I think that the editors of the Washington Post have a point here:
“Civil asset forfeiture” sounds like a wonky term for some arcane practice in a secluded cranny of the justice system. In fact, it can be a powerful law enforcement tool in the battle against crimes such as drug trafficking — when used correctly. When abused, it can result in innocent people having their property seized, often without criminal charges.
Forfeiture involves officers taking property they suspect is related to a crime, such as cash from a drug transaction, leaving the person from whom they confiscated it with only arduous options to show it is clean and get it back. For years, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General has prodded federal law enforcement agencies to use this tool more responsibly. At the Drug Enforcement Administration, the most persistent abuser of federal forfeiture, those efforts have failed, a recent IG report shows.
The report found that, at mass transportation facilities such as airports, DEA officers defied agency protocols as they harassed passengers and snatched their cash.
As should be needless to say corruption of law enforcement agencies isn’t limited to civil asset forfeiture and it isn’t limited to the DEA. If the FBI is looking for a job they might consider monitoring the federal government’s several dozen armed law enforcement agencies with police powers more closely. Their staffs are humans and as such are fallible. They cannot merely be trusted.
The remaining question is who should monitor the FBI?
Lord knows the FBI is a mess. I hope the new director can make significant reforms.
Balko has written extensively on civil asset fortitude case. It’s really more of a problem at state and local levels. Even when they very obviously screw up it’s hard to get your money or property back.
Steve