police raid.JPG

The Legislature should reconsider a bill that would make police accountable for raids they conduct.

(File Photo)

It’s easy to understand why police chiefs don’t receive hefty commissions for traffic tickets. If they did, then traffic stops for trivially small speeding violations would multiply like weeds, and eagle-eyed deputies would be on the lookout to pounce on every technical failure to signal a turn.

Changing the law enforcement incentive from protecting public safety to bureaucratic profit would obliterate the basic presumption of innocence at the heart of our legal system. The police would be looking at drivers as marks to be fleeced, rather than citizens whose rights must be protected and respected.

Something similar called 'civil asset forfeiture' occurs in the criminal law. A 2010 analysis by the Institute for Justice in Washington DC grades Michigan as among the worst states in the nation for laws preventing abuse.

The basis of civil asset forfeiture abuse is that - unlike you - your property is not presumed innocent of criminal conduct. If the police declare your property - or cash you happen to have in your possession - as the proceeds or tools of a criminal enterprise, then they can seize it and put the burden of proof on you to show their accusation is false. You’ll need to spend a lot on a lawyer to go up against a government with much greater resources. And if you fail - or if you don’t mount a case within a certain period of time - the police department keeps as theirs what was once yours.

In some states, the police need not ever prove the owner of the property is guilty of a crime.

As with the traffic hypothetical noted above, this creates a threat of bureaucratic profit getting in the way of justice if police have a financial incentive to choose targets based on what the police can keep rather than who they need to protect.

Among other stories, the IJ report presents examples of large amounts of cash being taken from innocent people based upon the police asserting the money was illegal drug profits. In Georgia, an immigrant had his life savings of more than $43,000 in cash seized in a traffic stop. He later proved his money “innocent,” but not until $12,000 of it was chewed up in legal fees.

It isn’t clear how often abuses occur, because governments are not always required to keep detailed records. Further complicating matters: Federal law allows “equitable sharing” with governments wishing to split the proceeds of asset forfeitures, so even decent state protections against abuse can be evaded.

Michigan joins Georgia, Texas, West Virginia and Virginia on the Institute for Justice's hit list of five states that combine "poor laws" against abuse with "aggressive use of equitable sharing" with the Federal Government. The five states receive IJ's lowest grades, with Michigan getting a D-minus. According to the Lansing City Pulse, citing the Michigan State Police, law enforcement in Michigan used civil asset forfeiture to take away, keep and then spend $25 million during 2012.

State Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, is working on a proposal that would require more transparent reporting regarding how often civil asset forfeiture takes place and the reasons it is done in each case. He is part of a bi-partisan coalition of Michigan lawmakers seeking reforms on this issue, including Reps. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, and Mary Robinson, D-Detroit.

All three - along with Michigan American Civil Liberties Union legislative director Shelli Weisberg - will participate in a civil asset forfeiture town hall meeting at the Royal Oak Public Library on January 23, at 7 p.m.

Ken Braun was a legislative aide for a Republican lawmaker in the Michigan House and worked for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He has assisted in a start-up effort to encourage employers to provide economic education to employees, and is currently the director of policy for InformationStation.org. His employer is not responsible for what he says here ... or in Spartan Stadium on game days.