Due Processless in Seattle
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:32 PM

It is so much easier to deter crime by punishing those you suspect of having committed a crime, rather than going to all the rigmarole of actually, you know, convicting them of a crime. This fact has finally come to the attention of Seattle, which hopes to seize the cars of folks who are suspected of soliciting prostitutes. The city attorney doesn't even hide the fact that it is a punishment intended to deter (though, um, wouldn't punishing unconvicted individuals be, you know, unconstitutional)?: "'The positive thing about forfeiture is it would deter the guys who pick up street prostitutes,' said City Attorney Tom Carr, whose office is studying the legislation."

Incidentally, although I do believe that this measure violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, I would be against it even if current Constitutional interpretation were to disagree: even if Constitutional, it is a bad idea. Asset forfeiture skews the priorities of law enforcement, away from those crimes that are most socially costly, towards those that are most lucrative to the law enforcement agency. The linked article offers the view of an assistant city attorney that the city would not be making money, that the forfeited and then sold assets would only cover the city's costs, with the remainder going to social services. But what costs they must have!: "Local law enforcement would retain as much as 90 percent of the money received by the seizure and sale, with the rest to be deposited into a statewide account set up to prevent prostitution."

Vice Squad has long been aghast at civil asset forfeiture provisions which present the skimpiest of quasi-legal fig leaves for covering up the punishment of people who have not been convicted of any crime.

Labels: asset forfeiture, prostitution

 
Anti-Prostitution Policing in Practice
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:07 AM

What should you do if you see a woman waving her arms on a street corner at 8AM? Try to offer assistance, perhaps? This is not recommended in the South Side of Chicago, not far from Vice Squad's own base. When a married couple, waiting for their daughter to return with a hot chocolate, found themselves in this situation, they soon realized that the woman was not in peril, but rather, was (seemingly) selling some physical companionship. They found the situation amusing. But only for a brief moment, until police officers arrested the male driver for soliciting their undercover officer. It was eight hours before he was released, while his wife and daughter were abandoned at the corner because the police impounded their car -- aren't civil asset forfeiture rules special? The charge against the driver was dropped, but the car has not been returned: "The city wants more than $4,700 in towing and storage fees if he wants the car back." Read all about this sterling piece of anti-vice police work here.

Labels: asset forfeiture, Chicago, policing, Prohibition, prostitution

 
Asset Forfeiture
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:46 AM

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled that the cars of people arrested for drug or prostitution offenses could not be seized by municipal governments. The Court didn't say that these seizures violate due process provisions; rather, it said that the municipalities need state legislative blessing before they can go asset hunting. So attempts are already underway to give a legal patina to the whole smelly business. Incidentally, earlier in July, Berkeley found that its own asset forfeiture funds were not the best-managed part of city government.

It's a different story at the federal level, where asset forfeiture is a wonderful and oh-so-fair component of the brilliantly conceived war on drugs. The Attorney General, known for his candor, has willed it so:

...the Asset Forfeiture program has never been stronger.
Established in 1984, the program was created to punish and deter criminal
activity by depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains and the
instruments of their trade.

More than two decades later the program has surpassed all expectations.
Over $10 billion in assets have been surrendered by criminals, including
more than a billion dollars last year alone. Over and over again,
forfeiture has proven to be a powerful and effective tool in pursuing drug
dealers and in disrupting and dismantling their criminal organizations.

The Attorney General's prepared remarks are not easy reading for anyone with a feeling for the misguidedness of the drug war. But if you can make it to the end, you can read about how the War on Drugs saved a four-year old. Again I find myself asking, is this really the best pro-drug-war anecdote they can come up with? This is a war in its death throes.

Labels: asset forfeiture

 
Punishment By Police, Not By Courts
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:52 PM

The chief of police in Cincinnati wants unconvicted vice arrestees to be punished more severely. Right now the city tows the cars of folks arrested for drug or prostitution offenses, if the car is claimed to be involved in the commission of the offense. Then the arrestees are charged $200 for the towing service. The chief wants the fee increased to $500, to deter folks from coming downtown with the intent to engage in verboten vice. But hold it, increasing a fee for deterrence purposes? Doesn't that sound more like a fine than a fee? Surely the Cincinnati authorities wouldn't impose a fine on people prior to any conviction, people who are presumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing?

The chief's plan also calls for doubling the "fee" to $1000 if it is not paid within a week. Why not $1 million, chief? Don't we want to deter late payments by the non-convicted? I think you're going soft on us.

Vice Squad occasionally looks at various methods by which that pesky "due process" requirement can be avoided. One popular ploy is to post the photos of prostitution-related arrestees on the web. It looks like two communities mentioned earlier in Vice Squad for that tactic, Frederick, Maryland and Durham, North Carolina, have abandoned the effort.

Labels: asset forfeiture, drugs, prostitution

 
How to Imprison the Otherwise Unimprisonable: ASBOs in Britain
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:09 PM

In US vice enforcement, if we want to punish someone without worrying about all those tiresome due process formalities, we use civil asset forfeiture. In Britain, they can go one better, by making prison part of the equation. The relevant device is the "Anti-Social Behavior Order," or ASBO. The idea is that you can be hauled before a magistrate in a civil proceeding, which lacks the same protections as a criminal court. For instance, hearsay evidence will be admissible. The behavior that is alleged needn't be criminal, if it is deemed to be anti-social. If you are issued an ASBO, you might be forbidden to engage in some activity for years, or to stay out of some part of town. If you disobey your ASBO, you can then be imprisoned. So, ASBOs are a wonderful device for throwing inconvenient people in prison for "offences" that themselves do not carry prison sentences.

Streetwalking (soliciting) in not an imprisonable offense in Britain (and prostitution per se is not illegal.) But ASBOs step into the breach, and now some alleged prostitutes face long jail terms. Today's Guardian has more. Here's the website of an anti-ASBO group, which provides some of the broad terminology designating anti-social behavior: "Asbos can be served against children over 10 years of age or against adults if they have behaved 'in an anti-social manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress', and that the order is 'necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts.'"

Libby at Last One Speaks recently provided a profile of civil asset forfeiture in the US. Incidentally, probation violations provide a somewhat similar route to imprisoning folks for minor drug crimes in the US: they aren't given a jail sentence for their possession arrest, but they then flunk a mandated drug test while on probation, triggering a spell in jail.

Labels: asset forfeiture, Britain, prostitution

 
Legal Developments Around Obscenity
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:30 PM

Today we mine the point of view of the pornography industry on recent events, via the Adult Video News (not work-safe) website. First, there is the announcement last week of the formation of the US Justice Department's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (noted earlier by Vice Squad.) Here's the press release from DOJ, and here's an excerpt from the AVN article on the new task force:

It is clear from the DOJ's statement that the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force will play the key Justice Department role in obscenity prosecution, since it has been given the power to draw on the expertise of several other DOJ divisions, including the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and CEOS’s High-Tech Investigative Unit.

Those last two notations suggest that adult material on the Internet will be one of the Task Force's top priorities, though the use of the Organized Crime and Racketeering and Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering sections portend a full-scale assault on adult manufacturers and distributors. It is, after all, through those two divisions that the DOJ prosecutors will be attempting to pay for their efforts through both the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and obscenity forfeiture provisions of the law.

AVN also offers information and a critical perspective on an anti-obscenity bill in Ohio and Michigan bills that are intended to strengthen the regulation of adult video games.

Labels: asset forfeiture, internet, obscenity, pornography

 
Making Ohio Safe From Expensive Escorts
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:11 PM

A prostitution story that Vice Squad linked to yesterday included this observation from Robyn Few, a former prostitute turned prostitution-policy-reform activist: "Prostitutes don't carry guns. They carry condoms. So it's easy to arrest them. And it's fun." Today we learn that a week-long investigation by Columbus, Ohio, vice squad officers has resulted in eight arrests of alleged call girls. And if that is not exciting enough, a police sergeant has more good news: "'What made it exciting was finding other money in their computers and cell phones,' [the sergeant] said. 'We were able to seize four laptop computers out of the eight arrests and almost $20,000.'" How did we ever let it get to this point, that if you are arrested, the police can seize your computer, your cell phone, your camera, and your cash, too?

Incidentally, Ms. Few, founder of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, has been noted by Vice Squad in the past for her work on the Berkeley prostitution "decriminalization" initiative.

Meanwhile, Houston police arrested 28 of our friends and neighbors during an anti-prostitution sting operation. At least the Houston police focused on the public aspects of prostitution, which would be a legitimate candidate for regulation even in a world that did not criminalize consensual adult, private activity.

Labels: asset forfeiture, policing, prostitution

 
Sex, crime, and government student loans
- posted by Michael @ 10:29 PM

Here is quite a story published in Oakland Tribune (linked to at Volokh Conspiracy earlier tonight) about a Stanford Law School grad who allegedly became a (very)high-priced call girl in order to pay off her Law School student loans. The government now wants to keep $61,000 seized from her. Somehow I doubt that this amount would go towards her loan repayment.

Labels: asset forfeiture, California, prostitution

 
One Vice Forfeiture Case
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:11 PM

Sorry for being away from Vice Squad in recent days, and thanks to my co-bloggers for stepping up. I returned to Chicago today, so I hope that I can also return to that elusive regular blogging schedule. (My aspirations are lofty, no?)

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned in passing a Supreme Court case involving the forfeiture of an automobile for a prostitution-related conviction. The forfeiture was not one of the "civil" kinds, taken "in rem," against the property directly -- such forfeitures do not require any sort of criminal charges being filed. Rather, this one is against the owners of the property, and is taken pursuant to a criminal conviction. Here's the story of Bennis v. Michigan (1996), adapted from the Supreme Court opinions...

John Bennis was uncharacteristically late coming home from work one night. His wife, Tina Bennis, called Missing Persons. But it soon emerged that instead of driving straight home, John had visited a prostitute and engaged in some extra-marital activity in the car -- and he managed to get arrested for his public infidelity. The state of Michigan, home of the Bennises, doesn't think too highly of prostitution, having adopted a statute that empowered the state to seize and sell the car that was the site of the assignation. So John and Tina's car was indeed seized.

It was the "Tina's" part that caused the Bennises's case to go to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1995. The car was jointly owned, that is, Tina had a half interest in the car. She hadn't done anything wrong, and yet the state of Michigan was taking away that ownership interest, without compensation. Doesn't such a taking violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, or just general fairness? The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that there was no constitutional problem with the uncompensated auto forfeiture, so Tina was out her half of the car. The Court didn't resolve (though it did note, actually) the fairness question.

Justice Stevens penned a dissent, joined by Justices Souter and Breyer, that looks at the historical rationale for various types of forfeitures, arguing that the Bennis case falls outside of the tradition of legitimate forfeitures. Justice Stevens directly addressed the fairness issue: "Fundamental fairness prohibits the punishment of innocent people." He would hold the forfeiture to be invalid for being in contravention of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- a position reached, on slightly different reasoning, by Justice Kennedy, too.

The Bennis case does fall squarely within one longstanding US legal tradition, one that has only a couple of notable exceptions. That tradition is that in forfeiture cases involving vice crimes, the forfeitures are upheld. Perhaps soon I will note some other cases in this tradition, as well as the leading exceptions.

Labels: asset forfeiture, prostitution, Supreme Court

 
Eureka's Forfeiture Law
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:10 PM

Vice Squad mentioned a couple days ago the possibility that the city of Eureka, California, would adopt an automobile forfeiture law aimed at those accused of loitering for the purpose of soliciting prostitution of for some drug-something-or-other. The City Council was supposed to decide on Tuesday. What happened? Well, the measure has been put on hold for the time being. It seems that the Eureka ordinance was modeled after one in Oakland. But the Oakland law is being challenged in the courts, so the City Attorney, according to this article from the Eureka Reporter, "said he thought it prudent that the City Council not adopt the amended ordinance until after the Oakland lawsuit is resolved."

Labels: asset forfeiture, California, drugs, prostitution

 
Maybe They Won't Get Your House After All
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:03 PM

Yesterday, in lamenting the use of asset forfeiture laws to combat vice offenses, I facetiously suggested that instead of just grabbing cars, the government should destroy homes. Will Baude at Crescat Sententia reminds me that there's actually a chance the Supreme Court would not go along with that move! Following a 1998 precedent, the Court might conclude that such a penalty would constitute an excessive fine in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Speaking of forfeiture....a fellow was arrested on three-year old cocaine charges last winter in Wisconsin. Bail was set at $25,000, and some of his friends came up with cold, hard cash. After the money was posted for bail, a drug dog alerted on six of the bills, apparently, so the money was seized, of course. Now his lawyer wants the money back.

Labels: asset forfeiture, cocaine, Supreme Court

 
Eureka! Forfeiture or Worse to Combat Vice.
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:15 PM

Vice Squad mentioned in passing some time ago that the town of Eureka, California was thinking of seizing the cars of motorists arrested on prostitution or drug-related charges. Actually, it looks as if the arrests would be for loitering with the intent to engage in some prostitution or drug-related offense. Why stop there? Why not arrest people for thinking about loitering with the intent to engage in one of those verboten activities, or for filling up their gas tanks with similar intent?

