The Pros And Cons Of Civil Forfeiture

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Data shows the racial profiling and illegal pullovers and search of cars driven by Black, and Hispanic males are a police action performed throughout the nation. “Even Famous Black celebrities and prominent African Americans say police have victimized them. They say they have been pulled over and subjected to a vehicle and physical search by police without probable cause, based on none other than the fact they are the black men driving an expensive car. Thus, the Police assumed they must be a drug dealer or involved in some criminal behavior to afford such an expensive car. “DWB” protocols by police and their departments according to the ACLU is also a violation of a person’s civil rights that are illegal, invasive as well as intrusive (8).”

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

Every day people walk down the street of New York wondering if they are going to be stopped. Paul Butler a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor says that “the problem with stop and frisk is not only that it makes the citizens of New York less free, it also makes them less safe” (Butler, 2012). This brings the feeling of the people in New York to light, as they feel like they are less than others and less free with the ability to them being stopped and searched whenever an officer has a suspicion. Not all officers have the right sense in mind when it comes to their suspicion about someone, because “according to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction” (Lee, 2013). The percentages show that officers’ suspicions aren’t always correct and that they may use their own stereotype about someone when they stop and frisk. This policy is ineffective because they don’t have a 100 percent on catching people, and many times officers’ own opinions on someone gets in the way. This policy is kept around for the little percentage it has worked and to give the officers an option to do a stop and frisk if they feel necessary. If this policy

Although the original intent of the stop and frisk rule was to prevent crime, get guns off the streets, and increase public safety, the policy has turned into a racially bias program that stops innocent people and arrests those committing non-violent crimes by carrying marijuana. While the NYPD claims its stop and frisk policy is especially needed to get illegal guns off the street, just 0.15 out of each 100 stops over the last six years resulted in officers actually confiscating a firearm. That undeniably low figure is quite alarming when compared to the 40,000 New Yorkers who were arrested in 2008 for marijuana-related offenses, majority of them being black and Latino.

Imagine innocently walking down the street in a city you’ve lived in your whole life, when all of a sudden you hear the dreaded “woop woop” and see those flashing red and blue lights. The police. They interrogate you, ask your whereabouts, and finally, they “frisk” you. Of course, they find nothing; they rarely do when they search people. Although it’s wrong and demoralizing, you know it’s something you’ll have to get used to as an African American living in New York City.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

Following through the process of the criminal justice system, after being stopped by police officers, many individuals remain innocent of committing any crime and walk away from the situation without further questions asked. However, at this point, silence is not the answer. Alexander notes regarding the unreasonable searches, “Hardly anyone files a complaint, because the last thing most people want to do after experiencing a frightening and intrusive encounter with the police is show up at the police station where the officer works and attract more attention to themselves” (Alexander 69). Therefore, these countless searches remain unheard of by many because the innocent are too scared to come forward and tell their stories. Perhaps if the silence is broken, word of mouth would prevent others from being unlawfully searched and arrested based on no suspicion. This is not the case though; nevertheless, it is known that “the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) trains police to conduct utterly unreasonable and discriminatory stops and searches” (Alexander 70). The use of such searches and methods to determine whom

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

An integral component to the infrastructure of government is law enforcement. In recent years, police abuse has come to the attention of the general public. While citizens worry about protecting themselves from criminals, it has now been shown that they must also keep a watchful eye on those who have been given the responsibility to protect and serve. This paper will discuss the types of police abuse prevalent today, including the use of firearms and recovery of private information. I will also discuss what and how citizens’ rights are violated by the police. We will also explore the measures necessary to protect ourselves from police taking advantage of their positions as law enforcement officers with greater permissive rights than

Criminal forfeitures are typically against an individual after the individual is convicted of a crime and the property being forfeited/seized is connected to the crime. Furthermore, a criminal forfeiture can occur after a plea bargaining or sentencing, as long as the said property is considered contraband, connected to a crime, and was obtained criminally (Levinthal, 2012). The criminal case and forfeited property are subject to all constitutional guidelines under criminal law and must be tried in a court of law together, and the forfeiture is subject to a grand jury to determine if the forfeiture is warranted (Bethel, 2012). "Civil forfeitures, on the other hand, are in rem actions based upon the unlawful use of property, irrespective of its owner's culpability", (Levinthal, 2012, p. 128). Under a civil forfeiture, a conviction or charge is not necessary against a person as the property is considered to be guilty and allows law enforcement to seize such property as long as a criminal nexus or paradigm is associated with the property (Department of Justice, 2017).

I have chosen for my Summary/Analysis Essay an article over civil asset forfeiture. As a Libertarian, I consider the Constitution to be the most important document in the governing of our country. So when I read stories of law enforcement agencies, ran by the government, egregiously violating both the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of individuals through civil asset forfeiture, I become irate. Civil asset forfeiture is a “legal” tool that permits law enforcement officials to seize property that they claim to have been used in criminal activity. This tactic is used across our nation to essentially rob, often times law abiding citizens, of large amounts of money, vehicles, land, and even houses. Unfortunately the way the law is written, a