LAW ENFORCEMENT SLUSH FUNDS?

"Transparency" has become a hackneyed buzzword in politics. Every
politician is a champion of "transparency"; looking to score points by
pushing or promoting legislation that would bring a greater degree of
sunlight to one governmental process or the other. Just a few days
ago, however, a public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice
("IJ" for short), filed suit in Fulton County to force certain
government agencies to actually practice "transparency," not just talk
about it.

The issue at hand is whether law enforcement agencies throughout
Georgia must actually disclose how they spend monies and other
"assets" obtained through the state's civil asset forfeiture laws.
These laws, on the books for many years, permit law enforcement to
take seized cash or property believed to have been obtained through
unlawful acts, even though the owner of the money or the property may
never be convicted of a crime. The problem is, a number of law
enforcement agencies are seizing large amounts of cash and other
assets, and using the money for whatever they want without disclosing
what they are doing.

In a report issued at the same time as it filed its lawsuit, IJ noted
that in a random sample of 20 Georgia law enforcement agencies, only
two were regularly reporting as required by law. Among Georgia's major
cities, only the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department was
reporting as required. The Fulton County Police and Sheriff's
departments, and the Atlanta Police Department, were among those
agencies not reporting; and these are the agencies sued by IJ on
behalf of five Fulton County taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the lack of transparency is not uncommon in Georgia.
According to Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture
Laws, a report that reviews and examines state and federal asset
forfeiture laws, Georgia receives a grade of "D-." The report notes
that the state's civil forfeiture laws are among the worst in the
nation. Adding insult to injury is the lack of disclosure by law
enforcement agencies.

Georgia law actually is remarkably clear on this point; law
enforcement agencies must report civil seizures to local governing
bodies every year. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies,
including those sued by IJ, simply choose to ignore this mandate.

By ignoring disclosure requirements mandated by state law, law
enforcement agencies in many cities and counties across the Georgia
have created what amount to their very own slush funds. These funds
are often used for less than noble purposes, such as tickets for
football games, and one sheriff purchasing a $90,000 Dodge Viper and
a $79,000 boat. Another local police chief used 10 vehicles obtained
through civil forfeiture for personal use. According to the IJ
report, Forfeiting Accountability: Georgia Law Enforcement's Hidden
Civil Forfeiture Funds, that particular chief claimed he used the
vehicles "to keep the batteries and tires in working order." Hardly
an argument meeting the "can-it-be-said-without-laughing" test.

Considering that money seized by law enforcement either through their
own actions or through equitable sharing with federal agencies can
make up a significant portion of their budgets, IJ notes that civil
forfeiture laws provide a perverse incentive for police agencies to
target and seize property and cash, as opposed to targeting,
investigating and proving actual criminal behavior.

Some argue the money in question is used for legitimate purposes more
often than not; and that may be true. But disclosing these funds is
not a mere suggestion, simply a good idea, or some non-binding policy
statement. It is the law. County commissions and city councils across
Georgia, tasked with deciding how much their taxpayers will pay for
local law enforcement budgets, need to do their job; and demand to
know what those agencies are raising and spending through asset
forfeiture activities. It should not be up to an outside, public
interest law firm representing individual taxpayers, to do their job
for them.