The Eureka city council was scheduled to decide the issue today.

A civil liberties group came out against the forfeitures, of course, on various trumped-up grounds, including some involving that old chestnut of "due process." And sure, the car might belong in whole or part to some innocent person, but the US Supreme Court has already decided that their interest can be sacrificed to the greater good of deterring vice.

Oh, I just thought of a better idea. You see, not all the drug and strumpet mongering or purchasing that goes on out there is done by motorists -- some people walk or take the bus to areas in which they loiter with the intent to engage in wickedness. So the car seizures can't deter them, and might even cause car owners to switch to non-vehicular methods of arranging loitering. So why not destroy the home of anyone arrested for loitering with illicit intent? That should deter everyone except the homeless -- and you can provide housing for them out of the proceeds from sales of the scrap left over after the homes are destroyed! Yes, it's all coming together now.

Vice Squad has long been a fan of asset forfeiture provisions to combat vice.

Labels: asset forfeiture, California, drugs, prostitution, Supreme Court

 
Undue Process
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:49 PM

Vice Squad has noted in the past the bottlenecks that Los Angeles has faced in trying to seize the cars of people accused of soliciting prostitution. Some seventy miles way, the town of Lancaster, California, has picked up the habit of punishing people who have not been convicted of any crime -- these sorts of tendencies are addictive, it seems. In March, Lancaster also started to impound the cars of those accused of soliciting prostitutes. Since it was a new police tactic for Lancaster, however, the town cut the accused a break -- the drivers "only" had to pay an impoundment fee of $500 to $1000 to get their cars back. But it's no more Mr. Nice Guy in Lancaster, oh no. From now on, the Deputy District Attorney says, drivers accused of soliciting will have their cars confiscated and sold at auction.

Incidentally, only 25 of the 30 cars that were seized in March were ransomed. "The five remaining vehicles could be sold at auction or city officials could decide to keep them for municipal use."

Labels: asset forfeiture, prostitution

 
Asset Forfeiture Extends Beyond Drugs and Prostitution
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:10 PM

Yes, gambling offenses can also make big winners out of police departments, as a recent bust in Lee County, Florida, demonstrates: "Millions of dollars worth of money and property was confiscated during the bust of a gambling operation that was under investigation for over 17 months. Part of that money seized will go back to local law enforcement to help fight crime."

There's more: "Police say this multi-million dollar bust could mean a big pay off for taxpayers. By law, agencies get to keep a percentage of seized money and assets....

Several federal agencies including the FBI, IRS and Secret Service will also get a cut of the seized money."

No word in the linked article on the legal basis for the asset seizure in this case. As the federales are involved, presumably this Florida seizure falls under one of the categories listed on the Department of Justice website. For background and some of the horrors of asset forfeiture (particularly of the civil, in rem variety), see this website maintained by Forfeiture Endangers American Rights.

Labels: asset forfeiture, gambling

 
New York City Returning Cars It "Borrowed"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:43 PM

Legal niceties can be soooo tiresome. Some smarty-pants judges told New York City that it wasn't respecting the "due process" rights of the owners of cars that were seized from accused (but not convicted) individuals. That was in September, 2002. In January, 2004, another federal know-it-all judge suggested that hearings where those car seizures could be challenged were needed, pronto. Turns out NYC is better at taking cars than holding hearings, so they are now trying to return the cars, some 6,000 of them. If I were an owner, I wouldn't hold out for a car wash, oil change, and full tank of gas.

According to the New York Times article (registration required) sent to Vice Squad by an attentive reader, "The vehicles had been seized from suspects in a wide range of offenses, including drunken driving, patronizing prostitutes, and crimes involving guns or drugs."

The rules governing such seizures in the future, as ordered by one of those activist judges, include a requirement that the suspect receive a "request for hearing" form at the time the vehicle is seized, and that the hearing be held within ten business days of the request. Further, the hearings themselves "should address three issues, [the Judge in the January ruling] wrote: whether probable cause existed for the arrest, whether it is likely that the city would prevail in an action to forfeit the vehicle, and whether it is necessary for the car to remain impounded to ensure its availability as evidence. The judge said the department would have the 'burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to all three issues.'" So the rule of law wins one in NYC.

The Times article concludes with updates from the New York counties of Nassau and Suffolk, which figured in a previous Vice Squad post on asset forfeiture:

"The Nassau County Legislature voted unanimously last night for an amendment to allow a seizure only after a conviction. The amendment would also require hearings in which owners can seek to get cars returned, especially if the owner is not the arrested driver, and in hardship cases in which other people need to use the car. Legislators said the changes should satisfy the courts, which found the existing law unconstitutional.

