Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
It's a nasty mix of police militarization and civil asset forfeiture.
On Wednesday, the Sheriff's Office in Linn County, Iowa, announced the purchase of a BearCat G2 armored vehicle with $297,061 in funds obtained via civil asset forfeiture.
Although Iowa established limits on asset forfeiture, the practice is alive and well in the state. In 2017, the state legislature passed a law requiring a criminal conviction before property forfeiture, as police could previously seize assets based solely on suspicion. Oddly enough, the change only applies to possessions valued at less than $5,000, meaning more valuable belongings can still be taken by law enforcement without a conviction.
In 2018, Iowa's Supreme Court reined in other parts of the practice, including requiring courts to verify that law enforcement legally confiscated property before considering a claim on those goods.
Proponents say that asset forfeiture stops crimes at their roots; if law enforcement officers are able to cut off the tools used to commit a crime—such as the car driven during a drug exchange—then crime rates should decrease, the thinking goes. In practice, though, it has a negligible impact on crime rates, and merely provides a perverse incentive for police to seize as much property as possible in order to fund their departments. In Iowa, for example, police get to keep 100 percent of the proceeds.
https://reason.com/2019/08/16/iowa-...ehicle-with-300000-in-asset-forfeiture-funds/
On Wednesday, the Sheriff's Office in Linn County, Iowa, announced the purchase of a BearCat G2 armored vehicle with $297,061 in funds obtained via civil asset forfeiture.
Although Iowa established limits on asset forfeiture, the practice is alive and well in the state. In 2017, the state legislature passed a law requiring a criminal conviction before property forfeiture, as police could previously seize assets based solely on suspicion. Oddly enough, the change only applies to possessions valued at less than $5,000, meaning more valuable belongings can still be taken by law enforcement without a conviction.
In 2018, Iowa's Supreme Court reined in other parts of the practice, including requiring courts to verify that law enforcement legally confiscated property before considering a claim on those goods.
Proponents say that asset forfeiture stops crimes at their roots; if law enforcement officers are able to cut off the tools used to commit a crime—such as the car driven during a drug exchange—then crime rates should decrease, the thinking goes. In practice, though, it has a negligible impact on crime rates, and merely provides a perverse incentive for police to seize as much property as possible in order to fund their departments. In Iowa, for example, police get to keep 100 percent of the proceeds.
https://reason.com/2019/08/16/iowa-...ehicle-with-300000-in-asset-forfeiture-funds/
