Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police
Research Summary For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Criminology & public policy 2018-02, Vol.17 (1), p.101-127 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 127 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 101 |
container_title | Criminology & public policy |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Holcomb, Jefferson E. Williams, Marian R. Hicks, William D. Kovandzic, Tomislav V. Meitl, Michele Bisaccia |
description | Research Summary
For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.
Policy Implications
Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1745-9133.12341 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2002970582</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2002970582</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3161-950e1686b2681854fae87fd0a533e090a0844a00e2cc7a826f409344fdb7192c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFbPXhc8x85-JZtjCK0VChbU87LZ7totsWl3E0v-vakRr85lhuF9ZuBB6J7AIxlqRjIukpww9kgo4-QCTf42l8MsmExSnrFrdBPjDoAIQcQELUv_5WtcxGhbvGiCs77tgsUrfYpY7zd4fux8q6va4tetDn7_gQvTDkzb46rH7dbidVN7Y2_RldN1tHe_fYreF_O3cpmsXp6ey2KVGEZSkuQCLEllWtFUEim401ZmbgNaMGYhBw2Scw1gqTGZljR1HHLGudtUGcmpYVP0MN49hObY2diqXdOF_fBSUQCaZyAkHVKzMWVCE2OwTh2C_9ShVwTUWZc6y1FnOepH10CkI3Hyte3_i6uyWK9H8BvZ1WoU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2002970582</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Holcomb, Jefferson E. ; Williams, Marian R. ; Hicks, William D. ; Kovandzic, Tomislav V. ; Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</creator><creatorcontrib>Holcomb, Jefferson E. ; Williams, Marian R. ; Hicks, William D. ; Kovandzic, Tomislav V. ; Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</creatorcontrib><description>Research Summary
For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.
Policy Implications
Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1538-6473</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-9133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12341</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: American Society of Criminology</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Assets ; Case studies ; Civil law ; Criminal investigations ; Data collection ; Due process of law ; Equity ; Forfeiture ; Forfeitures ; Government agencies ; Incentives ; Journalism ; Justice ; Law ; Law enforcement ; Legitimacy ; Payments ; Police ; Procedural justice ; Revenue ; Rewards</subject><ispartof>Criminology & public policy, 2018-02, Vol.17 (1), p.101-127</ispartof><rights>2018 American Society of Criminology</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 of The American Society of Criminology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3161-950e1686b2681854fae87fd0a533e090a0844a00e2cc7a826f409344fdb7192c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3161-950e1686b2681854fae87fd0a533e090a0844a00e2cc7a826f409344fdb7192c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1745-9133.12341$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1745-9133.12341$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27843,27901,27902,33751,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holcomb, Jefferson E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Marian R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hicks, William D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kovandzic, Tomislav V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</creatorcontrib><title>Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police</title><title>Criminology & public policy</title><description>Research Summary
For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.
Policy Implications
Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Assets</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Civil law</subject><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Forfeiture</subject><subject>Forfeitures</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Journalism</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Legitimacy</subject><subject>Payments</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Procedural justice</subject><subject>Revenue</subject><subject>Rewards</subject><issn>1538-6473</issn><issn>1745-9133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFbPXhc8x85-JZtjCK0VChbU87LZ7totsWl3E0v-vakRr85lhuF9ZuBB6J7AIxlqRjIukpww9kgo4-QCTf42l8MsmExSnrFrdBPjDoAIQcQELUv_5WtcxGhbvGiCs77tgsUrfYpY7zd4fux8q6va4tetDn7_gQvTDkzb46rH7dbidVN7Y2_RldN1tHe_fYreF_O3cpmsXp6ey2KVGEZSkuQCLEllWtFUEim401ZmbgNaMGYhBw2Scw1gqTGZljR1HHLGudtUGcmpYVP0MN49hObY2diqXdOF_fBSUQCaZyAkHVKzMWVCE2OwTh2C_9ShVwTUWZc6y1FnOepH10CkI3Hyte3_i6uyWK9H8BvZ1WoU</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Holcomb, Jefferson E.</creator><creator>Williams, Marian R.</creator><creator>Hicks, William D.</creator><creator>Kovandzic, Tomislav V.</creator><creator>Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</creator><general>American Society of Criminology</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police</title><author>Holcomb, Jefferson E. ; Williams, Marian R. ; Hicks, William D. ; Kovandzic, Tomislav V. ; Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3161-950e1686b2681854fae87fd0a533e090a0844a00e2cc7a826f409344fdb7192c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Assets</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Civil law</topic><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Forfeiture</topic><topic>Forfeitures</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Journalism</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Legitimacy</topic><topic>Payments</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Procedural justice</topic><topic>Revenue</topic><topic>Rewards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holcomb, Jefferson E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Marian R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hicks, William D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kovandzic, Tomislav V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Criminology & public policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holcomb, Jefferson E.</au><au>Williams, Marian R.</au><au>Hicks, William D.</au><au>Kovandzic, Tomislav V.</au><au>Meitl, Michele Bisaccia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police</atitle><jtitle>Criminology & public policy</jtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>101</spage><epage>127</epage><pages>101-127</pages><issn>1538-6473</issn><eissn>1745-9133</eissn><abstract>Research Summary
For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.
Policy Implications
Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>American Society of Criminology</pub><doi>10.1111/1745-9133.12341</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1538-6473 |
ispartof | Criminology & public policy, 2018-02, Vol.17 (1), p.101-127 |
issn | 1538-6473 1745-9133 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2002970582 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Accountability Assets Case studies Civil law Criminal investigations Data collection Due process of law Equity Forfeiture Forfeitures Government agencies Incentives Journalism Justice Law Law enforcement Legitimacy Payments Police Procedural justice Revenue Rewards |
title | Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T10%3A34%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Civil%20Asset%20Forfeiture%20Laws%20and%20Equitable%20Sharing%20Activity%20by%20the%20Police&rft.jtitle=Criminology%20&%20public%20policy&rft.au=Holcomb,%20Jefferson%20E.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=101&rft.epage=127&rft.pages=101-127&rft.issn=1538-6473&rft.eissn=1745-9133&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12341&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2002970582%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2002970582&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |