January 28, 2010

If you are interested in presenting an issue at your caucus on February 2, this is a very important issue to the ACLU-MN. We will be working on it during the legislative session this year.  If you do decide to introduce this resolution please let us know how it goes!

A RESOLUTION REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, Minnesota law currently gives law enforcement the power, known as administrative forfeiture, to take and keep cash, jewelry, cars and guns without review by a court; and

WHEREAS, the process for challenging law enforcement's use of this forfeiture power is complicated and expensive for the person who has had their property taken; and

WHEREAS, a law enforcement agency that uses its power of forfeiture gets to keep 70% of the proceeds it raises through forfeiture; and

WHEREAS, the Metro Gang Strike Force and its members are the subjects of an FBI investigation for the misuse of forfeiture powers; and

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution creates a government where power is controlled through a system of checks and balances; and

WHEREAS, one of the checks against the power of law enforcement is the power of elected officials to control the level of funding; and

WHEREAS, giving law enforcement the power to self-fund diminishes the power to supervise law enforcement; and

WHEREAS, the United States system of checks and balances gives law enforcement the power to catch suspected criminals but reserves the power to determine guilt and punishment to the judicial branch; and

WHEREAS, the existing system for challenging forfeiture in court is too costly and complicated to serve as an effective check of the forfeiture power; and

WHEREAS, unchecked law enforcement power lead to abuses like those of the Metro Gang Strike Force occur;

NOW, THEREFORE, Checks and balances of law enforcement power should be the policy of the State of Minnesota, so that the forfeiture laws:

  • Require a link between property which law enforcement can take and keep (forfeit) and the actual commission of a crime,
  • Do not allow direct funding of the agency which seized the property, and
  • Require timely, affordable and accessible judicial review of all law enforcement forfeitures.