PD Editorial: Hot dog cops and abuses in civil asset forfeiture

Video of a UC Berkeley campus police officer pocketing $60 from the wallet of a hot dog vendor went viral recently. University officials defended the action as routine collecting of evidence. It was evidence all right, just not of illegal hot dog sales. It reminded people just how out of whack America’s system of civil asset forfeiture has gotten.

Americans like to believe that this is a country in which the rule of law is paramount and someone is innocent until proven guilty. We trust our law enforcement officers to walk a careful line between protecting the public and defending the rights of the accused.

When an officer stands in front of a camera and brazenly takes cash from a guy just trying to make a buck selling hot dogs on a corner to Berkeley sports fans, whether legally or not, it undermines that trust.

Three other vendors received warnings that day. None had cash taken.

Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize money or other property based on the suspicion that it was involved in a crime. There’s little to no need for proof, and in many cases whatever was seized is never returned. Instead, law enforcement departments keep the proceeds to subsidize their budget.

This isn’t just about separating criminals from their ill-gotten gains. Too often, seizures affect innocent people who never see their belongings again. Their cases are never adjudicated. They might not even be charged with crimes. Their valuables simply belong to the police now.

Law enforcement nationally seize property valued in the billions of dollars every year under state and federal law. Just a few years ago, police in Sonoma County would seize more than $1 million annually.

This is one of the rare issues that brings left and right, liberal and conservative, libertarian and socialist together. The only people who seem to like civil asset forfeiture are the police and allied prosecutors who benefit from it.

Laws are changing, though. California last year adopted some of the toughest limits on asset forfeiture in the nation. When the seized assets are valued less than $40,000 or include a vehicle or home, they must be returned if there is no conviction. The limits also apply to assets seized under federal law.

That federal distinction matters because federal seizure rules give police a loophole. The Obama administration had curtailed those rules, but the Trump administration has loosened them back up, and law enforcement is taking advantage of them.

California may have strong rules, but opportunity for reform remains. Even if a suspect here can get assets back eventually, those assets are unavailable to pay for a defense attorney or to keep a family fed while a trial drags on.

Defenders of civil asset forfeiture argue that law enforcement needs this tool to bolster budgets. It’s an important revenue stream that allows them to continue to do their jobs.

Whether law enforcement has adequate funding is something lawmakers and local governments should discuss on a regular basis. It should be a public policy debate, not an excuse to seize property from hot dog vendors and others based merely on a cop’s suspicion.