This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Clingermayer, J. C. Articles by Madsen, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Murray State University

Jason Hecker

Literacy Center West

Sue Madsen

Union Township Police Department

This article examines the use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement units within the greater Cincinnati area, using the results of a survey distributed among state and local government law enforcement agencies. The analysis reveals what kinds of assets are confiscated, what kind of legal authority is used to accomplish asset forfeiture, and which individuals are involved in the decisions to confiscate assets and to select a particular kind of legal authority under which the forfeiture will be authorized. The data indicate that the use of asset forfeiture does not have a substantial impact on the policing priorities of local agencies. The sampled jurisdictions tend to use either a criminal forfeiture statute as the legal authority for the seizure or a court-imposed settlement to confiscate assets. By using the criminal court process, jurisdictions avoid sharing the value of the assets.

Key Words: asset forfeiture • policing

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, 319-335 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0887403404271482


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?