AL legislature and law enforcement butt heads over asset forefiture

[Chris0nllyn]

Last month, 2 lawmakers in Alabama introduced a bill that would require convictions of crimes before seizing property.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2018RS/PrintFiles/SB213-int.pdf

This past Monday, the Alabama District Attorney's Association and the Alabama Sheriffs Association published an opinion piece.

Unfortunately, several special interest groups have pushed a narrative that law enforcement - police, sheriffs and other authorities - are using civil asset forfeiture to unfairly take money and property from innocent Alabamians.

That narrative is false. Law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture only to go after criminals, and state law already guarantees a process that is clear and fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court. State law also provides built-in safeguards that protect the property of those who have committed no crime.

The authors argue that requiring actual convictions would result in more charges filed against people.

Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.

They then go on to say (literally in the next paragraph) that this proposed law would mean less people were arrested.

Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?

Here it is folks. Spelled out for you by the top law enforcement folks in that state. Basically saying that they'll have to find more reasons to lock people up to keep their money coming in. Contrary to what they say (a DA, no less) the proposed bill clearly states that forefiture is still possible in a plea deal. Prosecutors don't have to lock up more people.

Are they seriously saying that reforming asset forefiture in Alabama will result in less people being arrested, thus not giving officers a reason to fight crime? As if the only incentive is the goods/money gained from forefiture. This is completely wrong and I'm sort of shocked they publically admitted that the purpose of asset forefiture is to pad their coffers.

Then again, this is the same state that brought us Jeff Sessions.....