The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50810
opinion BACK PA G E BY EZRA LEVANT Police cash grabs A nthony Yerkovich, the creator of the hit TV show Miami Vice, said he came up with the idea for the show when the U.S. Congress created asset forfeiture laws as part of its war on drugs. The whole show was built around the idea that cops didn't have to drive Fords anymore — they could drive Ferraris, if they arrested a Ferrari owner. Forfeitures were part of the law since before the war on drugs; everything from fish and wildlife law to the laws against counterfeit currency contain penalties relating to assets. But never before has the practice been so widespread or so lax — or so explicitly designed to fatten police budgets. In 1985, its first year, the U.S. Department of Justice's forfei- ture fund seized $27 million from suspected drug dealers. With- in five years, forfeiture funds across America were raking in $2 billion annually. Rival police forces now boast of their "fundrais- ing" efforts. In 2008, the U.S. attorney responsible for New York City put out a press release bragging that he'd hauled in more money than anyone else in America — $1.1 billion, not includ- ing seized art. That was classy compared to the U.S. Treasury Department, which published a catalogue of seizures, complete with glamour shots of mansions seized by Uncle Sam. One of the criticisms of photo radar is that it turns police into tax collectors, not true crime fighters. But why would po- lice waste time nickel-and-diming citizens for a few hundred dollars, when forfeiture laws let them in on millions? I visited a Canadian police detachment tasked with seizing con- traband. Its office was adorned with artifacts taken from citizens — it was like a forbidden art gallery or museum. At the entrance was a lion skin draped on the wall. It had an evidence tag on it, but wasn't in a locker — it was on display for the enjoyment of the officers. The "criminal" couldn't enjoy it. But the police were. Canadian statistics aren't as detailed as those in the U.S., and are probably not as dramatic. But south of the border, 80 per cent of targets of forfeiture have their property seized without being charged. The average target for property seizure isn't a drug kingpin; the vast majority are under $50,000 — easier pickings for police forces looking for some quick cash. Take the Calgary Police Service for instance. Just before Christmas, along with the RCMP, the Calgary Police raided a home south of the city, seizing weapons and drugs. Good for them. But they also helped themselves to $20,000 in cash, and the house itself. The money didn't commit a crime, and neither did the house. Neither did the five people arrested, actually — they haven't been convicted yet, though without their cash or house, hiring a lawyer just got more difficult. The Alberta law under which the property was seized is delightfully named: the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act. Like the Miami Vice Ferraris, 46 FEBRU AR Y 2009 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com though, it's funny how much loot stays with the police, not with any "victims." Look at Alberta's law. "It is not necessary . . . to establish that any person has been charged with, found guilty of, or convicted of, or otherwise held responsible for any illegal act" for a judge to issue a seizure order for property. And if it's "impractical" to get before a judge, a police officer "who has reasonable grounds to believe that property is an instrument of illegal activity" can simply seize the property himself — kicking a family out of their house, if he likes. The police don't even have to believe that a crime has happened; just that one is "likely to" happen. If the owner of the house makes it to court to protest his house's seizure, the onus is on him to prove that he "would not have been involved in or associated with" any illegal act involv- ing the property, and that he had no idea that the property "was likely" to be used for illegal purposes. Who needs photo radar, when there are million-dollar homes to be scooped up, whether or not the drugs or weapons charges stick. There's none of that pesky "beyond a reasonable doubt" trial business — it's a cash grab on the balance of probabilities. In the U.S., enterprising police sift through records to find cases where property owners ought to have known their apartments were used for crimes, and then after the fact seize the property. Oh well, it could be worse. Alberta's Drug-Endangered Chil- dren Act lets drug cops seize kids, too. They don't need to be abused or neglected — they just need to live in a house where drugs are grown, stored, or sold. Photo radar was the warm-up act. Seizing houses, cars, and cash without criminal trials is the new fashion for cash- strapped police departments. But taking kids away from sus- pected criminals? That's the big play. Ezra Levant is a Calgary lawyer. He can be reached at ezra@ ezralevant.com ILLUSTRATION: SCOTT PAGE