------------------------------

Date: June 30, 1991
From: Moderators
Subject: Police Confiscations and Police Profit

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.24: File 5 of 8: Police Confiscations and Profit     ***
********************************************************************

The policy of indiscriminant confiscation of computer property in
search and seizure operations has drawn criticism. The roots of the
policy stem from RICO and anti-drug enforcement policies.  A recent
article in _Law Enforcement News_ suggests that the police may be
significant beneficiaries of seized assets when they are "donated" to
the seizing agency. This creates the risk of police expansion of the
(ab)use of seizure power by providing an incentive to increase the
stockpiles of "forfeited" assets.  The risky logic might run something
like this: "Our agency is need, so if we seize enough assets that we
can use, we can meet our needs." Although the seizure of assets in
drug raids far exceeds seizures in computer raids, the danger remains
the same: There is incentive for police to confiscate as much as they
can if they will be the ultimate recipients.  Two blurbs from _Law
Enforcement News_ (April 30, 1991, p. 1, "Seized-asset funds prove
tempting") underscore this point.

One article subhead, "Mass. city seeks drug funds to avert layoffs of
officers," begins:

     "The Mayor of a Massachusetts city says revenue shortfalls
     are forcing him to lay off police officers, and he believes
     he has a temporary solution to the bind: using forfeited
     assets and cash from drug busts to forestall layoffs or
     rehire furloughed officers."

According to the article, Somerville Mayoer Michael Capuano
introduced a petition to the Massachusetts Legislation in April to
allow police agencies to use funds for personnel. Fund are currently
restricted to drug enforcement expenditures.

A second subhead, "Illinois audit eyes using funds to upgrade
police wardrobe," indicates that:

     "The Illinois State Police spent $408,000 in seized drug
     assets to buy new uniforms--in an apparent violation of
     provisions of the state's asset-forfeiture laws--but State
     Police officials defended the purchase on the grounds that
     the money was spent before an amendment went into effect
     last year to require that such funds be spent only for drug
     enforcement."

Liberal interpretation of law, expansion of policies intended for one
type of crime (drugs) to other types of crime (e.g., computers), and
the possibility that those who do the seizing have the most to gain by
incentives that reward more seizures, poses a threat to Constitutional
protections against deprivation of property.  Given the erosion of
First and Fourth Amendment protections in a variety of areas, the
broader definitions of "criminal behavior" related to computer
behavior, and the sweeping scope of equipment eligible for seizure in
computer cases, expanding the profit motive for law enforcement
agencies strikes us as a continuation of the danger trend of "Big
Brotherism."

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************