[ad_1]
Oregon police agencies are seizing less property — an act known as civil forfeiture — during drug busts and other law enforcement activities following legal reforms and policy changes in the state.
Civil forfeiture practice, which allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets — including contraband, money, vehicles and even real estate — related to drug crimes, has experienced a significant decline.
While civil forfeiture was initially intended to deter drug trafficking and allocate proceeds from illegal activities to worthy causes, critics argue that it has become a profit-driven endeavor for some police departments.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) raised concerns about law enforcement’s focus on financial gains rather than crime-fighting.
In 2019, the state of Oregon saw nearly $4 million in seizures. However, by the following year, the amount had decreased to $600,000, with the possibility of an increase pending updated data from law enforcement agencies.
Portland, like other regions, witnessed a similar trend. In 2019, the Portland Police Bureau carried out asset seizures in 74 cases, while in the following year, that number plummeted to only four cases.
The decline cannot be solely attributed to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the state Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee, although it may have contributed.
The committee, which releases annual statistics to shed light on the extent of civil forfeiture practices, released its 2022 report in April, which suggested that various changes in case law and statutes have played a role in this decline.
Kelly Officer, the research director at the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, also suggested that the reduction in drug-related arrests during the pandemic played a role.
“We’ve seen a drop in drug crime prison intake cases starting with the onset of COVID,” she said.
The committee’s annual reports highlighted two key case law changes introduced by the state and U.S. high courts.
In 2019, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Beaverton police officer violated regulations by questioning a driver about drug possession during a routine traffic stop.
Soon after, a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that significant forfeitures could potentially violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of “excessive fines” as criminal punishment.
The committee cautioned in its 2020 report that forfeitures in Oregon deemed disproportionate or excessive are at risk of being declared unconstitutional.
Experts argue that these legal developments, along with changing priorities and public sentiment, have contributed to the decline in civil forfeiture activity across the state.
[ad_2]
