How Changing The Way Civil Asset Forfeiture Is Collected Will Help Facilitate Better Communities

The value basis that underpins the crime control model is founded on the suggestion that the despotism of criminal behavior is by a great extent the most essential function to be undertaken by the criminal process. The absolute let down by the law enforcement to curb and control criminal behavior is perceived as the principal raison d'être leading to a crash of public order and a broad ignorance of the legal control measures are likely to grow. Accordingly, the crime control model takes cognizance of the maximization of the number of wrong doers caught, stopped and dealt with by justice.

This bill now requires a criminal conviction for “unlawful manufacture or cultivation of any controlled substance or its precursor” before any law enforcement agency can utilize asset forfeiture to recover the expenses of seizing, destroying, or taking any remedial action related to the controlled substance. [Health and Safety Code § 11470.1(c)]

Search and seizure are used when a police officer or other law enforcement agents suspect that the crime has occurred, thereby they decide to search convicted person and his property in order to acquire

Even though civil forfeiture is a practice that happens all around the United States, it is a system that many say the police are able to abuse for their own profit. There have been numerous cases where many individuals have been locked in legal battles with the United States government trying to prove that their assets are indeed innocent and not involved with any crimes. Many feel that the civil forfeiture is a form of “policing for profit” especially since many of the assets are used under the Equitable Sharing Program. (Crawford) police can stop motorists, possibly under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant,

Civil Asset forfeiture can have its positives and its negatives, these can work to the advantage of being beneficial towards a investigation of either a murder or evidence that leads to identity theft electronically. But the downside of these laws can be and should be looked at to see if they contain any valid constitutionality of their practice; because if indeed they are then this can open up to being a violation of the fourth amendment with unreasonable search and seizure. The key element in the civil forfeiture law is "if law enforcement feels the individual is in possession of said property is connected to crime they are investigating; also with the fact they can keep the property it is allowed to be used for the benefit of giving it to the benefits and salaries for all entitled law enforcement personnel.

Reduction of drug dealing arrests and criminality (Mattick, Breen, Kimber and Davoli, 2003; Powers and Anglin, 1993).

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

This report starts off with an overview of drug courts are, then moves into the overall problem with drug control in the United States. They talk about the history and the rise in drug offenses during the 1980’s causing the prison populations to rise. When comparing the rise of drug offenses, they found it was both state and federal level. The growth of drug offenses became approximately one in every 198 persons was incarcerated. About nine years later, the first drug court was established. Courts, jails, and prisons were seeing a pattern with the number of low level repeat drug offenders and street dealers starting to cause problems with overcrowding . The drug court movement was a shift from law enforcement’s emphasis on reducing drug use.

Since the 1980s drug offenses have increased from nineteen thousand to two hundred sixty five thousand in 2008. For many years now, our jails have been struggling with overcrowding. In 2010, our President Barack Obama, signed the Fair Sentencing Act. The Fair Sentencing Act helps reduce disproportion between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. The act helps in determining whether a person who is caught with five grams of crack/ powder cocaine, should receive the same sentencing as someone who has one hundred times more than that. According to the National Governor’s Association, forty-six states were faced with a budget deficit. With the implementation of the Fair sentencing Act in place, we can begin to see the reduction in jail overcrowding.

Criminal forfeitures are typically against an individual after the individual is convicted of a crime and the property being forfeited/seized is connected to the crime. Furthermore, a criminal forfeiture can occur after a plea bargaining or sentencing, as long as the said property is considered contraband, connected to a crime, and was obtained criminally (Levinthal, 2012). The criminal case and forfeited property are subject to all constitutional guidelines under criminal law and must be tried in a court of law together, and the forfeiture is subject to a grand jury to determine if the forfeiture is warranted (Bethel, 2012). "Civil forfeitures, on the other hand, are in rem actions based upon the unlawful use of property, irrespective of its owner's culpability", (Levinthal, 2012, p. 128). Under a civil forfeiture, a conviction or charge is not necessary against a person as the property is considered to be guilty and allows law enforcement to seize such property as long as a criminal nexus or paradigm is associated with the property (Department of Justice, 2017).

The War on Drugs is one cause for the mass incarceration that has become apparent within the United States. This refers to a drastic amount of people being imprisoned for mainly non-violent crime (“Mass Incarceration” 2016). In addition to people who are not an immediate threat to society being locked up for a substantial duration of time, the economic consequences are costing states and taxpayers millions of dollars. Specifically, every one in five people incarcerated is in prison due to some

Since the late 19th century, the federal and states governments of the United States have enacted laws and policies to deter the use and distribution of illegal drugs. These laws and policies have not only deemed what drugs are legal and illegal, but have also established penalties for the possession and distribution of these substances and established federal agencies to control drug use and administer drug law enforcement. This essay will not only examine the landmark drug laws and policies established by the federal and state governments, but also the enforcement of drug laws.

Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drug’s lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of the decision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of life without parole if convicted of selling more than 50 grams of crack. By contrast, if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996).

Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2014). Policing in america (8th ed.). (S. Decker-Lucke, Ed.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America: Anderson Publishing. Retrieved January 2017

Police Agencies in modern society are a part of the American fabric to serve and protect the American public. The United States currently have more than 15,000 police agencies, (Walker & Katz, 2011). Police Departments across the United States face similar critical issues policing. All police officers face dangers in the job of policing the dangers can emanate from internal and external origins. Police officers have continued to evolve to serve communities by finding better less than lethal alternatives to weapons used. In addition, police departments have continued to keep up with