How Seizing Assets Leads To More Surveillance… And Then More Seized Assets… And Then More Surveillance… And Then…

from the nefarious-cycle dept

Note: The bulk of the research in this post was compiled prior to Attorney General Eric Holder’s surprise announcement that he is curtailing the federal equitable sharing program. The post may be updated as further ramifications of the policy decision become clear.

“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the f*** it’s gonna take you.”

This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO series The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.

Asset forfeiture has long been a topic of controversy in law enforcement. Cops and prosecutors have had the power to seize property and cash from suspects before anyone has actually been convicted of a crime (usually narcotics-related). Then these law enforcement agencies have plugged a portion of that money (and money derived from auctioning of property) into their own budgets, allowing them to spend in ways that possibly would not have passed scrutiny during the formal appropriations process.

Critics note that asset forfeiture creates a perverse incentive for policing priorities: the more assets cops seize, the more money they get to spend. Satirist John Oliver characterized the practice as akin to “legalized robbery by law enforcement” in a must-watch segment on his show Last Week Tonight. News organizations, including New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Free Beacon have recently outlined abuses of the system.

The good news is that, on Friday, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Eric Holder is taking steps to rein in the federal version of the program, barring state and local law enforcement agencies from “using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without evidence that a crime occurred.” 

Last year, the Washington Post‘s investigative team used the Freedom of Information Act to liberate hundreds of thousands of documents associated with federal asset forfeiture, including the entire collection of annual spending disclosures (“Equitable Sharing Agreements”) filed with the U.S. Department of Justice by each individual law enforcement agency and task force across the country that receives these funds. The documents reveal a wide variety of spending, from using seized assets to pay for new vehicles and helicopters, drug “buy” money, payments to confidential informants, travel expenses, law enforcement equipment, and rewards for police, such as “challenge coins.

An examination of these documents reveal the connection between seized assets and electronic surveillance across the country.  It many ways, it has been a circular, self-sustaining system: asset forfeiture helps law enforcement agencies pay for electronic surveillance, which allows cops to seize more money to pay for electronic surveillance.

According to data compiled by the Washington Post for the years 2008-2013, law enforcement agencies around the country collectively spent $121 million of federal asset forfeiture funds on electronic surveillance equipment, an annual nationwide average  $20.2 million.  

The forms do not clearly define “electronic surveillance,” but it typically includes the type of equipment used in wiretaps. The amount of seized assets spent on electronic surveillance could potentially be much higher, since law enforcement agencies can categorize staff time spent on surveillance in other categories. Sometimes agencies weren’t sure how to categorize certain technologies, such as automatic license plate readers and GPS tracking devices, so they reported them separately under other categories. To put it another way: these numbers are just the chunk of the iceberg viewable through public records.

The data sets are enormous, so let’s drill down on California. Brace yourself, it’s about to get mathy.

How Wiretaps Are Used to Seize Funds

California law enforcement agencies executed 2,078 wiretap orders between 2011 and 2013, according to the California Electronic Interceptions Reports, an annual accounting of electronic surveillance compiled by the California Attorney General’s Office.  These reports show that these agencies seize hundreds of millions of dollars each year in wiretap-related criminal investigations, usually involving narcotics or gang activities, and frequently in partnership with federal agencies.

In Los Angeles County, law enforcement agencies conducted 515 wiretap operations over that three-year period, leading to the seizure of at least $25 million in assets. The California Electronic Interceptions Report provides details on the outcome of every single wiretap, which typically include the number of communications captured, the number of individuals affected by the wiretap, and any arrests made or drugs or assets seized. For example, you might see that one 2013 LA wiretap intercepted 9,273 communications involving 67 people, resulting in a single arrest and the seizure of $427,000 in alleged narcotics proceeds. Or that in 2012, LA authorities captured 6,176 communications involving 245 people, resulting in the seizure of $440,000 in alleged drug money. 

The Cost of Wiretaps

Electronic surveillance isn’t cheap. Between 2011 and 2013, the average cost to execute a wiretap order in California was $40,594, which included $36,807 for staff time and $3,787 for equipment-related expenses. 

From a bird’s eye view, California law enforcement agencies collectively spent $84 million on electronic interceptions during that period, an average of $28 million per year. Of that, staff time spent on electronic surveillance cost California agencies $76 million ($25 million annually) and equipment-related expenses cost $7.9 million  ($2.6 million annually).

In Los Angeles County alone, law enforcement agencies spent $20.3 million between 2011 and 2013, including $2.1 million on wiretap equipment. 

How Seized Assets Were Turned into Electronic Surveillance

When local law enforcement agencies participated in federal investigations, the federal government paid them back by divvying out a portion of the proceeds from the seizures.  These agencies included police department, sheriff offices, and district attorney offices, as well as investigative task forces that span multiple jurisdictions. These agencies were required to broadly report how they spent the money in a variety of categories, including electronic surveillance, on an annual basis.

Between 2011 and 2013, law enforcement agencies in California spent a total of $13.6 million in funds from the federal asset forfeiture program on electronic surveillance equipment, a statewide average of $4.5 million per year. 

To give a sense of scale: that was enough to cover the cost of wiretap equipment (including installation fees, supplies, and equipment) for the entire state of California, with change left over. 

To look at it another way, that’s enough to pay for equipment in more than 3,500 wiretaps, far more than these agencies actually conducted. This could indicate that either agencies may have bought more equipment than they needed to carry out these wiretaps or that they may have spent significant portions of the money on surveillance that doesn’t require a wiretap order.

Los Angeles County is made up of dozens of local law enforcement agencies and task forces, but two in particular consistently rose to the top of electronic surveillance spending: the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office and Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Team (LA IMPACT), a cross-jurisdictional task force.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department dug deep into seized federal asset forfeiture funds to run its electronic surveillance operations. Between 2008 and 2014, the LA Sheriff received a total of $47.3 million from the federal program and spent roughly $4 million of that on electronic surveillance equipment. Meanwhile, LA IMPACT received approximately $30 million in asset forfeiture funds over that period, two thirds of which it transferred to other law enforcement agencies. Of the remaining money, about $620,000 went towards electronic surveillance.

That’s how it works (or worked on the federal level before Holder’s announcement): police spend money on electronic surveillance, which leads to the seizure funds from suspected criminals, and then that money is channeled back to police to use on more electronic surveillance.  

Holder’s announcement could have a significant impact on how law enforcement agencies fund electronic surveillance. However, it’s important to remember that the next administration’s attorney general could easily reverse this policy decision. Further, many states also have their own asset forfeiture programs, so a whole second layer of funding remains on the state level.

The Washington Post has released its giant cache of Equitable Sharing Agreements from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country. We urge you to dig in, find your local cops, identify out how they’ve spend this money, and let the world know what you find.

Major thanks goes out to Washington Post data editor Steven Rich and his colleagues for freeing this data, making it available to the public, and helping us wrap our heads around the spreadsheets.

Reposted from the EFF Deeplinks blog

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “How Seizing Assets Leads To More Surveillance… And Then More Seized Assets… And Then More Surveillance… And Then…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

What lies beneath

This is because the three-letter agencies don’t think like you or I–especially not the dark agencies like the NSA.

See, if you or I become suspicious of someone: we might study them for a while and, if our suspicions don’t seem to be confirmed, we will discard them as unfounded.

For these intelligence guys, suspicions are never unfounded; merely unproven. If they become suspicious of someone, they dig into the data they have to confirm those suspicions. Failure to confirm means…they haven’t collected enough data.

This means more surveillance is required, but the more surveillance, the more people to be suspicious of…and the more surveillance that is needed. If they have a recording of every word you speak and write–video of every second of your life right down to your time on the toilet–and it still doesn’t prove their suspicions, well, that just means they need to collect data with Smart Pipe technology (satire video, NSFW).

Anonymous Coward says:

The only reason Holder has shelved the program at this time is to make it less of a contentious “sticking point” during Loretta Lynch’s upcoming confirmation hearings (given her past heavy utilization of the program). He’s thinking if it’s not a future option for her, there’s no need to bring up her past usage. Of course, he couldn’t be more wrong.

Annonimus says:

Wait I know this joke

The Police stumbles back into The Legislature. The Police’s cheeks are obviously flushed from data gathering. The Public stares at The Police angrily and asks:

“You have been at the Big Telco’s again haven’t you? Don’t lie to me I can see how flushed you are from all the data processing.”

The Police responds with:

“Hey Public yeah I’ve been at the Big Telco’s again, but you see it was justified. I was removing the disparity.”

“The disparity?”, asked The Public with an incredulous stare.

“Yeah you see I was at the Big Telco’s to get some Evidence so I ordered some Metadata and some Assets Forfeiture.” said The Police and then proceeded to stagger an accusation against Journalism for not respecting blue lives.

“And?!” The Public demanded irritated.

“Well after I finished processing the Metadata I still had some Assets Forfeiture left over and it seemed a waste to just leave it there so I ordered another round of Metadata.” Said The Police and the proceeded to puke demands for respect all over the carpet.

“You mean to tell me you got this flushed from two rounds of Metadata and a round of Assets Forfeiture?” asked The Public furiously.

The Police looked up at The Public after cleaning its mouth on its sleeve and answered:

“Of course not. After I finished the Assets Forfeiture off I noticed I had a disparity with a surplus of Metadata, so I ordered another round of Assets Forfeiture. Of course after I finished the Metadata the disparity was now on the Assets Forfeiture side, so I needed another round of Metadata. So i finished off the Assets Forfeiture and then realized I had disparity on the Metadata side, so I…”

This joke only remains funny until you realize that there is no safe house for the Drunkards abused spouse to hide at.

GEMont says:

Re: Re:

From what I can understand about law, if its legal, its called “confiscation” and not “theft”, even if it is really just theft.

Its similar I guess, to the laws that allow cops to shoot kids, as long as the cop can claim it was in self defense, because its legal for a cop to shoot a kid in self defense, even if it was actually murder.

This is why the members of organized crime have been using their ill-gotten gains for decades, to educate their kids as lawyers and politicians – in order to infiltrate the halls of power and re-write the laws to better suit the kind of world organized crime can flourish and prosper in.

The world we have today.

Remember the bank scandal that rocked the world a few years back. All it took was a few people in the right place at the right time and a couple quick lawyer twists of the pen and all the laws that designated that exact type of activity by banks as criminal were erased and the banks could suddenly do the crime without doing the time, cuz it was now all legal.

The term “legal” is of course meaningless, when criminals write the laws.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...