‘Policing for Profit’ Discussion Coming Up Again in 2015 Legislature

by Alex Harris, Jan. 6, 2015, TNReport - Drug-enforcement cops confiscating large sums of cash from motorists on Tennessee highways has been issue that’s gotten more and more attention the past few years, both from media outlets and state policymakers.

The practice of law enforcement officers seizing a person’s money or property without charging them with any actual crime has come to derisively be known as “policing for profit.” It has been explored in depth on a number of occasions over the past few years in Tennessee, in both investigative news pieces and legislative hearings. And Volunteer State cops have been among those nationally who’ve been mocked for assuming their legal authority includes the power to purloin.
The Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Beacon Center of Tennessee recently announced they’re teaming up to push legislation in the upcoming session to reign in forfeiture abuses by police.

One issue critics have taken with the operation of the state’s drug task forces is that they’re funded through asset seizures, which they say creates an incentive to seize cash and property, rather than focusing on drug seizures.

Beacon’s “top priority will be to send all forfeited property to the state’s general fund,” according to a statement from Lindsay Boyd, the center’s policy director. Taking this step would “remove the perverse incentives associated with the current system” by stopping officers from lining “agency budgets with the proceeds confiscated from search and seizures,” she said.

Hedy Weinberg, executive director Tennessee ACLU, said a step in the right direction would be to remove the appearance of the profit-seeking incentive. She added that they would also like to see a requirement for arrest and conviction before property can be seized, as well as shifting from the individual to the government the burden of proof to justify a seizure. Law enforcement agencies should also provide better data in instances where property or cash is seized from individuals, in order for the state to discover the true “extent and prevalence” of the practice, Weinberg said.
Both organizations said they’re still in discussions with lawmakers to work out the specifics of the legislative action.

State Sen. Mike Bell, a Riceville Republican and lest session’s chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee, has said he is working on a bill to address the matter, but the particulars aren’t nailed down. “I’m still trying to figure out exactly how I’m going to approach this,” said Bell, who chaired a Senate hearing last year that took a look at the oversight of the state’s Judicial Drug Task Forces. He added that he expects several bills dealing with the issue this year.

In Georgia last year, the ACLU and Americans for Prosperity teamed up to push legislation that would require greater oversight and scrutiny of law enforcement and prosecutors use of assets seized in investigations.

Federal officials with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program also recently released a new code of conduct for how law enforcement officers should handle themselves in drug interdiction stops.

And this August, the voters of Tennessee’s 23rd Judicial District — which has been one of the
districts at the center of the the policing for profit controversy — elected Ray Crouch as the new district attorney general.

Since being elected, Crouch has pledged his DTF will no longer use the practice to confiscate anyone’s property unless a crime can be proven. Additionally, he said his agency will be more focused in the future on seizing drugs coming into Nashville, as opposed to snatching the money leaving.

Top Stories

We need the ACLU

I have often been critical of the ACLU. I think they put too much energy into making sure we are not subjected to public prayer or see a public Christmas display and I think they generally have a liberal agenda. However, sometimes they are exactly right.

I think Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is correct in her Tennessean editorail today when she says, "The federal government has the responsibility and power to enforce immigration laws, but it cannot do so by breaking the law and running roughshod over the Constitution." (link)

Too many conservatives who vow they love the constitution and are critical of a government that runs roughshod over the constitution are awfully selective about which parts of the constitution they are concerned about. They like the enumerated powers section, the Tenth Amendment, and Second Amendment, but they don't seem to care much for the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

The First Amendment, they will argue, was not really intended to cover Muslims because the Muslim faith is not really a religion but an ideology so local governments should get to decide who gets to build a house of worship in their community.

Regarding the Fourth Amendment, many conservatives do not seem to mind that the government can demand, "show me your papers" or can conduct raids without search warrants or probable cause if the objective of the raid is national security or immigration control.

The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This amendment is every bit as important as the second amendment or any other of our rights. If we accept that government can search our homes without warrants we may wake up and all of our freedoms are gone. We need defenders of the Constitution who will insure that government does not trample that right.

If Constitutional Conservative are going to be selective about which parts of the Constitution they really like, then we need the ACLU.

Top Stories

ACLU Wants Illinois Town to Remove Jesus Signs

From Focus on the Family
As you enter the small town of Alorton, Ill., you'll see two green-and-white billboards that read: "Welcome to The Village of Alorton. Where Jesus is Lord. Randy McCallum Mayor."

As if on cue, the American Civil Liberties Union is objecting. The group says the signs may be unconstitutional, but hasn't determined what action, if any, to take.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said: "If the Supreme Court hadn't erroneously decided at one point that the First Amendment phrase 'Congress shall make no law...' should now include states, municipalities, even schools, we would not be in the position where an organization like the ACLU could roam to and fro across the land, seeking those acknowledgements of God they could devour with their well-oiled machine of intimidation and litigation.
(To read the full story, click here. Does not open in new window; hit back button to return: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005186.cfm)

Thank God for the ACLU

In cases like this, I say “Thank God, for the ACLU”. I often don’t say that about the ACLU. I think they often go overboard in protecting us from Christmas nativity decorations in the city park or from kids voluntarily gathering to pray at the flagpole before class. But in this case, they are right. How would you feel if you were a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, mainline-protestant-liberal-agnostic, or plain ole backslidden Baptist sinner, having your tax money spent to proclaim you live in a town where “Jesus is Lord”.

I assume Mr. Hausknecht, the “judicial analyst” for Focus on the Family has never heard of the 14th Amendment. That pesky little amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That means that all of those prohibitions that say “Congress shall make no”, also apply to the states and all of their creations.
Unfortunately, FoF is not just some isolated minister complaining about the ACLU. They are a large organizations and an important part of the Religious Right. I am disgruntled that the Religious Right has gained such a stronghold in the Republican Party. I do not think I would want to live in the kind of America people like that they would want for us. I don’t doubt for a minute that we would see the banning of alcohol, R-rated movies, and anything else they consider sinful.

Focus on the Family was started in 1987 by Dr. James Dotson. It focused on things like potty training kids and how to have a happy marriage. The tone of the program was only mildly religious, was non-political, and not at all strident and they produced some good children’s programming. Alone the way however, with the rise of the religious right, Focus became more and more political and now devotes a lot of their “ministry” to promoting “family values”. They have become a powerhouse in the Republican Party and rival Pat Robinson's organization and rivaled the late Jerry Falwell for influence.

I think there was a need for the rise of the religious right. Popular culture’s contempt for mid-American values needed to be countered. Hollywood and the mainstream media acted as though there was only one point of view on the moral issues of the day. The millions of Church-going people in this country had no political voice. We needed organizations that would tell people you do not have to be intimidated by those who would try to prohibit kids from gathering at the flagpole to pray. And, you do not need to be embarrassed that your religious values influence your political values.

Having grown up around fundamentalist Christians, however, in a county that was populated mostly by church-going Baptist and where not even beer could be sold, I have always been concerned that if “real” Christians got too much influence I would not like the kind of America they would want for us. Freedom is often a balancing act between competing forces and from time to time we need to restore the balance. In the case of Alorton, Ill., thank God for the ACLU.

Top Stories