This is cool. I found this older article about how asset forfeiture is benefiting the law enforcement offices of the southern states of the US. These are the states that border Mexico and have the highest probability of drug money smuggling. But I also look at this practice from an Offense Industry point of view, and also from a privateering/Letter of Marque and Reprisal point of view.
Actually, if you look at what these officers are really involved with, this is just another form of legalized piracy. lol They are arresting a criminal, and taking a prize in the form of confiscated drug money or hard assets like planes and automobiles.
And get this, the states are giving these law enforcement agencies the license or legal authority to do so. Most importantly, the federal government is supporting the act nationally. In the article below this, I posted an excerpt from the US Marshal’s page about their Asset Forfeiture Program. It is a program where local police departments can help the Department of Justice and their various ‘crack downs’ on criminals, and if there are any asset seizures during those operations, that those departments get a cut of the loot or prize.
Matter of fact, the DoJ acts like an admiralty court here, and determines the amount that the departments get and if the seizure was ‘legal’. And then when that amount is settled upon, they use an electronic funds transfer program called ‘e-share’ to give the various departments their cut. Pretty slick, and this is an excellent model on how modern day privateering could work. E-share is a technological solution to getting the ‘sailors (police) their cut of the loot’, as opposed to them selling their ‘prize tickets’ on the dock.
Now I also wanted to point out that the very thing that gives concern to NPR with their study of law enforcement asset forfeiture. Here is a quote:
What are some of the rules of asset forfeiture? Federal and state laws, in general, say that a law enforcement agency that seizes assets may not “supplant” its own budget with confiscated funds, nor should “the prospect of receiving forfeited funds … influence relative priorities of law enforcement agencies.”
NPR has found examples, mainly in the South, in which both of these things have happened.
Or basically, the fear is that law enforcement agencies will care more about going after drug money, and less about the ‘other’ duties of law enforcement. Perhaps this is why asset seizure should be a private industry game, just so police departments are not entirely focused on asset forfeiture?
The other fear with police asset forfeiture is budgetary funding for those departments. If a police department gets less tax payer funding because they are extremely successful at asset forfeiture, then now that department becomes dependent on asset forfeiture as a funding mechanism. State and city budget offices will become less inclined to fund a wealthy department, and a police department’s success in asset forfeiture could easily be their downfall. It could potentially turn a police department into more of a privateer company, and the other less profitable crime fighting activities become a secondary priority next to asset seizure.
So that is why I think asset seizure or privateering should be left in the hands of licensed companies who do not have the extra duties of basic law enforcement. And if local police departments were somehow brought into the venture of privateering as either monitors or issuing licenses, or even allowed to moonlight in privateer companies, then that is how a local department could benefit. Or some kind of tax must be paid for every asset taken in order to make this a mutually beneficial industry. You want the local cops cheering on privateer companies, not bashing them–so give them a cut, or allow them to work in those companies.
So with modern day privateering for taking drug cartel assets, the local cop shop should benefit, the state should benefit, and the federal government should benefit–all by getting a percentage of the prize. But the privateer company should benefit the most, just because they are the ones that put in the hard work for finding and seizing those assets. I think the city/state/feds should split ten percent and enjoy the reduction in crime, and the companies should get ninety percent of whatever amount. Ninety percent fits in with the percentages of yesteryear. Anything less, and the risk of taking on these criminal elements becomes too great.
The rule with offense industry is the reward must outweigh the risks for it to work and flourish. With law enforcement, they are totally enjoying the rewards of their work, and that is great. But the risk of them being too focused on this kind of activity, and not enough on the other aspects of law enforcement in their communities is equally as great. Likewise, a department is not able in some cases to totally focus all of their efforts on asset seizure, because they do have other duties. Perhaps private industry is the better choice for this kind of activity? The overall point is this kind of offense industry is an excellent study for modern day privateering, and it is all food for thought. –Matt
Courtesy of the Kingsville Police Department Investigator Mike Tamez of the Kingsville Police Department shows off the $1 million he discovered in a hidden compartment of a Land Rover in January 2008.
Seized Drug Assets Pad Police Budgets
by John Burnett
June 16, 2008
Every year, about $12 billion in drug profits returns to Mexico from the world’s largest narcotics market — the United States. As a tactic in the war on drugs, law enforcement pursues that drug money and is then allowed to keep a portion as an incentive to fight crime.
As a result, the amount of drug dollars flowing into local police budgets is staggering. Justice Department figures show that in the past four years alone, the amount of assets seized by local law enforcement agencies across the nation enrolled in the federal program—the vast majority of it cash—has tripled, from $567 million to $1.6 billion. And that doesn’t include tens of millions more the agencies got from state asset forfeiture programs.
In Texas, with its smuggling corridors to Mexico, public safety agencies seized more than $125 million last year.
While drug-related asset forfeitures have expanded police budgets, critics say the flow of money distorts law enforcement — that some cops have become more interested in seizing money than drugs, more interested in working southbound than northbound lanes.
