skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 211034 Find in a Library
Title: Asset Forfeiture and Police Priorities: The Impact of Program Design on Law Enforcement Activities
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
Page Count: 17
Publisher: http://www.sagepub.com/ 
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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
Main Term(s): Forfeiture; Police policies and procedures
Index Term(s): Forfeiture law; Ohio; Police discretion
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=211034

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.