Forfeiture Funds Encourage Law Enforcement To Misspend Public Money

Residents of Bibb County, Georgia received a curious magazine in their mailboxes. The “Justice Journal” featured the county’s district attorney, Anita Howard, on the cover with subheadlines like “investing in our youth” and “equal justice for all.” Inside, were more than 60 photos of the DA handing out awards, attending community events and giving oversize checks to local charities.

But what looks like a campaign flyer was paid for with public money taken through civil forfeiture. It’s yet another example of how law enforcement control over forfeiture funds leads to waste.

What is civil forfeiture?

First, a quick primer on civil forfeiture.

A civil forfeiture case is separate from any criminal trial. After police seize property from someone, prosecutors can bring a case against the property itself saying it is tied to a violation of criminal law. This yields curious case names like U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.

Because these cases are civil, the property owners are not typically entitled to an attorney if they can’t afford one. Many property owners simply give up without a fight since the value of their property may be less than what it would cost to hire an attorney.

After the forfeiture is complete and becomes the government’s property, the proceeds often go into slush funds controlled by police and prosecutors. This has led some police departments to spend money on outrageous items like a margarita machine or a Zamboni.

Outrageous spending in Georgia

Georgia has some notable examples of outrageous spending. In 2008, the Camden County Sheriff purchased a $90,000 Dodge Viper for its school anti-drug program. In 2018, the Gwinnet County Sheriff bought a Dodge Charger Hellcat muscle car.

The Peach State’s worst forfeiture scandal went on for years. The Georgia Department of Revenue’s Office of Special Investigations kept forfeited money that should have gone to the state’s general fund. They held back $5.3 million from 2015 to 2020 and spent $3.1 million. According to an official investigation, items purchased included a heavy-duty Ford truck for the office’s director, engraved firearms, commemorative badges, sunglasses and gym equipment.

Local media looks into newsletter

Local TV station 13 WMAZ looked into the DA publication and its funding. It cost nearly $50,000 to print and mail the color magazine, which was sent to people who had signed up to receive newsletters or outreach materials.

Georgia law allows for forfeiture funds to be spent in only some categories. A spokesperson for the DA claimed that the newsletter was an educational initiative meant to serve victims and witnesses. And while there are six pages of stories about victims and the prosecution of criminals, the other 20 pages are centered on the DA herself. Some pages feature more than a dozen photographs of her. One page was dedicated to a charity started by DA Howard and contains a link to the organization’s website, which is only a fundraising page with scant information about what the charity does.

Retired Gwinnett County district attorney Danny Porter told WMAZ, “The magazine is clearly a political piece. It was clearly in support of the district attorney’s office, but that’s not what the forfeiture statute allows.”

Hours before the report, the DA put out a statement on Facebook reiterating that the newsletter was about victim and witness assistance and claiming that it was paid for “by asset forfeiture funds, not taxpayer money.”

Civil forfeiture is the problem

Differentiating forfeiture funds from “taxpayer money” is a slight of hand. Money taken with government force is the public’s money, whether it is drawn from paychecks or through a court order, and all of it should be accounted for and spent wisely.

But civil forfeiture itself is a problem. And it is unnecessary. The government can take proceeds of crime through the criminal process, where people are entitled to representation and are innocent until proven guilty. Saying that the money is coming from a legal system where property can be taken under lower standards shouldn’t reassure the public.

According to the Institute for Justice’s latest report on civil forfeiture practices, Georgia scored a D-minus for its civil forfeiture laws. The standard of proof needed to take property is low, innocent owners have to prove their own innocence and up to 100% of proceeds go to law enforcement. The last reform the state made was 10 years ago and required additional reporting.

Georgia should join states like New Mexico and Maine in ending civil forfeiture. An Institute for Justice study published last year in the Georgia State University’s Criminal Justice Review showed that after New Mexico ended civil forfeiture, crime rates did not worsen compared to neighboring states.

Civil forfeiture is handy for police and prosecutors to pad their budgets, but it’s not an effective crime fighting tool. It may actually shift the focus of law enforcement away from fighting serious crimes to crimes that can yield a profit. Until the practice is ended, it is inevitable that there will be wasteful and needless spending of the proceeds.