A hotly contested bill being debated in Sacramento would restrict California law enforcement from seizing assets of suspects unless there is a criminal conviction.
Co-authored by Senator Holly Mitchell (D- Los Angeles) and Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach), SB 443 won unanimous support at a committee hearing yesterday, but its list of opponents is lengthy, including the California District Attorneys Association and the California Police Chiefs Association.
At present, local law enforcement in California is limited from most seizures unless there's a conviction, except when they partner with federal agencies. Joint investigations are governed by federal law and have netted a windfall of monies for the Golden State's police departments. A sweeping investigation by The Washington Post last year revealed data showing California law enforcement officials spent more than $418 million in proceeds from asset seizures governed by the Department of Justice from 2008 through 2014. The top two biggest spenders were the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department - at more than $42 million over the time period - and LAPD - at nearly $30 million.
After the investigation, then Attorney General Eric Holder introduced new policy to limit some seizures.
How would SB 443 impact police budgets? What is the rationale for seizing assets of suspects prior to conviction?
SB-443 Forfeiture: Controlled Substances
Guests:
Lynne Lyman, California state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, co-sponsor of SB 443 (Mitchell; Forfeiture: controlled substances); "Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture in California"
Ken Corney, Chief of Police of the Ventura Police Department; First Vice President of the California Police Chiefs Association