, punishment for agencies that misused forfeited assets, and shifting the burden of proof to the government when an owner goes to court to get the property back.
ADDENDUM: For another lawyer's take on this story, see defense attorney Mark Bennett, who offers up this case as an example to "those who like to pretend that government can be trusted to do the right thing."
No comments:
Post a Comment