Newsclipping summary:

FEAR-List Bulletin : News clipping and letter to the editor, posted by John Paff, 9/4/95

News clipping reprinted with permission from Pioneer Press Dispatch, © August 18, 1995
 

Minnesota law enforcement agencies seized $2.1 million worth of property from criminals in 1994, including 862 firearms, according to a report released Thursday by state Auditor Judith Dutcher.

Cash was the predominant form of property seized, followed by vehicles, jewelry and other items. Of 862 firearms taken, half were pistols, about a third rifles or shotguns and the remainder classified as "other." Fifty-seven percent of forfeited weapons were destroyed, 21 percent were given to law enforcement agencies and 13 percent were returned to lawful owners.

The largest part of the $2.1 million was $545,080 in cash seized by Burnsville police in a drug arrest. The state of Minnesota gets 10 percent of proceeds from seized property; county attorneys or other prosecuting authorities get 20 percent and the appropriate law enforcement agency 70 percent.
 

End of article
 

F.E.A.R. (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights)
__________________________________________________________
 
 

September 3, 1995
 

The Pioneer Press Dispatch
345 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to an article entitled "Police seized $2.1 million in property in 1994" that appeared in your newspaper on August 18, 1995. The article incorrectly states that police agencies "seized $2.1 million worth of property FROM CRIMINALS in 1994." (emphasis added)

Nothing in the Minnesota Forfeiture Statute requires prosecutors to convict a person of a crime in order to forfeit his or her property. Instead, the statute allows prosecutors to proceed against the property itself (i.e. a case might be called "State v. One (1) 1990 Chevrolet"), and confiscate the property if it can meet a standard of proof lower than that needed for a criminal conviction.

Your article correctly states, however, that local police departments are rewarded with 70 percent of the forfeiture take. Is it good policy to give local police agencies a financial incentive to seize property? Consider the following quote from a July 1990 U.S. Department of Justice bulletin:
 

We must significantly increase forfeiture production to reach
our budget target. Failure to achieve the $470 million
projection would expose the Department's forfeiture program to
criticism and undermine confidence in our budget predictions.
Every effort must be made to increase forfeiture income in the
three remaining months of fiscal year 1990.

The current forfeiture statute allows law enforcement agencies to directly profit by seizing property from people who need not be convicted of any crime. It shouldn't take much thought to conclude that such a system needs to be changed.

FORFEITURE ENDANGERS AMERICAN RIGHTS, INC.
 

/s/ John T. Paff
F.E.A.R. Secretary