EDITORIAL: Criminal justice reform should address civil forfeiture

The number of bills considered during the 81st legislative session in Carson City will no doubt be curtailed given the logistical concerns related to the pandemic. This is good and will force lawmakers to better prioritize their time and attention.

Majority Democrats have vowed to put criminal justice reform near the top of the list — and if they truly seek to make a difference in that regard, they’ll address the inherent inequities of civil asset forfeiture. A new report from the Institute for Justice offers more ammunition for curtailing the practice.

The study, titled “Does forfeiture work?,” examines whether allowing law enforcement to seize cash, cars, property and other valuables from those who have never been charged, let alone convicted, of a crime actually makes the streets safer. As critics have long suspected, the review concludes that forfeiture laws often warp police priorities by allowing law enforcement agencies to keep a portion of the proceeds generated from seized assets. Policiing for profit, as IJ calls it.

“Law enforcement representatives have argued that any civil liberties intrusions from forfeiture are justified because the revenue helps fight crime, but the evidence does not support this,” said Brian Kelly, an associate professor of economics at Seattle University who authored the IJ study. “In fact, the focus on bringing in revenue may well detract from efforts to fight serious, violent crimes.”

Civil asset forfeiture laws came into vogue during the 1980s as part of the drug war and were justified as an important tool in separating drug kingpins from their tainted gains. Over the years, however, they have evolved into a revenue enhancement tool designed to pad police budgets.

Since the turn of the century, the federal government alone has taken in more than $37 billion through the seizure of valuables. State and local agencies across the country have cumulatively reaped billions more. Equally as significant, the losers — never charged in criminal court — are often people in underprivileged areas who don’t have the resources to fight back.

Nevada has tinkered around the edges in past years with reform, strengthening transparency requirements for agencies that profit from civil asset forfeiture. But the time has come for a strong bill acknowledging the clear due process and property rights issues inherent in civil forfeiture and ensuring that nobody loses their property based on the mere suspicion of criminal activity. Such a measure would likely garner bipartisan support and could be crafted to allow law enforcement to seize assets upon a criminal conviction.

Legislative Democrats would go a long way toward making the criminal justice system more equitable for all if they supported legislation to greatly rein in this pernicious police tactic.