Kansans are surprised by the lack of limits in Kansas’ Civil Asset Forfeiture Law.
The police can take your property and in Kansas there’s very little you can do about it since the laws are set up against the average citizen.
What kind of stuff are we talking about? Virtually anything: your house, your car, your money, your boat even your bicycle. By Kansas, a law enforcement official only has to believe there’s about a 50-50 chance you used your property while committing a crime, to legally seize and maintain your property.
They can do this even if the don’t arrest, charge or convict you of a crime. It’s all allowable under the Kansas Civil Asset Forfeiture Law.
Kansas isn’t the only state that has asset forfeiture laws. In most states, law enforcement agencies, including local police, the highway patrol district attorneys, sheriffs, Bureaus of Investigation, attorney generals, etc., can seize your assets. The same is true on the Federal level.
How it works in Kansas
The details of the laws vary a little from state to state, but here’s a common example for Kansas.
You’re from the state of Missouri, and you’re returning home from a visit to Colorado. You’re traveling along I-70 and you’re pulled over by the Kansas Highway Patrol. You look suspicious to the officer, i.e., you’re driving a non-Kansas car; add in you’re Black or Brown, and you really look suspicious.
It doesn’t take much more than that for officers to pull you over and ask to search your car. If you happen to have a significant amount of cash on you – hypothetically as little as $1000 – an officer could say he suspects you obtained the money by illegal means and seize your cash, your car and anything else of value you have on you.
No, they don’t have to find any drugs on you, or guns, or anything criminal. They don’t even have to charge you with a crime. At the discretion of the officer, if her feels there’s better than a 50-50 chance the property they’re taking is part of criminal activity, they can legally be seized.
This example isn’t that unrealistic, especially considering the Kansas Highway Patrol leads the state in asset forfeiture. According to records obtained by KMBC News in Kansas City, 90% of Kansas Highway Patrol’s significant seizures have been vehicles with out-of-state plates. Significant seizures are defined as involving 1 pound of cocaine, 1 gram of heroin, 1 pound of marijuana, 1 pound of meth, 100 dosage units of LSD, or $1,000 cash.
Kansas Highway Patrol officers have stepped up their enforcement along the I-70 corridor, particularly since the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. KHP sees asset forfeiture as an effective way to fight crime and thwart criminal activity. Based on the rate of asset forfeiture in the state, other law enforcement agencies feel the same way.
Growing Opposition
Those who oppose the law agree it can be a good tool when it works, but believe that too often, innocent citizens get caught up in the process.
Kansas Representative Gail Finney tells the story of one of her young constituents who worked hard at a low-wage job to save enough money to buy a used car. He had the cash in his pocket, and was on the way to pay for it when he was pulled over by the police for a minor offense. The police were suspicious about a young man that age having that much cash on him, and seized it.
He contacted Finney for help getting his money back. She admits she didn’t believe the police had that kind of power. After she learned about another similar case, she started researching the law.
“I couldn’t believe it,” says Finney. “Without restraint, with no due process for the citizen, law enforcement agencies are taking people’s property.”
When she tells people about civil asset forfeiture laws, Finney says, most often they can’t comprehend it, let alone believe it. A lot of people want to believe this happens to people who must be doing something wrong, she says. Too often, that’s not always the case.
burden of proof
With civil asset forfeiture, unlike criminal asset forfeiture, a conviction is not required for a law officer to seize your assets. According to the Institute for Justice, only 14 states require a conviction before property can be taken in a civil asset forfeiture case. Kansas and federal law don’t require a conviction in these cases; Missouri does.
In Kansas, the test to establish burden of proof in civil forfeiture is whether police feel there is a “preponderance of the evidence” suggesting wrongdoing. That’s a much lower level of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the test used in criminal forfeiture cases.
Getting Your
Property Back
Anyone who has property seized can go to court to try to get it back. However attorney costs in cases like this can often be more expensive than the property seized. In addition, in Kansas, the playing field isn’t even. If an individual losses in court, they can be required to pay the state’s attorney’s fees. If the individual wins, the state doesn’t have to pay the individual’s attorney fees. The state has nothing to lose.
For these reason, even innocent individuals end up losing their small value asset to the law. Those who have larger ticket items to reclaim, still end up paying big to get their property back.
