Grassley: Seizure program being abused, needs overhaul

WASHINGTON – Some law enforcement officials are seizing assets and using them for their own benefit in a conflict of interest that Congress needs to address with new legislation, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said Wednesday.

Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said asset forfeiture — when law enforcement seizes cash and property suspected of being associated with illegal activities even if the individual tied to those items is never charged with a crime — is an important and valuable tool that should remain in place.

But the Republican lawmaker said the process is rife with abuse and needs to be fixed by Congress. Grassley said the current process enables law enforcement officials to take shortcuts and seize property without any proof of wrongdoing. It also allows the government to violate the rights of the people it is responsible for protecting.

"Iowans have raised their concerns about asset forfeiture with me. It is past time to take action," Grassley said. "But we should do so while recognizing the value of civil asset forfeiture. And we should continue to allow proceeds to flow to law enforcement, so long as there is no direct connection between any particular asset that is seized and the agency that seized the asset."

A recent Des Moines Register investigation found that in Iowa alone, law enforcement agencies seized at least $43 million in forfeitures since 2009. A review of more than 600 cases showed that in dozens of forfeitures, there was no record of criminal charges or convictions for criminal activity.

FINDERS, KEEPERS: Stories from the Register's investigation

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has proposed legislation that would require the government to prove the property seized had been used as part of illegal activity and that the owner had done so intentionally. Grassley also is working on legislation that would protect innocent people.

The call for reform has gathered support from Democrats and Republicans in Washington because of concerns that law enforcement has become too aggressive in seizing assets. Critics believe federal, state and local enforcement have incentives to seize property and assets if they can convert them to their own use.

The process also is difficult for individuals who try to challenge seizures. The presumption of innocence and the right to a state-appointed attorney are not available in civil forfeiture cases. A person who tries to get his or her property back can often spend more in legal fees than the item is worth.

MORE: What you need to know about forfeiture

"These procedures are all stacked against property owners to the benefit of the government, and that's not the way it should be when we are talking about innocent property owners," said Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice.

The nonprofit public interest law firm has rated Iowa's law one of the worst in the nation for protecting innocent people from government forfeitures.

Russ Caswell, whose family-owned motel in Massachusetts was seized by law enforcement because of claims the property was facilitating drug activity, told the Senate Judiciary Committee he believed he was targeted because he was running a mom-and-pop operation and lacked the resources of a big corporation to defend himself. With the help of Institute for Justice, he later won in court.

"I have never been charged with or convicted of a crime my entire life. No one in my family, or any of our employees, has ever been involved in a crime at the motel concerning drugs," Caswell said. "To us, the forfeiture case seemed ludicrous."

COMMUNITY FORUM: Reform Iowa civil forfeiture

Chuck Canterbury, national president with the Fraternal Order of Police, told the Senate panel his group agreed there is a need for changes to civil asset forfeiture and said it is committed to working with lawmakers to make improvements.

But he said some of the proposals — including imposing a higher burden of proof on law enforcement and preventing federal agencies from sharing profits from seized property with local or state bodies — are problematic. He said resource-strapped police departments depend on the federal government to help them with investigations, and use the money gained from seizures to help with safety and other programs.

"To end a decades-long program which is worth hundreds of millions to our nation's communities and has documented success in deterring and fighting crime based on anecdotal media reports is simply not sound public policy," Canterbury said.

Grassley later scolded Canterbury over his use of the word anecdotal, especially for those whose assets have been unfairly seized. He said he was confident local and state officials would be able to find additional funding if they lost out on money from property seized by the federal government.

"The public is becoming increasingly discontent with the record of law enforcement in civil rights," Grassley said. "So from me, a bit of advice: I think this is the wrong time for law enforcement to display any kind of tin ear and oppose needed reforms."