*press release*: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-03-29.pdf
March 29, 2017
DOJ OIG Releases Report on the DOJ’s Oversight of Cash Seizure and
Forfeiture Activities
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
today released a report on the DOJ’s oversight of cash seizure and
forfeiture activities. In today’s report, the DOJ OIG concludes that while
the DOJ views asset forfeiture as an important tool to reduce the financial
incentives for criminal activity, it does not systematically evaluate its
forfeiture data to determine the extent to which seizures benefit law
enforcement efforts or present potential risks to civil liberties.
... *Over the past 10 years the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture program
participants* [participants?!?] *have forfeited over $28 billion*. The DOJ
uses these proceeds to compensate victims of associated crimes and to fund
other forfeiture-related activities, such as payments to state and local
law enforcement through the DOJ’s Equitable Sharing Program.
*full report*: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1702.pdf
... we reviewed a judgmental *sample of 100* DEA cash seizures.
First, we found that 85 of the 100 seizures occurred as a result of
interdiction operations at transportation facilities, such as airports,
parcel distribution centers, train stations, and bus terminals, or as a
result of a highway interdiction or traffic stop. *All but 6 of the 85
encounters or situations that led to* interdiction seizures were initiated
on the observations and immediate judgment of DEA agents and task force
officers *absent any preexisting intelligence* of a specific drug crime
(the remaining six were based on preexisting intelligence). This is
particularly relevant in light of the findings in our 2015 report
highlighting potential risks to civil liberties associated with cold
consent encounters that occur during transportation interdiction operations.
Second, the DEA *could verify that only 44 of the 100 seizures, and
only 29 of the 85 interdiction seizures*, had (1) advanced or been related
to ongoing investigations, (2) resulted in the initiation of new
investigations, (3) led to arrests, or (4) led to prosecutions. When
seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an
investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and
risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting
cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.
Third, our review revealed an area in which policy and training were
inadequate for ensuring consistency in seizure operations. If seizure
operations are not conducted consistently, this may foster a public
perception that law enforcement officers are using their seizure authority
in an arbitrary manner.
We also found that the Department’s investigative components do not
require their state and local task force officers to receive training on
federal asset seizure and forfeiture laws and component seizure policies
prior to conducting federal seizures.
Before the Attorney General’s Order, from FY 2007 through FY 2014, ATF, the
DEA, and the FBI adopted *approximately 32,000 seizures*, according to an
OIG analysis of data from the Department’s Consolidated Asset Tracking
System (CATS).
ATF, the DEA, and the FBI seize many different types of assets, including
cash, jewelry, vehicles, real property, financial instruments, firearms,
and ammunition. CATS data indicates that these three components were
involved in *approximately 425,000 asset seizures between FY 2007 and FY
2016*,
450k ?!? That's a lot of highway robberies! We should have some sort
of public servants out there to protect us from robbery on roadways and
other public places. Also, these alphabet soup agencies have "partners"
out there who offer "tips" ... that sounds like justice. Related: did you
know banks have a quota of Suspicious Activity Reports they have to file.
A QUOTA!