Chief outraged by loss of forfeiture funds

By John Howell
Posted 1/5/16

Suddenly and without explanation, law enforcement agencies across the country – including Warwick Police – have lost an important source of revenue, Col. Stephen McCartney said Monday.

“If …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Chief outraged by loss of forfeiture funds

Posted

Suddenly and without explanation, law enforcement agencies across the country – including Warwick Police – have lost an important source of revenue, Col. Stephen McCartney said Monday.

“If you ask me, it’s anti-law enforcement. It’s sticking it to the police. That’s the way it looks,” McCartney said.

According to a notice issued Dec. 21 by the U.S. Department of Justice, the department is deferring any equitable sharing payments from the Asset Forfeiture Program indefinitely. Under the program, Warwick police share in funds seized in joint operations with federal authorities.

McCartney said those funds, which he put in the range of 7 to 20 percent of what is seized, average $100,000 a year. The chief uses the money for information management services and police equipment not otherwise included in the budget.

McCartney said he had no warning the money would not be forthcoming and no clue as to when, or if, the program will be re-instituted.

“It hit us out of the blue,” he said.

McCartney isn’t alone in protesting the action.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Terrance Cunningham, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and five other presidents or directors of law enforcement agencies called the provisions approved by Congress and the administration “baffling and disappointing.”

“For over 30 years, the Asset Forfeiture program has allowed law enforcement to deprive criminals of both the proceeds and tools of crime. The resources provided by the equitable sharing program have allowed agencies to participate in joint task forces to thwart and deter serious criminal activity and terrorism, purchase equipment, provide training, upgrade technology, engage their communities, and better protect their officers,” reads the letter.

Mayor Scott Avedisian isn’t happy with the development either.

“The asset forfeiture changes made by Congress are a terrible development for law enforcement coordination efforts. I hope that the Congress will move quickly to reauthorize the forfeiture sharing program as it rewards police departments and other law enforcement agencies for the good work that they do,” he said in an email.

In the Department of Justice notice, M. Kendall Day, chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, explains that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 includes a $746 million permanent reduction, or rescission, in the forfeiture program. He goes on to say the Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on Dec. 18 calls for an additional $458 million in rescissions.

“Thus, effective immediately, the Department will defer all equitable sharing payments to our state, local, and tribal partners and transfers of any items for official use,” Day writes.

McCartney said the department has $70,000 to $100,000 that “we feel would have been owed to us.”

McCartney said that one detective is assigned to working with the Drug Enforcement Administration, a number that expands when cases demand it. Also, he said, the department’s K-9 team responds when requested by federal authorities.

Day writes that the department explored options to preserve some form of meaningful equitable sharing, but that “the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible.”

The explanation doesn’t fly with McCartney. He pointed out forfeiture funds are not known amounts to be plugged into a budget, but rather money taken from criminals by law enforcement.

“This is money we seized. This is money being taken away from us,” he said.

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • RISchadenfreude

    This is revenue which was not guaranteed in perpetuity- our nation's finances are in a shambles. Also, please look up the definition of "bonus", and what this money is not: "entitlement".

    Thursday, January 7, 2016 Report this

  • markyc

    It's unfortunate; but outrage? These type of deferrals/reductions/loss of revenue sources occur to average taxpayers regularly; they DEAL with it. The problem is the Police Dept. or other government agency begins to tend to rely on it & its not even in the budget. It's an incentive-it really is not OWED to the dept.

    Hopefully, other sources of revenue funding can/will be provided for by federal taxpayers; apparently some area needed to be cut/reduced when the unexpected/unplanned for $1.2 billion federal budget reduction occurred- that's a lot of money; DOJ probably needed to reduce some funding area immediately.

    Thursday, January 7, 2016 Report this