{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140918225030/http://walberg.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=393251", "Forbes: After Cops Seized and Kept Cash, Washington, D.C. Settles Almost Million-Dollar Forfeiture Class Action", "2014-09-12", "2014", "2014-09", "Republican", "House", "MI", "Tim Walberg", "W000798", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Under\u00a0D.C. law, after receiving a notice that their property has been seized and is subject to forfeiture, owners have 30 days to file a claim to try to get their property back. Meanwhile, the city has\u00a0one year\u00a0to file a civil forfeiture action.\nPurportedly, these procedures were not followed with Hardy or the thousands of people he represents as a class. In 2009, the Evidence Control Branch of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) sent out 3,000 asset forfeiture notices. But\u00a02,000 of them were returned\u00a0to the division unsigned. The Branch\u2019s manager even testified that they usually did not search for other addresses to mail the returned forfeiture notices.\nArguing that the District\u2019s forfeiture policy infringed their Fifth Amendment right to due process, Hardy, along with Donnell Monts, who had $823 taken after his arrest in 2006,\u00a0filed a class action\u00a0in 2009. Five years later, the two men will each receive $2,500 as part of the settlement.\nAltogether, the nearly 1,400 claimants in the class action lost almost $700,000 to forfeiture, so the settlement will restore roughly three-quarters of what was taken from them. Yet the claimants represent just 14 percent of those affected by this particular D.C. forfeiture policy. Over a six-year period, the\u00a0Metropolitan Police Department seized a staggering\u00a0$2.9 million\u00a0from these owners collectively.\nAmong the owners represented in the lawsuit, the median amount of cash seized was a mere $120. In fact, the MPD seized as little as $1 from some owners. There is little indication trivial amounts of money can be plausibly tied to the drug trade, noted Sean Day, who was co-counsel on the class action.\nNor is Washington, D.C. an outlier in using civil forfeiture to seize small sums of cash. Research by the\u00a0Institute for Justice\u00a0challenges the notion, frequently perpetuated by law enforcement, that civil forfeiture is primarily wielded against sprawling criminal enterprises. In Minnesota, the average value of forfeited property was\u00a0$1,250, while in Georgia half of the property seized by law enforcement in 2011 was worth less than\u00a0$650.\u00a0Since the cost to litigate is often worth more than the property that was taken, many owners do not even contest these seizures.\nYet the class-action settlement does not alter the scant safeguards and perverse incentives created by the\u00a0District of Columbia\u2019s civil forfeiture regime. To forfeit property, the District only needs to show probable cause, the same standard used to obtain a warrant. Not only do 36 states have a\u00a0higher standard of proofin all civil forfeiture cases, but probable cause is a far cry from requiring \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt,\u201d which is needed to convict someone of a crime. After a property is forfeited, law enforcement can keep all of the proceeds.\nThese lax laws create potent incentives to police for profit. Between 2010 and 2012, Washington, D.C. generated\u00a0$4.8 million\u00a0in forfeiture revenue. \u201cIt\u2019s become a cash cow for a lot of jurisdictions frankly,\u201d said Day.\nMoreover, the MPD makes liberal use of a federal loophole known as\u00a0\u201cequitable sharing.\u201d\u00a0Under this program, local and state law enforcement can collaborate with federal agencies to forfeit property under federal law, thereby bypassing local and state civil forfeiture laws. Local law enforcement can then take a cut of the proceeds from forfeited property. From 2010 to 2012, the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the MPD processed\u00a0$9.2 million\u00a0worth of property seized by both joint task forces and the MPD. The MPD kept $2 million in equitable sharing proceeds.\nMeanwhile, property owners have to contend with legal proceedings that can be downright baffling, like having to pay for their right to challenge a seizure in court. This\u00a0\u201cpenal sum\u201d\u00a0is 10 percent of what the property is worth (as determined by the MPD) and can range anywhere from $250 to $2,500. If owners do not pay, the government automatically wins and keeps the property.\nAfter police seized his car in June 2012, Keith Chung, a firefighter, was told to pay a bond of\u00a0$2,075\u00a0before he could challenge the seizure in court. Police never charged Chung with any crime. After the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia intervened,\u00a0he got his car back\u00a0.\nMoreover, unlike criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the owners\u2014they are assumed guilty unless they prove their innocence. In order to retrieve their property, owners have to show by a \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d they have no connection to a crime to prevail, a higher burden of proof than what the D.C. government needs to forfeit property. Since these forfeiture cases are in civil court, owners do not have a right to court-appointed counsel, even if they are indigent.\nIn the class action that was settled, the attorneys\u2019 hourly rate was just north of\u00a0$250. So an hour of legal help was worth twice as much as the property taken from Hardy and many others. As the case makes clear, many owners simply do not have the means to challenge the government in court.\nNor is the government required to maintain or preserve property it has seized. In a separate, currently-pending forfeiture class action filed against the District, police seized and held onto Takia Jenkins\u2019 car for almost a year. She was never charged with a crime nor was her car involved in any criminal prosecution. When she finally got her car back, the windows were damaged and the car wouldn\u2019t start. Mold had even formed on the inside.\nLast year, six members of the D.C. city council\u00a0introduced a bill\u00a0that would have overhauled civil forfeiture in the District. While it did not pass, the council is expected to reconsider forfeiture reform when it reconvenes in the fall. On the federal level,\u00a0Rep. Tim Walberg\u00a0and\u00a0Sen. Rand Paul\u00a0have introduced legislation that would either restrict or outright eliminate participation in equitable sharing, preventing law enforcement from trying to circumvent forfeiture reforms at the local level.\nSpeaking at a\u00a0panel in July on civil forfeiture\u00a0at the Heritage Foundation, Congressman Walberg described his bill as \u201ccommon-sense,\u201d as it \u201cdoes not detract from good law enforcement.\u201d Americans, he added, should live \u201cwithout the fear of overweening government.\u201d\nTo read the original article at Forbes, click here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140918225030/http://walberg.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=393251"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.16657598502934, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}