History of forfeiture
Kansas’ forfeiture law was originally introduced 26 years ago. It was the 90s and the crack cocaine epidemic was going strong and legislatures across the country were passing asset forfeiture laws as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises.
While many people think of asset seizures as capturing mansions, millions in cash and fancy cars from big-time drug dealers, the confiscations are often small amounts valued at $500 or less, and they hurt the small guy even more. in such as cockfighting, drag racing,
Besides entrapping the innocent, critics contend that asset forfeiture is often out of proportion with the offense. For example, after a drunk driver is arrested and convicted and possibly imprisoned, is it proper to punish him or her additionally by using civil forfeiture laws to confiscate their $50,000 car?
Police cashing in/abuse
Law enforcement agencies are netting millions each year in asset forfeiture. From the beginning, these laws were seen as a way to take money and other assets from criminals and put them to use for law enforcement.
“It’s now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation,” said Reagan Attorney General Richard Thornburgh in 1989.
It’s a trend that’s continued. Funds from asset forfeiture continue to pay for new police vehicles and help cover the cost of putting additional officers on the street. However, there are plenty of reports of agency abuse of forfeiture funs, for example, agencies using their funds to install high-end granite counter tops or to purchase custom artwork.
Critics say forfeiture laws have too many profit incentives for police. Need a new police vehicle, take one. Need more feet on the streets, pay for them by confiscating more goods. Critics also add that the Kansas and federal forfeiture laws contain a conflict of interest, with both laws requiring the revenue generated from asset seizure to be used only within the department that seized it.
According to the KMBC report, roughly $2 million seized through asset forfeiture has gone to Kansas Highway Patrol salaries in the past three years.
“I would rather we fully fund the highway patrol to give them the money they need, whatever they need, instead of taking from unsuspecting citizens,” says Finney.
In Missouri, money raised must go to area school districts, not law enforcement.
Tracking the money
Anyone who’s watched a police television drama has seen drugs and money disappear from the evidence room. Well in Kansas, it appears there’ was only limited tracking of the assets seized, including the kind and their value.
This year, the Kansas legislature addressed that issue with the passage of House Bill 2459 which requires all law enforcement agencies across the state to report the date, location, and value of asset seizures, as well as whether or not criminal charges were filed in conjunction with the seizure. It will also make police departments open their books and show their forfeiture fund balances, deposits and expenditures.
The bill wasn’t the kind of asset forfeiture reform Rep. Finney had hoped for, but she supported the measure, seeing it as a small step forward. At least now, she says, the police know someone’s paying attention.
Finney believes the data compiled under the law will prove helpful.
“I want to be able to see a trend, the number of people affected by this in Kansas,” says Finney. “After that, then we can see if we can get some different legislation passed.”
The future of
asset forfeiture
Like other tough of crime era policies, asset forfeiture is under increasing scrutiny.
Concerned by police abuse, in 2015, then Attorney General Eric Holder implemented a policy that prevented local law enforcement from using federal forfeiture laws to circumvent more restrictive state forfeiture laws. However in 2017, the Trump administration, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced plans to expand the use of civil asset forfeiture.
However, often citing abuse by law enforcement and the entanglement of too many innocent people, there’s growing support for change, and it isn’t just from the left. Conservatives and Libertarians are joining in, calling for change. Even in Kansas, Finney says she’s finding broad support for the measure.
During the past four Kansas legislative sessions, Rep. Finney has introduced bills to increase the burden of proof for asset forfeiture in Kansas to the tougher “clear and convincing” standard and, to require a conviction before property can be taken.
So what’s holding up the passage of her bill? The law enforcement lobby.
While support for asset forfeiture reform is strong within the legislature, the legislative leadership – who set the legislative agenda and the issues to be heard – won’t move the bills forward, says Finney.
“The law enforcement lobby is extremely strong and they get whatever they want,” said Finney. “They (legislative leadership) are afraid of getting the law enforcement agencies mad at them. I don’t care how great of a bill, if you don’t have leadership’s support, they don’t even put the issue on the agenda for consideration.”
Law enforcement agencies and Kansas municipalities continue to support the state’s asset forfeiture laws.
