IN Police Spent $400K in Forfeiture Funds on Salaries & Benefits

by | Mar 1, 2017

IN Police Spent $400K in Forfeiture Funds on Salaries & Benefits

by | Mar 1, 2017

Federal Audit: Indiana Agencies Spent $400,000 in Forfeiture Funds on Salaries, Benefits

Indiana law enforcement spent over $400,000 in federal asset forfeiture funds to pay the salaries, overtime and fringe benefits for its officers, according to a federal audit released last week. Conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, the audit examined more than $800,000 in expenditures made by the sheriff’s office for Henry County, Indiana in 2014 and 2015. That figure also included nearly $380,000 the Henry County Sheriff’s Office transferred to other law enforcement agencies.

The money in question derived from a federal forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing.” Through equitable sharing, participating local and state agencies can transfer seized property to federal authorities for forfeiture under federal law, and be rewarded with up to 80 percent of the proceeds. Equitable sharing has become increasingly controversial, in part because agencies do not need to secure a criminal conviction, or even file criminal charges, before forfeiture can occur. One in-depth investigation into equitable sharing by The Washington Post found that “in 81 percent of cases no one was indicted.”

In Henry County, the sheriff’s office spent nearly $180,000 in equitable sharing funds to pay the salary and fringe benefits of a deputy who was transferred to a drug interdiction task force. According to federal guidelines, agencies generally may not use equitable sharing to fund salaries and benefits for personnel, “so that the prospect of receiving equitable sharing funds does not influence, or appear to influence, law enforcement decisions.”

Read the rest at the Institute for Justice.

About Nick Sibilla

As a Communications Associate for the Institute for Justice, Nick Sibilla regularly writes opeds and blog posts and enhances IJ’s presence on social media. He is also a contributor to Forbes.com, where he covers civil forfeiture, occupational licensing, food freedom and the First Amendment.

Our Books

latest book lineup.

Related Articles

Related

In Defense of Inaction

In Defense of Inaction

On March 17, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a woman named Mary Anastasia O’Grady titled, “Giving up on Haiti Isn’t a U.S. Option.” She argues, in short, that Americans don’t have a choice but to continue doing all the things that have failed in the past...

read more
Is America a Rogue Superpower?

Is America a Rogue Superpower?

“Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world. In global affairs, a hegemon is a nation that leads because it has the...

read more
Collateral Murder 2.0

Collateral Murder 2.0

When the footage of Reuters journalists and civilians were Wikileaked to the world, there was outrage. A shame exhibited by some in the American government caused them to reel from the crime that had been exposed, to downplay the prevalence of such murders, and...

read more
The Fed and the Fight for 2%

The Fed and the Fight for 2%

Last week, Jerome Powell & Co. met to issue an immediate decision regarding the status of the federal funds rate for March, and to provide some insight into the trajectory of monetary policy for the rest of 2024 and into 2025. As with the past few inflation...

read more
Truth Has No Chance on Capitol Hill

Truth Has No Chance on Capitol Hill

Americans are encouraged to believe that the U.S. Congress is practically on automatic pilot to serve the public. Happily, most Americans are not so gullible and Congress receives much of the contempt it deserves in public opinion polls. But the media and the...

read more