In 2005 the Montgomery County district attorney's office held a party at the county fair in east Texas. They had beer, liquor and a margarita machine. The district attorney, Mike McDougal, at first denied that this had been paid for by drug money. He acknowledged that his office had a margarita machine at the fair. In fact, he said, they won first prize for best margarita. But he insisted they came by it fair and square. In any case, he pointed out, the county's drug fund was at his discretion. Under Texas forfeiture law, counties can keep most of the money and property they rustle up.
[ ... ]
Mr Whitmire is mostly concerned with the waste of public money. But the asset-forfeiture programme has various problems. Some poorer counties have come to rely on drug money to pay for their basic operations. Even in counties that are not strapped for cash, there is an extra incentive for sheriffs to go after money, so they may have more interest in the southbound traffic than in people heading north.
Another concern is that the government has broad powers to seize assets. In criminal cases, forfeiture follows a conviction and so it requires a guilty person. In civil cases, the property itself is considered guilty, and the government has only to show by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the money or gun or car was somehow shady. That is a lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases.
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment