In a shocking report last week, The Intercept—an investigative reporting outlet—released portions of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations “Asset Forfeiture Handbook,” the internal manual detailing how and why federal agents should seize cash and property using powerful asset forfeiture laws.
From what we’ve seen of the manual, the short answer to that question seems to be: Federal agents should be seizing property to make money.
Civil asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property they allege was involved in a crime, often without a warrant and without any criminal charges being filed.
Once the property is seized, the property owner must prove, in essence, his own innocence—a complete reversal of the presumption of innocence found in the criminal law.
This is both difficult and expensive since, among civil forfeiture’s many due-process deficiencies is a lack of guaranteed counsel. Many innocent people are forced to abandon their money or property for the simple reason that hiring an attorney costs more than the value of what was taken, and the odds of prevailing are, at any rate, low.
Agencies, meanwhile, keep the proceeds. These funds augment their budgets, and may be spent without specific legislative approval or oversight. In other words, government agencies can seize their way to bigger budgets.
The majority of these forfeitures never make it to the courthouse. They live and die in the bowels of a government agency, which makes rigorous analysis of the procedures these agencies use to govern seizures and forfeitures all the more important.
The Driving Focus: Seizing a Bigger Budget
The Intercept unfortunately opted not to release the full 71-page Homeland Security Investigations handbook (though ICE confirmed it is genuine and currently in effect), but the portions that were released reveal a disturbing focus on the revenue-generating power of forfeiture.
The handbook asserts the essential role played by civil forfeiture proceeds in “helping to fund future law enforcement actions … that [Homeland Security Investigations] would otherwise be unable to fund.”
To that end, the manual instructs agents to focus only on profitable seizures.
“As a general rule, if total liabilities and costs incurred in seizing a real property or business exceed the value of the property, the property should not be seized,” the handbook declares. Agents are advised that pursuing unprofitable seizures is a “waste [of] instigative time and resources.”
Scathing Report Reveals ICE Directive Encouraging Agents to Seize Property for Financial Gain
From what we’ve seen of the manual, the short answer to that question seems to be: Federal agents should be seizing property to make money.
Civil asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property they allege was involved in a crime, often without a warrant and without any criminal charges being filed.
Once the property is seized, the property owner must prove, in essence, his own innocence—a complete reversal of the presumption of innocence found in the criminal law.
This is both difficult and expensive since, among civil forfeiture’s many due-process deficiencies is a lack of guaranteed counsel. Many innocent people are forced to abandon their money or property for the simple reason that hiring an attorney costs more than the value of what was taken, and the odds of prevailing are, at any rate, low.
Agencies, meanwhile, keep the proceeds. These funds augment their budgets, and may be spent without specific legislative approval or oversight. In other words, government agencies can seize their way to bigger budgets.
The majority of these forfeitures never make it to the courthouse. They live and die in the bowels of a government agency, which makes rigorous analysis of the procedures these agencies use to govern seizures and forfeitures all the more important.
The Driving Focus: Seizing a Bigger Budget
The Intercept unfortunately opted not to release the full 71-page Homeland Security Investigations handbook (though ICE confirmed it is genuine and currently in effect), but the portions that were released reveal a disturbing focus on the revenue-generating power of forfeiture.
The handbook asserts the essential role played by civil forfeiture proceeds in “helping to fund future law enforcement actions … that [Homeland Security Investigations] would otherwise be unable to fund.”
To that end, the manual instructs agents to focus only on profitable seizures.
“As a general rule, if total liabilities and costs incurred in seizing a real property or business exceed the value of the property, the property should not be seized,” the handbook declares. Agents are advised that pursuing unprofitable seizures is a “waste [of] instigative time and resources.”
Scathing Report Reveals ICE Directive Encouraging Agents to Seize Property for Financial Gain
