Devising new tricks to confiscate property

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views August 9, 2004]

Does it seem to be slipping away fast -- this free, open Republic? It's easy to wonder about such things, when you learn that the Department of Justice, a couple of scant weeks ago, sent out an order to libraries to destroy five publications deemed "not appropriate for external use." And what are these documents that are already in the public domain? They are pamphlets that inform citizens about retrieving property that might be taken from them by the government during a possible investigation. They include information on such topics as forfeiture procedures and contain federal asset forfeiture statutes, along with a copy of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.

With law enforcement agencies around the country confiscating property of citizens who are never charged with crimes, what possible reason could there be to remove resources that might prove helpful to someone who has been stripped of his belongings and is caught in a bureaucratic nightmare?

It took just one week of an outcry of denunciations by librarians to make Justice Department officials reverse their order to "burn the books." On July 23, the order to destroy was issued, and on July 31, the order was rescinded. What were they thinking?

Further on the asset forfeiture front, law enforcement bureaucrats still continue to devise ways to appropriate citizens' property, sometimes under the weakest pretexts. In Eureka, California, for example, the City Council proposed a new "loitering" law, which could result in the loss of one's car. (Vehicles and cash are the favorite seized property.) The proposed bill would make it unlawful to "loiter" within one block of parks, schools, recreation centers, businesses, streets, parking lots, and on and on the list goes. If a person were singled out for this offense, a law enforcement official would determine if the "loitering" was done with intent to traffic in drugs or engage in prostitution. Under the law, the officer could seize the vehicle in question, or other property, without due process.

On learning of this proposed law, a great many residents of Eureka expressed alarm, fearful of possible abuse. An Op-ed in the Eureka Reporter (8/2/04) warned of creating a "built-in conflict of interest," since revenue from seized property would be split between local law enforcement and local prosecutors. "The potential for law enforcement abuse is enormous."

Eureka citizens mobilized -- faxing, emailing, and sending letters to the City Council -- demanding that the bill be dropped. Letters also came in from outside Eureka, including messages from people who claimed to be regular visitors to the city. Mark Emerson called the proposed bill a "dangerous, police state forfeiture ordinance," while Randol Goodrich suggested that the City Council build a bypass around Eureka, so that unsuspecting visitors could not enter and risk falling into the city's "forfeiture trap."

Public outrage, along with the able assistance of the group Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR) and local attorneys, forced the Council to table the proposed law. FEAR's Brenda Grantland admits that the bill could be reintroduced in the future, but claims that townspeople will be ready to face the challenge.

For more information on asset forfeiture, visit:

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
- and -
The Kansas City Star's special site on journalist Karen Dillon's award-winning articles on the subject.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views