phr
Bluelighter
Drug raids help enrich New York police departments
Ronald Fraser
The Buffalo News
8.23.08
On the streets, New York’s police chiefs are losing the decades-long drug war but, ironically, back in their precinct headquarters, many of these officers depend on drug raids to fatten their operating budgets.
Many states, wary of overzealous police departments, require that the proceeds from seized assets be used for education or other non-police purposes. But the 1984 federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act offers a way to get around these state laws.
State and local police departments, working with U. S. agents, “federalize” money and property seized during local drug raids. The federal government gets at least 20 percent of the seized assets, but the feds give back up to 80 percent of the seizure — now exempt from state law — to state and local police agencies.
According to federal statistics, the share going to New York law enforcement agencies went from $31 million in 2000 to $34 million in 2007.
Not all police departments ride this drug raid gravy train. But those that do profit handsomely. While the Erie County Sheriff’s Office drug raid income went down from $39,000 in 2000 to $21,000 in 2007, the Buffalo Police Department’s share of seized assets grew from $272,000 to $306,000.
The Amherst Police Department’s slice went from $7,000 in 2000 to $37,000 by 2007 and the Cheektowaga Police Department did well too, going from $17,000 to $22,000 during that period. The Hamburg Town Police Department, however, took in $2,700 in 2007, down from $18,000 in 2000.
At the state level, the New York State Police’s income from seized assets shot up from $2.4 million in 2000 to $6.9 million in 2007 and the State University of New York at Buffalo Police “earned” $1,682 in 2007.
Property owners need not be charged with a crime for their property to be taken. The property itself, however remotely associated with the drug trade has, under civil forfeiture laws, “committed” a crime and can be seized. For example, a motel is seized because drugs were traded on the premises despite the owners’ extensive efforts to prevent such activity; boats and airplanes damaged beyond repair during fruitless searches for drugs go uncompensated by the government; and cash is seized only to be returned years later after the owner is forced into a long and costly legal battle.
One study reports that 40 percent of the nation’s local police agencies depend on seized assets as a budgetary supplement. Why is this bad news?
Years ago the primary reason police seized assets was to break up the illegal drug supply lines. Today, however, that original goal has been largely replaced by self-serving budgetary considerations. Citizens can now legitimately ask why their local police force conducts drug raids. Is it to rid the town of drugs, or are the raids an easy source of extra income that harms innocent people along the way?
Ronald Fraser, Ph. D., writes on public policy for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington- based civil liberties organization.
Link!
Ronald Fraser
The Buffalo News
8.23.08
On the streets, New York’s police chiefs are losing the decades-long drug war but, ironically, back in their precinct headquarters, many of these officers depend on drug raids to fatten their operating budgets.
Many states, wary of overzealous police departments, require that the proceeds from seized assets be used for education or other non-police purposes. But the 1984 federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act offers a way to get around these state laws.
State and local police departments, working with U. S. agents, “federalize” money and property seized during local drug raids. The federal government gets at least 20 percent of the seized assets, but the feds give back up to 80 percent of the seizure — now exempt from state law — to state and local police agencies.
According to federal statistics, the share going to New York law enforcement agencies went from $31 million in 2000 to $34 million in 2007.
Not all police departments ride this drug raid gravy train. But those that do profit handsomely. While the Erie County Sheriff’s Office drug raid income went down from $39,000 in 2000 to $21,000 in 2007, the Buffalo Police Department’s share of seized assets grew from $272,000 to $306,000.
The Amherst Police Department’s slice went from $7,000 in 2000 to $37,000 by 2007 and the Cheektowaga Police Department did well too, going from $17,000 to $22,000 during that period. The Hamburg Town Police Department, however, took in $2,700 in 2007, down from $18,000 in 2000.
At the state level, the New York State Police’s income from seized assets shot up from $2.4 million in 2000 to $6.9 million in 2007 and the State University of New York at Buffalo Police “earned” $1,682 in 2007.
Property owners need not be charged with a crime for their property to be taken. The property itself, however remotely associated with the drug trade has, under civil forfeiture laws, “committed” a crime and can be seized. For example, a motel is seized because drugs were traded on the premises despite the owners’ extensive efforts to prevent such activity; boats and airplanes damaged beyond repair during fruitless searches for drugs go uncompensated by the government; and cash is seized only to be returned years later after the owner is forced into a long and costly legal battle.
One study reports that 40 percent of the nation’s local police agencies depend on seized assets as a budgetary supplement. Why is this bad news?
Years ago the primary reason police seized assets was to break up the illegal drug supply lines. Today, however, that original goal has been largely replaced by self-serving budgetary considerations. Citizens can now legitimately ask why their local police force conducts drug raids. Is it to rid the town of drugs, or are the raids an easy source of extra income that harms innocent people along the way?
Ronald Fraser, Ph. D., writes on public policy for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington- based civil liberties organization.
Link!
