What Do Police Do With Drug Money

MARTINEZ — Contra Costa County law enforcement agencies seized a total of $1.1 million over four years from people suspected of committing drug-related crimes but never charged, according to county records obtained by this news organization.

Through a highly controversial practice called civil asset forfeiture, the money was just part of the roughly $3.48 million in cash and property taken from people suspected of committing such crimes from 2015 to the end of 2018, the records show.

The practice — common in Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and most other counties in the state — has long drawn criticism from civil rights and legal activists who contend it essentially allows authorities to grab money from people even if prosecutors determine there isn't enough evidence to charge them with a crime, then disburse it to law enforcement agencies and the state's general fund.

Drug cases accounted for the overwhelming majority of such seizures. Where only a single drug was involved, marijuana cases were by far the most common, accounting for up to $1.2 million of the cash forfeiture petitions, compared with around $306,000 in meth cases, $268,000 in heroin cases, $182,000 in cocaine cases, $81,000 in crack cocaine cases and $6,000 in prescription pill cases.

Now, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton is thinking of slamming the brakes on such seizures.

In a written statement to this news organization, Becton said she is considering new rules that would overhaul how civil asset forfeiture is conducted locally, including a possible ban against seizing cash and property unless criminal charges are filed or restricting them to certain dollar amounts.

"I am concerned about the implications of civil asset forfeiture when there are no corresponding criminal charges with a seizure," Becton said. "I also want to ensure we are using all our resources for the cases that need the most attention for possible criminal activity."

Asset forfeiture was created as a way to financially hamstring criminals and repurpose ill-gotten funds to benefit society. It became a common police tactic after the start of the so-called War on Drugs in 1982. Two years ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called it a "key" law enforcement tool in a push to increase its use, which dipped during the Obama administration.

But a growing chorus of critics call it exploitative and essentially a money grab by police agencies. In one notorious case that led to legal changes, cops in Philadelphia tried to seize the home of a couple whose son sold about $40 in drugs to an undercover officer outside.

"You could literally be sitting in your living room, minding your own business, and the police can storm in, seize all of your personal property, and use the proceeds to fund prosecution programs," Contra Costa public defender Brandon Banks said. "They can do this whether or not you have committed a crime and even if you haven't been charged with a crime."

The money is divided among law enforcement agencies, the state's general fund and the district attorney offices that filed the forfeiture petition. The district attorney's office in Contra Costa uses its share of the money to fund a program aimed at curbing youth violence.

In 2018, Becton's first full year in office since being elected the previous fall, Contra Costa prosecutors petitioned to keep $57,588 in cash from people not charged with crimes and $345,067 in cases where criminal charges were filed. In "pending" cases where prosecutors had not decided whether to file charges yet, a total of $409,159 was seized.

Jeff Landau, a deputy public defender in Contra Costa, called asset forfeiture a "predatory practice" that "should have ended here a long time ago."

"To make matters worse, people of color and low-income people in Contra Costa County are disproportionately subjected to these tactics," Landau said in an email, suggesting that racial profiling is at play. "Simply put, it's wrong for the government to take people's property without first proving that they've broken the law. No use of the profits from this awful practice can make it right."

One of the biggest local critics of the practice has been Reentry Solutions Group, a progressive justice reform advocacy organization that is also on the forefront of local efforts to abolish fees and fines in criminal cases. Its director, Rebecca Brown, has held public meetings this year where she called on Becton to implement a number of policy changes, including greater transparency and requiring that all seizures be above a certain amount and not involve low-level offenders.

"I would be astonished if our DA didn't remedy policies enacted by her draconian predecessor," Brown said in an interview, referring to former Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson, who left office after being convicted of perjury in a plea deal. "I look forward to her announcement of an immediate moratorium while she conducts additional research … I expect nothing less of a progressive prosecutor."

The data

Over the past two years, Bay Area News Group amassed itemized lists of all civil asset forfeiture petitions filed by Contra Costa County prosecutors from 2015 through 2018. They are organized by type of drug — marijuana, meth, cocaine, heroin, pills, and a miscellaneous category for cases with multiple drugs — as well as by whether the petitions correspond with criminal charges.

The data, obtained through public records requests with the district attorney's office, lists cash petitions totaling $1.19 million in cases where drug-related criminal charges were filed and $484,000 in cases where a charging decision hadn't been made. The seized property stays in law enforcement's possession while prosecutors mull charges, which can take up to seven years for felonies under the state's statute of limitations.

About $1.1 million of the seizures came from cases where the DA's office decided not to file criminal charges, yet still took action to keep the cash.

Roughly 100 petitions were filed each year, the records show. All told, around $3.48 million was seized through civil asset forfeiture, including about $2.98 million in cash.

In addition to cash, authorities seized items from suspected drug dealers — typically vehicles, jewelry or designer clothing. Last year the DA's office even petitioned to keep a house on the 5800 block of Kipling Drive in Richmond after it was seized from a suspected marijuana dealer charged with a crime. The house at one time had been on the market for $650,000.

Since 2017, when the recreational use of cannabis was legalized in California, Contra Costa prosecutors petitioned to seize $671,839 in cash from suspected marijuana growers or dealers. Since 2015, cash petitions totaling $491,402 were made in marijuana cases where no charges were filed. State law still makes it illegal to grow or transport large amounts of marijuana, provide it to anyone younger than 21, traffic it across state lines or sell it without a permit.

The numbers weren't surprising to Walnut Creek defense attorney Qiana Washington, who said in a recent interview she remembers one 2015 case where a man's cash next to a jar of cannabis was confiscated in a police raid. Police listed the weight of the entire jar, not just the small amount of marijuana inside, and used that to allege her client was a black market dealer, she said.

"It's kind of like government-sanctioned stealing, that's my take on it," Washington said. "If (prosecutors) don't have proof someone committed a crime, then they should really have no rights to that property. … For people who are low-income, they might not have resources to hire an attorney to fight that."

Complex laws behind asset forfeiture

In 2017 then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 443, which forbids prosecutors from keeping seized assets worth less than $40,000 without a corresponding criminal conviction. But the law contains a giant loophole: To recover seized assets, the person must file a written notice of intent to keep the property and fight the district attorney in civil court, a prospect that could intimidate someone with a spotty past.

If notice isn't given within 30 days, they lose all rights to the property, which the district attorney will then seize through an administrative process that does not require a judge's approval. A spokesman for the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office said of the 140 seizures since the beginning of 2018, people who've had property confiscated fought the case 24 percent of the time. The cases can take years to resolve.

Since 2015, the district attorney's office has returned about $374,838.35 in cash and property, or 11 percent of the roughly $3.48 million seized.

Under California law, state asset forfeiture money must be distributed to multiple parties. Most of it — 65 percent — goes to the local or state law enforcement agencies that seized the funds, depending on their contribution to the seizure.

Another 24 percent goes to the state general fund, 10 percent to the prosecutorial agency that processes the forfeiture and 1 percent to a private organization made up of local prosecutors to provide education to law enforcement on the proper use and ethics of asset forfeiture laws, according to a report from the state attorney general's office.

In Contra Costa County, the district attorney's chunk of seized assets goes to a "county-wide gang and drug fund," which had a balance of $638,540 as of April 10, according to the DA's office. The funds are used to fund a program called Gun Violence Information for Teens, or GIFT, as well as other educational and anti-truancy programs.

Kaitlyn Bartley contributed to this report.