In Suffolk County, Legislator Cameron Alden has proposed a change that would entitle car owners to seek a hearing before an independent hearing officer, instead of the current procedure of applying to a police officer, which a judge has struck down as unfair."

Labels: asset forfeiture, New York

 
Some Updates
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:05 PM

(1) The controversial New York Times Magazine article (January 25, 2004) on sex slavery in America has attracted yet more coverage, this time (once again) in the Times itself. (See one of Vice Squad's previous posts, which declared that the article was sensationalized.) Among previous Times' responses, the article brought a lengthy editor's note (on February 15 -- registration required), and even a letter from our nation's Attorney General about the steps being taken to combat the problem. Today the relatively new "Public Editor" of the Times devoted his not-exactly-weekly column (registration required) to the Sex Slaves article. The Public Editor takes the article's author to task, accusing him of writing a piece of "advocacy journalism" (apparently not a sin in itself for the Times Magazine) and of the author and the Magazine editors of carrying "the advocacy to a fault." But the Public Editor ends up pretty much as a defender of the article: "So do you tear Landesman [author of the Sex Slaves article] apart because you don't believe his sources, or because you can't locate an audit trail to some of his assertions? Or do you accept the hideous realities he describes and emerge convinced that sex slavery is a genuine problem? I do the latter - I just wish he and his editors had been more circumspect in making the case."

Incidentally, the Public Editor position at the New York Times is an innovation sparked by the Jayson Blair fabrication scandal. Mr. Blair's book will soon be released, and it reportedly recounts his battles with alcoholism and his use of cocaine to help fuel his writing.

(2) On February 17 Vice Squad noted an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune written by a deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug WarRant provides an update on the related goings-on at the editorial pages of the Chicago papers.

(3) Yesterday we mentioned the (perhaps temporary) demise of one civil asset forfeiture law in a New York county; today, we note that such laws continue to attract supporters, this time for anti-prostitution purposes in Eureka, California.

Labels: addiction, alcohol, asset forfeiture, cocaine, Drug WarRant, prostitution

 
"Suffolk Halts Taking of Cars in D.W.I. Cases"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:00 PM

That's the headline to this story (registration required) in today's New York Times, brought to our attention by a generous Vice Squad reader. Suffolk is a county on Long Island. The police had been in the habit of seizing the cars driven by those accused of drunk driving, if those drivers already had a previous drunk driving conviction (or possibly a previous arrest: the article is ambiguous on this point.) But now the seizure law has been deemed unconstitutional by one state court trial judge, who "ruled that the seizure law was defective in large part because police officers, rather than some neutral person, were presiding over post-seizure hearings and deciding whether there had been probable cause for an arrest and seizure." At the hearings, if you wanted your car back, the burden of proof was on you to show that the car was driven without your permission or knowledge. The judge based his decision in part on the notion that the police force has a pecuniary interest in the outcome, so having a police officer in charge of the hearing does not exactly instill confidence in the neutrality of the tribunal.

Vice Squad's continuing difficulty with asset confiscations is that often they are applied to those who are accused, but not convicted, of crimes. In the drug arena, the majority of asset forfeitures occur in cases where no criminal charges are brought.

The linked NY Times article further reports that the neighboring county of Nassau had a statute authorizing the seizing of cars of first-time accused (but not yet convicted, of course) drunk drivers, but the Nassau law had been found unconstitutional on other grounds.

Labels: alcohol, asset forfeiture, driving

 
Los Angeles Having Trouble Seizing Enough Cars....
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:35 PM

...of those who have not been convicted of any crime. The Los Angeles Times (registration required) looks into the "civil forfeiture" of the cars driven by people accused of soliciting prostitution. This fine piece of legislation has been in effect for one year now, but resource constraints have limited the number of cars seized: "The big reason is understaffing at the city attorney's office, which handles the car seizure litigation. The problem also has undermined LAPD plans — approved by the City Council — to expand vehicle seizures to target those caught buying narcotics, street racing, pandering or dumping trash."

Hey, I know -- why not seize the home electronics of everyone accused of a crime!? That would really reduce the incidence of crime. (Especially if you don't count the illegal seizures themselves.)

These civil asset forfeitures are now common in vice crimes, and Vice Squad has looked at them in the past. Some cities have their priorities all wrong, however: "In 2000, San Francisco County supervisors voted against adopting such an ordinance, saying the plan would erode the rights of people who are accused but not convicted of crimes." But that is the point of such laws, to erode the rights of the unconvicted! Rights get in the way of law enforcement! Those wacky San Franciscans -- what next, requiring the consent of the homeowner in a time of peace before troops are quartered in his house?

Labels: asset forfeiture, driving, policing

 
Money and Law Enforcement
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:59 AM

Police officers and prosecutors have a great deal of discretion with
respect to what sort of illegal behavior that they focus on and what
sort they give less scrutiny. What if targeting one sort of crime
provides a direct monetary benefit to the enforcement organization,
while other types of crime do not? Isn't it possible that police priorities
will be shifted towards enforcing the more lucrative crimes?

Civil asset forfeitures of various types tied to vice crimes can be big
money makers for law enforcement agencies -- even if the original
intent of the laws that establish such forfeitures is simply to deter
crime. And once the money making potential is recognized, law
enforcement priorities are likely to become affected.

The city of El Cajon, California, is targeting the vehicles of those
accused of certain vice crimes, according to this report from KFMB:
"Police will be able to seize the vehicle of a person arrested for one
of the two crimes [buying drugs or soliciting prostitution]. The owner
would have to pay a price equal to the value of the vehicle to get it
back."

It is good to know that El Cajon will be joining the ranks of those
progressive communities that realize how antiquated is the notion
that people should be punished only after being found guilty in a
court of law.

At the extreme, incidentally, asset forfeiture can create self-financing
enforcement organizations that, freed from the need to receive
funding from legislatures, can also set an agenda with little in the
way of messy oversight from elected representatives.

Speaking of incentives to skew law enforcement, the mock bachelor
party held by police at a strip joint in Fremont, Nebraska has resulted
in mixed success: one of the two dancers charged with prostitution
beat the rap! Sounds like a follow-up operation is called for.

Vice Squad has discussed civil asset forfeiture in the past, including
here, and an earlier notice of the mock bachelor party can be found
here, though I identified the club as being in Omaha in the
earlier post. Fremont is some 35 miles from Omaha.

Labels: asset forfeiture, dancing, drugs, policing, prostitution

 
Arizona Uses Confiscated Drug Money...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:13 PM

...to confiscate more money. Parallel prostitution stings, one aimed at
prostitutes and one aimed at clients, resulted in 72 of our friends and
neighbors being arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona, according to
this article in the Arizona Republic. The arrestees include 45 women
and 27 men.

If you go to the linked article above you also might want to take a look
at the slideshow and the local news broadcast that are linked. The
sheriff was good enough to make sure that the media were embedded
in the operation -- some of the photos were taken in hotel rooms where
arrests took place -- demonstrating yet again what a good idea it is for
law enforcement and the mass media to work hand-in-hand in enforcing
vice laws. Arrestees were brought to the parking lot of a local mall where
they could be processed, coincidentally providing another forum for film
and photos of our accused friends and neighbors. The caged dogs of
some of the arrestees can be viewed in Photo#3 of the slideshow.

How was this large-scale operation funded? With confiscated drug
money. Now perhaps you might think that there are better ways to
spend this money, but that is because you have overlooked the fact that
prostitution arrests can be almost as lucrative to law enforcement as drug
arrests. From the Republic article: "Sheriff's detectives spent $12,000 in
seized drug funds during the operation, but they found $36,000 when
they searched the homes and massage parlors."

A couple more quotes from the article I will pass along without comment:

"Once the women are booked into jail, they will be kept until they are
checked for any sexually transmitted diseases, part of a new state
requirement."

"Deputies will decide whether to seize the women's homes and cars after
more investigating, [the sheriff] said."

But I did note one inconsistency in the operation, however. On the one
hand..."'We're a full-service law enforcement agency,' [the sheriff] said.
'We go after everybody.'" Well, not quite everybody. When they were
luring men to meetings with purported prostitutes so that the would-be
johns could be arrested, one man asked if he could bring a friend, a
soldier recently back from Iraq. The police officer posing as a prostitute
told the man not to bring his friend, reasoning that the soldier "'deserves
a little better than being thrown in jail.'" Not like his friend, of course,
who is a tremendous hazard to the community.

Perhaps the sheriff is really trying to land a job as a high-school principal
in South Carolina, given his crystal clear understanding of priorities:
"During a news conference, [the sheriff] defended the sweep and called it
just as valid as chasing murderers."

Labels: asset forfeiture, policing, prostitution