Some Sheriffs apparently believe this sweet deal is for their personal enjoyment instead of benefiting the department
Source: WND
The Institute for Justice is asking South Carolina’s Supreme Court to address “policing for profit,” in which law enforcement agencies are incentivized to confiscate property, even without charges.
IJ cited a recent series of articles by the Greenville News showing that in just three years, South Carolina law enforcement agencies seized and kept more than $17 million from citizens.
“As the reporting by the News’ Nathaniel Cary indicates, this isn’t the result of pulling over a few kingpins: Over half of cash seizures are for less than $1,000, and one-third involve less than $500. To pull in that cash, South Carolina law enforcement agencies have organized large-scale events like ‘Operation Rolling Thunder,’ where they give trophies to the officers who seize the most property. And those agencies have spent forfeiture proceeds in questionable ways: One sheriff spent over $11,000 to send himself, his chief deputies and their wives on an all-expenses paid trip to Reno, Nevada.
Institute for Justice
“Another officer decided he wanted to keep the Ford Raptor he seized as his official car, so he spent an additional $20,000 in forfeiture funds to pay off its loan.”
Institute for Justice
It is civil forfeiture laws that are at issue, IJ explained.
The state law allows police to take “cash, cars, homes and other property from South Carolinians without so much as charging — let alone convicting — the owner with a crime and then profit from the proceeds.”
IJ is representing a property owner in an ongoing forfeiture case that is heading to the state Supreme Court.
Last year, IJ said, prosecutors seized and then tried to permanently take Travis Green’s money. The judge asked both parties to address whether or not South Carolina’s forfeiture statutes pass muster under the federal and state constitutions.
The judge found the existing procedures violate people’s rights to due process and to be free from excessive fines. As a result, the judge concluded that officials couldn’t try to forfeit Green’s or anyone else’s money in his judicial circuit, IJ said.
IJ stepped into the case when prosecutors appealed to the state’s highest court.
Under the challenged laws, prosecutors don’t have to prove owners did anything wrong. Instead, once they show probable cause that the owner’s property is somehow connected to a crime, the owner must prove his or her own innocence, IJ said.
The process can take years, so it’s not surprising that many owners give up or reach settlements to get part of their property back, IJ said.
“It’s bad enough that under South Carolina’s civil forfeiture laws, owners must prove their own innocence or lose their property forever. But it’s even worse when the government doesn’t even have to give those owners their day in court.”
Dan Alban
Atty at Institute for Justice
IJ said the most offensive part of the system is that when police prevail, they can sell the owner’s property and keep at least 95% of the proceeds for their agencies.
“Recent reporting has exposed the terrible, real-world consequences of South Carolina’s forfeiture laws. The ‘eat what you kill’ financial incentive these laws create causes officials to violate people’s constitutional rights by treating them like ATMs.”
Robert Frommer
Atty at IJ
There also are no requirements for transparency about the “policing for profit,” IJ explained.
State Supreme Court Urged To Address ‘Policing For Profit’
TD