In May, the Ohio House voted 72-25 in favor of House Bill 347, which would limit when civil asset forfeiture can be used without obtaining a criminal conviction to cases involving property worth more than $25,000. Forfeiture could still be used in smaller dollar cases if the property goes unclaimed, the owner is dead or unable to be brought to justice or is indicted for a felony. The bill also closes off a federal end-run around the state restrictions.
Forfeiture is heavily used by police and often the proceeds are used to fund law enforcement equipment and activities. House Bill 347, if it becomes law, could be a big money loser for police departments. Statewide, police agencies and prosecutors could see their funding drop by millions of dollars a year, according to an analysis from the Legislative Service Commission.
“Civil asset forfeiture was originally intended to deprive drug dealers of the profits of their illegal actions,” according to a letter to Ohio Senate President Keith Faber from Pat Nolan, director of The American Conservative Union Foundation. Over the years, though, forfeitures have “become a means of supplanting police budgets, with some departments treating forfeiture as more of a revenue generator than a crime-fighting tool. This is wrong.”
State Rep. Robert McColley, R-Napoleon, chief sponsor of the reform bill, said it is impossible to determine how much money police and prosecutors receive annually through civil forfeiture since figures are not publicly reported.
Despite opposition from Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and some law enforcement groups, McColley said he is optimistic it may pass the Senate before the two-year legislative session ends next month.
Jay McDonald, president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, in a column published in the Columbus Dispatch argued against changing civil forfeiture.
“Civil forfeiture is a force-multiplier. It takes money away from drug traffickers and aids law enforcement,” he wrote. “Some suggest that law enforcement abuses civil forfeiture, taking assets of innocent people. That’s a reason to have stringent rules in place, which there are. It’s not a reason to take the tool away. Especially in Ohio, where law enforcement has used the tool responsibly and without abuse.”
About the Author
