U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Asset Forfeiture and Police Priorities: The Impact of Program Design on Law Enforcement Activities

NCJ Number
211034
Journal
Criminal Justice Policy Review Volume: 16 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2005 Pages: 319-335
Author(s)
James C. Clingermayer; Jason Hecker; Sue Madsen
Date Published
September 2005
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article describes the use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement in Cincinnati, OH.
Abstract
During the 1980s and 1990s, Federal laws changed to encourage the use of asset forfeiture by State and local authorities in their efforts to combat criminal activities. Asset forfeiture involves the right of law enforcement authorities to confiscate assets that are in the possession of or utilized by criminals or criminal suspects. The widespread use of asset forfeiture became controversial in the face of allegations of abuse. This study represents one of the first attempts to understand the decisionmaking process regarding the use of asset forfeiture laws. The analysis focused on the types of assets confiscated, the kind of legal authority used to carrying out asset forfeiture, and on the individuals involved in the decisionmaking process within the greater Cincinnati area. Data were drawn from a 2002 survey of 70 State and local law enforcement agencies in the greater Cincinnati area; survey questions focused on asset forfeiture and policing priorities. The results indicated that asset forfeiture was used rather commonly in the area, although the use of asset forfeiture laws did not have a significant impact on local policing priorities. Overall, local authorities used either a criminal forfeiture statute or a court-imposed forfeiture to confiscate assets. The criminal court process may be favored because it allows jurisdictions to avoid divulging the value of assets confiscated. There was no evidence of abuse of the forfeiture laws in Cincinnati. Tables, note, references

Downloads

No download available

Availability