By
America’s police departments, as you may have heard,
are enduring some rather intense scrutiny at the moment. The #blacklivesmatter
movement, Colin Kaepernick’s pre-game protests, and a host of other activists,
commentators, and citizens have brought attention to disturbing cases of police
using deadly force in situations that don’t seem to require it.
In contrast, you may not
have heard as much about the controversial practice of civil forfeiture, like
the elderly Pennsylvania couple whose house was seized by police after their son was
caught selling pot on the front porch of their home of 50 years. Or the Detroit
partiers whose cars were taken because the museum
that hosted the celebration hadn’t gotten the proper permits for the gathering.
Forfeiture as enforcement tactic
If you’re fuzzy on the
details, civil forfeiture is a process by
which police can seize any real property that might be associated with a
crime—cars, houses, boats, money, and the like. The concept is in place both as
a deterrent and as a way to convert assets from criminal use to other,
presumably more positive public concerns. But there are two elements of civil
forfeiture that can create potential temptations for abuse:
No crime has to be proven. It only has to be alleged
or suspected. This means that police don’t actually need to bring charges to
seize property.
If the property isn’t won back—a time-consuming and
expensive process that essentially involves convincing a judge you’re innocent
of a crime you haven’t been charged with (you can ask questions and get more
information here)—the seized property goes to the police department,
to spend on things they need
(or think they need).
And in June 2016, a
ruling by the St. Louis-based U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals added a new
wrinkle: the court ruled that police can swipe the magnetic strip of your
credit, debit, or prepaid card. And if it’s a prepaid card, because of civil
forfeiture practices already in place, they can take the cash right then and
there.
Gift card scam spurs new law
Eric-Arnaud Benjamin
Briere De L’Isle was driving down the highway in Nebraska when he was pulled
over by a county sheriff’s deputy for suspicion of following another vehicle
too closely. After pulling De L’Isle over, the office smelled (or claimed to
smell) marijuana inside the car. A search involving a drug-sniffing dog ensued,
after which no drugs were found.
The police did, however,
find quite a stack of gift, debit, and credit cards. They confiscated the cards
and then swiped them through a reader, ostensibly to determine if they were
genuine. Turns out not all of them were—and De L’Isle was convicted of one
count of possessing a “counterfeit device.”
On appeal, he argued
that swiping the cards was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against
warrantless physical search. The court, however, didn’t agree. They ruled that
since the information on the magnetic strip should be essentially identical to
what’s printed on the card, swiping the card to read that data isn’t an illegal
search—in fact, it isn’t a search at all.
Oklahomans push back
After that ruling was
issued, Oklahoma police agencies—clearly looking to enforce the new
law—purchased a large amount of car-mounted card readers and trained officers
in their use. The police claimed the readers would be used primarily to stop
drug traffickers, who routinely use prepaid cards to access their illegal
profits.
But while the readers
can only read the data on legit credit and debit cards, prepaid cards are, as mentioned
earlier, a whole other story. The devices can immediately transfer the
prepaid funds from the holder to the police.
That last part turned
out not to be so popular with the local citizenry. When the reader purchases
and accompanying police tactics were publicized in Oklahoma, the backlash was
significant, and use of the readers has been temporarily suspended, in part because
of the efforts of Kyle Loveless, a Republican state senator from Oklahoma City.
According to Oklahoma City’s News 9, Loveless said, “We’ve seen innocent people’s stuff
being taken. We’ve seen where the money goes and how it’s been misspent.” Loveless
is planning to introduce legislation requiring an actual conviction to seize
Oklahomans’ assets in the future.
“If I had to err on the
side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the
Constitution,” Loveless told News 9. “And I think that’s what we need to
do.”
Given the current public
relations issues faced by police department’s nationwide, that seems like good
advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment