Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:38:16.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

California Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Policing of Minority Residents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2023

Jared Joseph*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Statistics and Data Science Program, Smith College, Northampton, MA, United States.
Bill McCarthy
Affiliation:
Dean of the School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, United States. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Who Are the Criminals?, John Hagan argues that legislators use “crisis framing” to influence how the general public thinks about crime. President Ronald Reagan used reports of a drug use epidemic fueled by organized crime as part of his crisis framing. In 1984, he signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act (CCCA) as part of his “war on drugs.” The CCCA allowed law enforcement to use civil asset forfeiture (CAF) to keep or sell property that it suspected was connected to illegal activity. State legislators followed suit and passed their own CAF laws. Some critics argue that law enforcements’ use of CAF has disproportionately targeted minority populations. We draw on racial threat theory to examine connections between the size of minority populations and the use of CAF in California. Our analysis uses nineteen years of CAF cases filed with the California Attorney General’s Office. Consistent with racial threat theory, we find a positive association between the number of forfeitures in a jurisdiction and a logged measure of the percentage of Black residents, net of crime, and other jurisdiction attributes. Our results support concerns that law enforcement has incorporated CAF as a technique used disproportionately against some minority communities.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation

INTRODUCTION

In Who Are the Criminals?, John Hagan (Reference Hagan2012, 2) develops a race (and class) analysis that examines the political construction of crimes and their consequences. His approach draws on research on the links between political depictions of crime as a problem, people’s fear of victimization, and their perception that some groups of people are disproportionately involved in crime (see, for example, Beckett and Sasson Reference Beckett and Sasson2004). Hagan argues that sensational political constructions have criminal justice consequences that extend long past the period in which they arise. As Murray Edelman (Reference Edelman1964, 7) notes, “the link between dramatic political announcements and their impact on people is so long and so tangled.”

Hagan emphasizes that many political representations in the United States encourage the view that poor Black Americans and their communities are disproportionately responsible for street crime. In the 1950s through the 1970s, political rhetoric about crime usually focused on White American fears about violent crime, thereby helping to entrench fears of the “criminal Black man” (Russell-Brown Reference Russell-Brown1998). By the 1980s, however, claims about America’s “drug problem” increasingly dominated. Sensitive to the changing dynamic of race relations, US politicians increasingly avoided racist language in their speeches and instead resorted to coded words and dog whistles that encouraged stereotypes and fears (Haney-López Reference Haney-López2014). Their messages helped crystallize the view that Black communities were primarily responsible for drug crime and generated support for various types of crime control (Simon Reference Simon2007). These controls included increased policing of Black communities and the incarceration of its residents.

We draw on Hagan’s approach to examine civil asset forfeiture (CAF). CAF statutes allow law enforcement to retain the cash and property that they seize and that are forfeited to them. Vulnerable property includes any that law enforcement suspects is the result of illegal activity. Forfeited assets includes items used to commit an alleged crime, the proceeds from it, or property bought with the profits that the offense generated. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan expanded CAF as part of his war on drugs policies. State governments quickly followed, passing their own CAF laws and creating their own state-based forfeiture programs. Supporters of CAF laws argue that they deter crime and allow for the use of the profits of crime to fund law enforcement (see Jacobs Reference Jacobs1992; Newton Reference Newton1992). Critics argue that they are unconstitutional (Karis Reference Karis2002), incentivize law enforcement misconduct (Benson and Rasmussen Reference Benson and Rasmussen1994), and are disproportionately used to police minority communities (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016). Minority communities, and especially those with a high proportion of Black residents, have borne the brunt of the war on drugs and the incarceration escalation that it spawned (Provine Reference Provine2011). They have also been subject to an array of hostile law enforcement tactics such as the use of stop and frisk (Hannon Reference Hannon2020), fines and fees (Henricks and Harvey Reference Henricks and Cheyenne Harvey2017), and excessive force (Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018). We examine if a similar pattern occurs for the use of CAF. We draw on Hubert Blalock’s (Reference Blalock1967) racial threat theory and examine the hypothesis that the use of CAF is associated with the size of a minority group, relative to the dominant White population.

Our analysis uses nineteen years of asset forfeiture data from California law enforcement agencies. California is a particularly useful case. As discussed below, California politicians—from President Reagan to Congressman and State Attorney General Dan Lungren—were strong advocates for CAF legislation. California police have been aggressive users of CAF: the state has typically received the largest share of returns from CAF sent to the federal government and, along with Texas and Arizona, had the highest state-based forfeiture revenues for much of the 2000s (Carpenter et al. Reference Carpenter, Knepper, Erickson and McDonald2015; Knepper et al. Reference Knepper, McDonald, Sanchez and Smith Pohl2020).Footnote 1 California also revised its state CAF law several times, but still received C grades in the reviews of its policies (Carpenter et al. Reference Carpenter, Knepper, Erickson and McDonald2015; Knepper et al. Reference Knepper, McDonald, Sanchez and Smith Pohl2020; see also Williams et al. Reference Williams, Holcomb, Kovandzic and Bullock2010), and critics charge that California law enforcement has used CAF disproportionately against Black, Latinx, and poor populations (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016).

This article proceeds as follows. We begin with a discussion of political rhetoric and the justification for CAF. We then describe the key features of CAF, CAF research, and concerns about law enforcement’s misuse of CAF, particularly in minority communities. Next, we summarize racial threat theory and research before turning to our data, measures, methods, and results. We conclude with a summary of our research, its limitations, and the questions it raises.

Crime Policy: Crisis and Normative Framing

Hagan (Reference Hagan2012) argues that government officials use “framing devices” to direct how the media and the public conceptualize and talk about crime and criminal justice practices. Legislators and regulatory agencies use “crisis framing” to direct attention to particular issues or actions, while simultaneously using “normal framing” to foster the acceptance and support of other actions, including questionable criminal justice practices. Framing devices are typically based on politicians’ moral and ideological preferences, not empirical realities. Hagan’s analysis of framing devices adds to a small but important literature on government speech about crime and its influence. Studies of political rhetoric about crime highlight the ways in which politicians try to influence how people think and talk about issues (see, for example, Beckett Reference Beckett1994). An analysis of speeches from four presidents—Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, and Bill Clinton—shows a consistent pattern in their description of drug use and selling as the most serious problems threatening the United States, in calling for an intensification of penalties and an increase in law enforcement funding to address them, and in implying that young, impoverished Black men are mostly responsible for crime (Norris and Billings Reference Norris and Billings2017).

Politicians hope their speeches will influence a number of audiences: their political allies and adversaries, the media, various government bodies, and, perhaps most important, the public (Hill and Marion Reference Hill and Marion2016). Several studies show a strong association between public perceptions and political speech. Research finds a positive relationship between public concerns about drug use and crime and the number of drug-focused speeches and statements by federal state actors in the 1960s through the 1990s, net of crime rates, and media coverage of crime and drugs (Beckett Reference Beckett1994; however, see Hill, Oliver, and Marion Reference Hill, Oliver and Marion2012). Other research finds a similar pattern between presidential State of the Union speeches and public concerns about drugs (Oliver, Hill, and Marion Reference Oliver, Hill and Marion2011). Collectively, these studies support politicians’ beliefs that their rhetoric influences public attitudes and support for their policies.

The War on Drugs and Civil Asset Forfeiture

President Nixon introduced the phrase “war on drugs” in a 1971 speech to the US Congress (Rosino Reference Rosino2021). The phrase aptly reflected more than a half-century of domestic and foreign policies directed against drug production, distribution, and use (Provine Reference Provine2011); however, Nixon had a bifurcated policy toward drug use. He repealed the mandatory minimum federal sentence for possession of marijuana and provided funding for drug treatment but used calls for “law and order” and drug arrests as a way to win support of White voters and to associate drug use with street crime more broadly and with Black Americans and other minorities. The Reagan administration built on the more punitive parts of Nixon’s policy and effectively orchestrated media and public concerns about illegal drugs. President Reagan was not the first US president to make crime policy a central plank of his administration; however, as Hagan (Reference Hagan2012) notes, he was particularly successful in manipulating the media and the public to support policies and practices that reflected his administration’s ideological interests and to disregard data that contradicted them.

According to Hagan (Reference Hagan2012), President Reagan had successfully used a law-and-order framing to win the governor’s race in California. In this early campaign, Reagan’s focus was mostly on White Americans’ fears of violent crime; he expanded his framing to include drug crimes for his presidential campaign. As we show below, Reagan used a drug crisis narrative that had several components, including claims that a drug epidemic was decimating America and that the drug trade primarily involved organized crime. Similar to most other post-civil right politicians, President Reagan did not explicitly connect drugs to Black communities; instead, he used phrases like “law and order” and references to the need for more police, which, as Hagan (Reference Hagan2012) argues, indirectly reach people concerned about perceived threats to the racial order. These terms are code word for Black communities and their residents (Rosino Reference Rosino2021) and, as Ian Haney-López (Reference Haney-López2014) underscores, obscure their racial roots. Haney-López argues that President Reagan used code words in his normative framing as a way to link race to crime “surreptitiously” and to appeal to those who eschewed explicitly racial rhetoric (36); however, President Regan also used them as a “strategically” racist strategy to connect with overtly racist voters (46). And there were times when President Reagan was less opaque, such as, for example, in a speech to police chiefs, when he remarked: “We must never forget the jungle is always there waiting to take us over. … I commend you for manning the thin blue line that holds back a jungle which threatens to reclaim this clearing we call civilization” (Reagan Reference Reagan1981; emphasis added).

In a 1982 speech, President Reagan said his administration would focus on harsh penalties for offenders and particularly for the “syndicate or organized criminals” responsible for the drug trade. He argued that the public supported this approach: “[N]ine out of ten Americans believe that the courts in their home areas aren’t tough enough on criminals” (Reagan Reference Reagan1982). In a 1984 weekly address to the nation, he criticized the US Congress for failing to support his administrations’ policies and used fear of crime as a way to enlist public support for them: “Shouldn’t we have the right as citizens of this great country to walk our streets without being afraid and to go to bed without worrying the next sound might be a burglar or a rapist? Of course we should. But in reality we don’t” (Reagan Reference Reagan1984). President Reagan referred directly to CAF in this address, arguing that it (and his other drug policies) “would be a severe blow to the crime czars” and rhetorically asking: “Why should any right-minded person oppose it?”

President Reagan continued his crisis narrative in his second administration. In a 1986 Address to the Nation, with Nancy Reagan, he told Americans:

Drugs are menacing our society. They’re threatening our values and undercutting our institutions. They’re killing our children. From the beginning of our administration, we’ve taken strong steps to do something about this horror. Tonight I can report to you that we’ve made much progress. … Last year alone over 10,000 drug criminals were convicted and nearly $250 million of their assets were seized by the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration. (Reagan Reference Reagan1986)

In the same speech, President Reagan vilified drug users, charging that “[d]rug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is.” Nancy Reagan echoed her husband’s sentiments, making it clear that the war on drugs policies was not intended to focus only on high-level drug dealers: “Now we go on to the next stop: making a final commitment not to tolerate drugs by anyone, anytime, anyplace” (emphasis added).

President Reagan drew on questionable reports and advice from law enforcement officials in his comments about crime (Benson and Rasmussen Reference Benson and Rasmussen1994; Hagan Reference Hagan2012). For example, in the early 1980s, only a very small proportion of surveyed Americans—3 percent—described drugs as the nation’s most important problem (Beckett Reference Beckett1994), yet President Reagan enthusiastically increased drug enforcement funding—for example, from eighty-six million dollars to one billion dollars for the Drug Enforcement Agency (Haney-López Reference Haney-López2014). He also expanded the use of mandatory minimum sentences, adding twenty-nine for drug offenses. As a result, incarceration for drug offenses more than doubled in the 1980s, contributing to the mass incarceration that would characterize US penal practices for a half-century (Caulkins and Chandler Reference Caulkins and Chandler2006). Drug arrests disproportionality targeted young Black and Brown men and women and their communities. According to Hagan (Reference Hagan2012, 64), these patterns are influenced by “prejudicial and discriminatory laws and law enforcement [that] make minority group members more vulnerable to drug arrest and imprisonment.” As a result, drug laws and racial oppression in the United States are inextricably connected (Rosino Reference Rosino2021).

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Asset forfeiture has a long history; its current incarnation is rooted in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act passed in 1970 by the US Congress. The 1970 Act focused mostly on drugs and the vehicles used to transport them (Jensen and Gerber Reference Jensen and Gerber1996; Karis Reference Karis2002); a 1978 expansion added drug trade profits and assets purchased with them (Stahl Reference Stahl1992). In 1984, President Reagan introduced the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which allowed law enforcement to seize assets, and have them declared forfeit, that they suspected were connected to illegal activity. Federal CAF required a low burden of proof (that is, probable cause as opposed to reasonable doubt), did not require an arrest or conviction, and placed the burden on the owner to demonstrate that the seized asset was not connected to illegal activity (Barnet Reference Barnet2001). It is the asset, not its owner, that was suspect (in rem) and that was not protected by rights related to unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, right to counsel, or excessive fines.

Most states—and many municipalities (Pimentel Reference Pimentel2018)—subsequently adopted their own CAF laws (Edgeworth Reference Edgeworth2004; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Holcomb, Kovandzic and Bullock2010). California established its state CAF in 1989, revised it in 1994, and again in 2016 (Karis Reference Karis2002). In the analysis we present later in this article, we focus on CAF processed under California state law from 2002 through to 2020. For most of these years, a case for CAF in California involving personal property valued under twenty-five thousand dollars only required “clear and convincing evidence” and not a criminal conviction.Footnote 2 Advocates for CAF in California used rhetoric similar to that used by President Reagan. Dan Lungren, for example, was an ardent CAF supporter. As a Republican congressional representative, Lungren was the principle sponsor of President Reagan’s federal CAF program and made sure of its success in congress (Newton Reference Newton1992). As California’s attorney general, he advocated for increasing the scope of CAF in California when it came up for renewal in the early 1990s. He argued, for example, that expanding state CAF was the “single most important issue facing law enforcement” (Jacobs Reference Jacobs1992). He described CAF as law enforcement’s most powerful weapon, akin to “taking a dagger to the heart of the drug trade” (Jacobs Reference Jacobs1992). Similar to President Reagan, Attorney General Lungren emphasized that CAF focused on high-level offenders—and not regular residents—claiming it “strip(s) drug dealers of their ill-gotten gains and thwart(s) their efforts to turn drug profits into large amounts of cash, expensive cars, boats and other high-priced toys” (Jacobs Reference Jacobs1992).

CAF Research

Most research on CAF has examined the extent to which law enforcement use forfeited property to fund their activities, pursue CAF to the neglect of other law enforcement responsibilities, and focus more on drug users and low-level sellers rather than upper-level drug dealers (see, for example, Benson et al. Reference Benson, Kim, Rasmussen and Zhehlke1992; Bishopp and Worrall Reference Bishopp and Worrall2009; Holcomb et al. Reference Holcomb, Williams, Hicks, Kovandzic and Bisaccia Meitl2018; Goldstein, Sances, and You Reference Goldstein, Sances and Young You2020; Kantor, Kitchens, and Pawlowski Reference Kantor, Kitchens and Pawlowski2021). A small number of studies have examined the use of CAF in minority communities (Baicker and Jacobson Reference Baicker and Jacobson2007; Worrall and Kovandzic Reference Worrall and Kovandzic2008; Helms and Costanza Reference Helms and Costanza2009), but these concern revenue generation and the use of federal versus state programs to process forfeitures. A report by the American Civil Liberties Union on CAF in California provides some initial evidence of possible police bias in its use (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016). It notes that, in 2013 and 2014, more than 85 percent of federally adjudicated CAF claims were from agencies that policed communities in which “people of color” constituted more than half of the population (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016, 6). Lower-income communities also bore a heavier burden than did others.

Racial Threat Theory and Policing

The possibility that law enforcement will use CAF disproportionately against minority groups resonates with ideas that Blalock (Reference Blalock1967) posited in his group on racial threat theory. Drawing on work in the conflict tradition (for example, Blumer Reference Blumer1958), Blalock argued that a dominant racial group uses a variety of resources to preserve its dominance over subordinate groups and guard against a variety of macro-structural threats. Blalock focused primarily on two threats—economic and political—while subsequent work extended his ideas to symbolic threats (Dollar Reference Dollar2014; Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020). Economic threat mostly concerns competition for jobs, wages, and occupational status, and so it is political and symbolic threats that are most relevant to our study. Blalock (Reference Blalock1967, 118–19) argued that by the 1960s the power to punish, the use of force, and “police power” were the key resources left for the dominant White population in the United States to use in its control of others. He maintained that pressure resources like these require “continuous application and close surveillance” (119). Blalock theorized that, in order to preserve the resources and privileges that domination provides, the White population, and its representatives (for example, politicians and law enforcement) would use pressure resources in discriminatory ways to retain political power.

Racial threat theory allows for racial animus and individual discrimination but focuses on instrumental discrimination by a dominant group. Police power is a basic tool for discrimination because it communicates the power of the dominant group to punish, and it uses this power and the threat of its application to control. According to the theory, the positive relationship between the use of threat-based discrimination, such as various forms of policing, and the percentage of Black residents would be nonlinear, curving upward with an increasing slope, and thus best estimated with a logged measure (sometimes called a power-threat hypothesis, distinguishing it from hypotheses of a linear relationship or a relationship that is initially positive before turning negative when a minority group reaches parity with the dominant one). This relationship should be evident in static analyses that compare the size of the Black population relative to White residents across areas as well as in dynamic analyses that examine increases in the population of Black residents relative to the population of White residents.

Allen Liska and Mitchell Chamlin (Reference Liska and Chamlin1984) added to Blalock’s thesis, arguing that dominant groups could use a symbolic threat that connected minorities to crime as the basis for discrimination (Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020). As we noted earlier, politicians have encouraged the perception that crime, and particularly drug crime, is concentrated in Black communities. These perceptions foster support for the use of an array of tactics to police minorities; minorities perceived as posing a political threat. According to this thesis, the percentage of Black residents in an area would be positively associated with policing independent of the level of crime; there is, however, uncertainty about whether this relationship is linear or curvilinear in part because law enforcement may introduce discriminatory practices independent of any influence from the dominant group (Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018).

There are now a number of reviews of the many studies—upwards of a hundred—that examine racial threat theory and criminal justice outcomes (Dollar Reference Dollar2014; Feldmeyer and Cochran Reference Feldmeyer, Cochran, James, Shaun and Chouhy2018; Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018; Stults and Swagar Reference Stults, Swagar, Martínez, Hollis and Stowell2018; Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020). These reviews note that racial threat research has used an array of measures of threat, examined a variety of criminal justice outcomes, explored a diversity of units of analysis, and examined linear and nonlinear, mediating, and moderating relationships. We cannot do justice to this complexity here and focus instead on broad conclusions about minority group size and law enforcement.

Overall, there is strong evidence of the predicted relationship between the percentage of Black residents in an area and the amount of money dedicated to law enforcement and the number of law enforcement officers (Dollar Reference Dollar2014; Feldmeyer and Cochran Reference Feldmeyer, Cochran, James, Shaun and Chouhy2018; Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018; Stults and Swagar Reference Stults, Swagar, Martínez, Hollis and Stowell2018; Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020). Most, but not all, studies also find that the percentage of Black residents in an area is positively associated with excessive use of force and fatal shootings by police (Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018; Stults and Swagar Reference Stults, Swagar, Martínez, Hollis and Stowell2018). Some early research on these topics focused on linear relationships, but more recent studies examine nonlinear relationships, typically with a logged variable (see, for example, Carmichael and Kent Reference Carmichael and Kent2014) but sometimes with linear and quadratic measures (see, for example, Smith and Holmes Reference Smith and Holmes2014). There is less research on stops and searchers; some studies find that these are associated with the percentage of Black residents, but this research has also not consistently explored which form best represents the relationship (see, for example, Hannon Reference Hannon2020). Although some early studies found a positive, non-linear relationship between arrest and the percentage of Black residents, the current consensus is that there is little evidence of this relationship (Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020).

Although Blalock focused on White American’s domination of Black Americans, his thesis may apply to an array of dominant subordinate relationships in which the size of a minority group—and its potential to acquire a greater share of political power—is perceived as threatening to the majority. In recent years, scholars have voiced concerns that the dominant White population may increasingly see the percentage of Latinx residents as a threat to their power. There is, however, relatively little research that explicitly uses racial threat theory to examine this relationship, and the results from this research are inconclusive (Chiricos, Pickett, and Lehmann Reference Chiricos, Pickett, Lehmann, Chouhy and Cochran2020). The increased use of criminal justice financial penalties—fines, fees, and other monetary punishments—has raised concerns that the legal system uses these things in discriminatory ways. Most analyses of these legal financial obligations (LFOs) use individual-level data; a notable exception is Kasey Henricks and Daina Harvey’s (Reference Henricks and Cheyenne Harvey2017) analysis of LFOs in communities that have a population of at least 650,000 residents. They find positive associations between LFOs and the percentage of Black and foreign-born individuals (but not the percentage of Latinx), net of crime, and other population attributes. These findings are consistent with the thesis that revenue extraction in the criminal justice system disproportionately targets minorities, but the relevance for racial threat theory is limited because the study only examines linear relationships.

In sum, racial threat theory and research suggest that the percentage of Black residents has an accelerating association with several, but not all, aspects of policing. These findings raise the question of the form of the relationship, if any, between the percentage of Black residents and the use of CAF. Racial threat theory raises the possibility that CAF may be used as a tool to preserve power arrangements that benefit White residents relative to Black residents whom they see as a political or symbolic threat. A similar pattern may occur for other minority groups. Critics of CAF argue that Black, Latinx, and poor residents have disproportionately endured the worst of CAF (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016), but there is, to our knowledge, no systematic analysis that addresses these claims. We examine them with a department-based analysis of nineteen years of CAF data from the annual reports of the California Attorney General’s Office.Footnote 3

DATA AND METHODS

Data

This project used four sets of data. The first is law enforcement agency based and contains yearly information on state-based CAF from 2002 to 2020. There are 521 unique law enforcement agencies in California, 486 of which provided CAF data in our study period (visual examination of missing agencies suggest that they are mostly those with a restricted scope, such as those located in colleges and universities). Three additional data sets contain jurisdiction-level information where agencies are located; these provide demographic data, crime rates, and contextual information. We built an agency-jurisdiction dataset with cases of agency-year pairs, such that there was one case for a department for each year that it appeared in the data. We added contextual information for each agency at the jurisdiction level. For police departments, our jurisdiction data are for the city or town where the headquarters were located; for sheriff offices, the jurisdiction data are for the county where they were stationed. We excluded any data point whose coefficient of variation (CoV) exceeded 40 percent (a large CoV signals a large standard error).

Dependent Variable: Number of Civil Asset Forfeitures

The California Department of Justice publishes yearly portable document format (PDF) reports of state-based CAF. We extracted data from these reports on the number of yearly seizures for which an agency received revenue from 2002 to 2020 (2002 is the earliest year that these reports are currently available). There were 257,694 CAF cases in this period. We used Bonferroni’s p-value to identify outliers and removed any case with a p-value lower than 0.05 (n = 380). We built a system to extract information from the PDF reports and convert it to analyzable tabular data. We used the R language and the following steps to extract the data (R Core Team 2017). First, we defined the bounds of each year’s report (these shifted slightly in some years) and used the predictable formatting to generate columns from regions on the page. Second, we ran optical character recognition to translate images into PDFs with electronic text for years that did not provide machine-readable reports (we used the R implementation of Google Tesseract for this task). Third, we examined random samples of report pages and scraper output to test for errors. We selected, within years, a random page in the original report or a row in the resulting data frame and then checked with the corresponding input/output. We conducted 640 checks and found nineteen errors (3 percent); we then adjusted the tool code to correct them.

Independent Variables

We measured our key independent variables, logs of the percentage of residents in a law enforcement agency’s jurisdiction who identified as Black and the percentage who identified as Latinx, with data from the American Community Survey’s five-year estimates (ACS5), grouping years into chunks for analyses (2020–16, 2015–11, 2010–19, and the 2000 census).

Control Variables

Racial segregation adds another layer of complexity to the relationship between policing and race. As Malcolm Holmes (Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018) notes, segregation may reduce the threat of a minority population by isolating it from the dominant group; alternatively, the symbolic threat of a minority group may be intensified when it is segregated. There is some evidence that the hyper-segregation of Black residents in the United States is associated with more frequent and intensive policing (Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018). Thus, segregation of a racial minority, rather than its size, may be the more important factor. Several tests of racial threat theory have included a measure of segregation, but researchers have used an array of measures of segregation, and the results are inconsistent (Feldmeyer and Cochran Reference Feldmeyer, Cochran, James, Shaun and Chouhy2018; Holmes Reference Holmes, Martinez, Hollis and Stowell2018). We included Peter Blau’s (Reference Blau1977) diversity index as a measure of racial segregation. The Blau index is an estimate of the probability that two individuals chosen at random from a law enforcement agency’s jurisdiction will be of different race or ethnicity. It ranges from zero to one, with zero indicating a completely homogeneous jurisdiction, while one is perfectly heterogeneous.

Several other control variables that may contribute to the number of CAF seizures are based on ACS5 data: the percentage of residents whose household income fell below the poverty level (we considered including household income, but it was collinear with the percentage of poor people); the percentage of residents who owned their home; the percentage of people who said they were born outside the United States; and the percentage of male residents aged eighteen to twenty-four. We also included two controls for crime. The first focuses on violent crime as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (2020) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. We obtained these data from California’s Open Justice Crimes and Clearances, which has better coverage than the UCR in California. Our second measure—drug arrests—is from California’s Open Justice Arrests. These data were available only for the county level, which works fine for county-based law enforcement but is a proxy for drug arrests in agencies that are based on smaller units within counties. We standardized the yearly measures of violent crime and drug arrests by the number of residents (per ten thousand) in a jurisdiction.

We controlled for the economic situation of the jurisdiction where an agency was located with data on the dollar value of the jurisdiction’s revenue. This measure is based on California city and county revenue (for example, taxes) collected by a jurisdiction in a fiscal year. CAF research has used agency-operating budgets from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) and the Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). Our measure is highly correlated with the LEMAS and CSLLEA measures (r = 0.94 for matching years) but, unlike them, is available for each year in our study. We have revenue data for 89 percent of the agencies in our study. Combining our measures from the various datasets required a consistent identifier for matching. We started with the Law Enforcement Agency Identifiers Crosswalk, which contains agency location information and common identifiers (for example, the Originating Reporting Agency Identifier (ORI) number, agency type, and geo-location). There are several gaps in the crosswalks, especially for small agencies or agencies in special jurisdictions (for example, law enforcement agencies housed in schools).

We used agency names as a second way to match across data sources. We standardized names by converting all text to lower case, standardizing spaces, expanding all contractions, unifying terms like department and office, and replacing phrases like “department of public safety and welfare” with the more common term “police.” We then matched individual datasets by agency name to the crosswalks using string distance matching. String difference is a numerical score describing the difference (or distance) between two strings of characters. This method allowed us to match the bulk of our agency names by finding minimally different strings. We visually inspected the remaining strings to assure good matches. We used entries from previous or subsequent years when an agency was missing an identifier (for example, the ORI number). We repeated this process for every new dataset, each matching onto a compiled dataset. We did all matching in code, so it is reproducible from the raw data.

Methods

We used a Poisson distribution generalized linear model with clustered standard errors to examine associations. This model is appropriate because forfeitures is a count variable that is heavily skewed toward zero with a seventy-fifth percentile value of thirteen but a maximum of 588. Examining regression diagnostics such as the residual versus fitted values, quantile-quantile plots, standardized residuals, and Cook’s distance supports a good model fit. We clustered the standard errors by agency and year because our cases are agency-year pairs. The clustered standard errors account for the correlation caused by a single agency appearing repeatedly over the years (that is, County A 2016, County A 2017, and so on). Clustering has no impact on the coefficient of a variable, but typically enlarges standard errors, making the model more conservative in its demarcation of statistical significance.

We explored but decided against using multiple imputation to address the sparsity of some of our data points. Multiple imputation tripled the number of cases in the model, but it did not substantively change the direction or significance of our coefficients. Further, the model with imputed data had higher model fit scores compared to the unimputed data (for example, Akaike Information Criterion scores of 12,344 and 7,414 respectively). Instead, we linearly interpolated between known data points to fill gaps in the dataset

RESULTS

Table 1 provides a summary of our primary variables for our study period (2002–20). There is significant variation in our dependent variable, the number of forfeitures, given that they cover jurisdictions from Vernon City (in 2009, the population was sixty-three with one seizure) to Los Angeles (in 2009, the population was 3,796,840 with 485 seizures). There is also notable variation in our key independent variables. The percentage of Black residents in California jurisdictions ranges from 0.2 percent (for example, Watsonville) to about 46 percent (for example, Inglewood) with an average of just under 6 percent. The percentage of Latinx residents ranges from 5 percent (for example, Beverly Hills) to about 97 percent (for example, Maywood). Data on the percentage of people living below the poverty line show California’s stark economic inequality: some jurisdictions have only 3 percent poor (for example, Pleasanton), whereas almost 66 percent live below the poverty line in other jurisdictions (for example, Barstow). On average, about 13 percent of residents did not earn enough to lift them out of poverty. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population that was born outside of the United States ranged from about 4 percent (for example, Ione) to 56 percent (for example, San Gabriel), with a mean of 26 percent.

TABLE 1. Data summary, asset forfeitures, and jurisdiction attributes, California, 2002–20

We begin our analysis with a review of bivariate regression coefficients (Table 2, column one). There are several notable associations. Consistent with racial threat theory, the number of forfeitures is positively associated with the logged measure of the percentage of Black residents. It is also positively associated with the percentage of poor residents in a jurisdiction, violent crime, and jurisdiction revenue. It is negatively associated with the percentage of residents who own their home and the number of drug arrests. There is no evidence of a relationship between the number of forfeitures and a logged measure of the percentage of Latinx residents. The other variables we examined—the Blau index, the percentage of residents who are foreign born, and the percentage who are males aged eighteen to twenty-four—are also not significantly associated with CAF.

TABLE 2. Poisson regression, number of asset forfeitures, and jurisdiction attributes, California, 2002–2020

Notes:

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

+ Unstandardized coefficients, clustered standard errors in parentheses.

Our multivariable results (Table 2, column two) show that the positive, significant relationship between the number of forfeitures in a jurisdiction and a logged measure of the percentage of Black residents is robust to a diverse set of controls, including crime. There is also evidence of a significant relationship between the number of forfeitures and the percentage of foreign-born residents. This pattern was not evident at the bivariate level. Consistent with the bivariate results, CAF is significantly and positively associated with the percentage of residents born outside the United States, violent crime, and revenue and is negatively related to the number of drug arrests.

We used marginal effects to plot the relationships between the number of CAF seizures and the logged percentage of Black residents and the percentage of residents who were born outside the United States (see Figure 1). These plots show the predicted values of the number of seizures (Y axis) for various values of these variables (X axis). The grey shaded area shows the 95 percent confidence interval for the predicted values. The values for variables not plotted are held constant at their means.

FIGURE 1. Marginal effects according to number of seizures.

The marginal effects put into sharp relief the associations we described earlier. A jurisdiction where the logged percentage of the population that identified as Black was zero would expect 6.16 forfeitures, increasing to 28.15 when the logged percentage of Black residents reaches two. A jurisdiction in which everyone was born in the United States could expect 5.92 forfeitures, whereas a jurisdiction where 20 percent of the population was foreign born could expect 8.63. Our final analysis examined the possibility that the number of CAF seizures was jointly influenced by the percentage of Black and poor residents in a jurisdiction. There is no evidence of this positive interaction effect in our data. Instead, the coefficient for this interaction (b = – 0.00; se = 0.00; p < 0.05) indicates a shallower slope between the number of seizures and the percentage of Black residents as the percentage of poor residents increases.

DISCUSSION

At is inception, politicians championed CAF as a tool that law enforcement would use to seize the ill-gotten gains of organized criminals. But, as John Hagan makes clear in Who Are the Criminals?, political claims about crime and criminal justice policy are often a framing device grounded in political ideology and interests rather than in reality. President Reagan, and other advocates for CAF, argued that law enforcement would use CAF to punish drug czars who profited from their ill-gotten gains. Given this framing, President Reagan could easily ask the rhetorical question in championing CAF (and other drug policies): “Why should any right-minded person oppose it?”

Many states, including California, followed the federal government’s lead and introduced their own CAF programs. Critics have charged that, in California (as well as in other places), law enforcement has used CAF to target racial minority and poor communities (Doctoroff et al. Reference Doctoroff, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Lopez and Vieyra2016). In support of this claim, our analysis of nineteen years of California CAF data shows a robust association between the number of CAF seizures and a logged measure of the percentage of Black residents in a jurisdiction. This pattern is consistent with racial threat theory’s prediction that aggressive policing is associated with the perceived political and symbolic threat of Black residents; it also matches other research findings about the percentage of Black residents and the amount spent on law enforcement and the disproportionate use of various police tactics such as fines and fees and excessive force.

Our analysis also raises doubts about the claim that CAF is used primarily as a tool to address drug crime. We find that drug arrests have a significant but minuscule negative association with the number of CAF seizures. Thus, we found no evidence that drug crime explained the use of CAF. This pattern calls into question one of the primary arguments used to justify CAF. We did not find any evidence of a relationship between CAF and a logged measure of the percentage of Latinx residents in a jurisdiction. However, we did not explore other possible relationships between these variables—linear and quadratic, for example—and we did not investigate factors that may condition such relationships.

Further work needs to build on our study’s findings and address its limitations. We have focused on direct relationships, ignoring the various factors that may mediate the relationship between policing and the size of a racial minority. Other work has used surveys to assess resident concerns about crime, support for policing, and the size of a minority population. Such data would clarify the role of views about the extent of the political or symbolic threat of a racial minority and show whether a perceived threat is linked to views about crime and policing. Our model does not include measures of the attributes of law enforcement agencies or their policies, variables that are associated with other types of policing.

Our police agency data lacked clear geospatial boundaries, and the definitions of jurisdictions that we used are approximate. Analyses with better geospatial data will provide results that are more precise and should be able to address the modifiable areal unit problem. The patterns we observe at the jurisdiction level may differ at the census block or tract level. Future research should also consider different units of analysis when examining CAF. The increased availability of law enforcement records may soon make it possible to connect CAF data to unique locations allowing for community- or neighborhood-level analyses. At some point, law enforcement may also share information about the individuals from whom they seize assets.

CONCLUSION

President Reagan, and other politicians, framed the drug crisis using timeworn patterns of fear mongering and racial undertones illuminated by Hagan’s research. In the shadow of this crisis, political leaders portrayed CAF as a powerful, common-sense tool that law enforcement would use to undermine drug czars who were behind a drug crisis that they claimed was ravaging the United States. Yet, after decades of reform and adjustments, the application of CAF seems similar to the use of other aggressive law enforcement tactics; it is used more often in communities with large populations of Black residents, relative to the dominant White population. While policies spawned from the “war on drugs” have come under increasing scrutiny in recent history, CAF is only starting to be examined in detail. This study makes clear that CAF is not the “common-sense” tool politicians portrayed it to be. Its application is, at best, measurably unequal and at worst weaponized to harass vulnerable populations, especially those who live in communities in which many residents identify as Black.

Footnotes

1. “Reports,” US Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/afp/reports-0.

2. California Code, Health and Safety Code HSC § 11488.4.

3. “Publications,” State of California Department of Justice, https://oag.ca.gov/publications.

References

REFERENCES

Baicker, Katherine, and Jacobson, Mireille. 2007. “Finders Keepers: Forfeiture Laws, Policing Incentives, and Local Budgets.” Journal of Public Economics 91, no. 11–12: 2113–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnet, Todd. 2001. “Legal Fiction and Forfeiture: An Historical Analysis of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.” Duquesne Law Review 40: 77109. https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3323&context=dlr.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 1994. “Setting the Public Agenda: ‘Street Crime’ and Drug Use in American Politics.” Social Problems 41, no. 3: 425–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, Katherine, and Sasson, Theodore. 2004. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452229614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Bruce L., Kim, Iljoong, Rasmussen, David W., and Zhehlke, Thomas W.. 1992. “Is Property Crime Caused by Drug Use or by Drug Enforcement Policy?Applied Economics 24, no. 7: 679–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Bruce L., and Rasmussen, David W.. 1994. The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War: Criminal Justice in the Commons. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bishopp, Stephen A., and Worrall, John L.. 2009. “Do State Asset Forfeiture Laws Explain the Upward Trend in Drug Arrests?Journal of Crime and Justice 32, no. 2: 117–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2009.9721272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blalock, Hubert Morse. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority: Group Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” Pacific Sociological Review 1, no 1: 37. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmichael, Jason T., and Kent, Stephanie L.. 2014. “The Persistent Significance of Racial and Economic Inequality on the Size of Municipal Police Forces in the United States, 1980–2010.” Social Problems 61, no. 2: 259–82. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2014.12213.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Dick M., Knepper, Lisa, Erickson, Angela C., and McDonald, Jennifer, 2015. Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture. 2nd ed. Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice. https://www.aclu-il.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/policing-for-profit-2nd-edition.pdf.Google Scholar
Caulkins, Jonathan P., and Chandler, Sara. 2006. “Long-Run Trends in Incarceration of Drug Offenders in the United States.” Crime & Delinquency 52, no. 4: 619–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705284793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiricos, Ted, Pickett, Justin T., and Lehmann, Peter S., 2020. “Group Threat and Social Control: A Review of Theory and Research.” In Criminal Justice Theory, edited by Chouhy, Cecilia, Cochran, Joshua C., and Cheryl Lero Jonson, 6992. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003016762-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doctoroff, Mica, Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Jessica Farris, Lopez, Mayra, and Vieyra, Daisy, 2016. “Civil Asset Forfeiture: Profiting from California’s Most Vulnerable.” San Francisco, CA: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. https://www.aclunc.org/docs/aclu_california_civil_asset_forfeiture_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Dollar, Cindy Brooks. 2014. “Racial Threat Theory: Assessing the Evidence, Requesting Redesign.” Journal of Criminology 983026: 17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/983026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Murray Jacob. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, Dee, 2004. Asset Forfeiture: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2020. Uniform Crime Reports. https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home.Google Scholar
Feldmeyer, Ben, and Cochran, Joshua C.. 2018. “Racial Threat and Social Control: A Review and Conceptual Framework for Advancing Racial Threat Theory.” In Building a Black Criminology, edited by James, D. Unnever, Shaun, L. Gabbidon, and Chouhy, Cecilia, 283316. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Rebecca, Sances, Michael W., and Young You, Hye. 2020. “Exploitative Revenues, Law Enforcement, and the Quality of Government Service.” Urban Affairs Review 56, no. 1: 531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418791775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, 2012. Who Are the Criminals? The Politics of Crime Policy from the Age of Roosevelt to the Age of Reagan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400845071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney-López, Ian, 2014. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hannon, Lance. 2020. “An Exploratory Multilevel Analysis of Pedestrian Frisks in Philadelphia.” Race and Justice 10, no. 1: 87113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717730106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, Ronald, and Costanza, S. E.. 2009. “Race, Politics, and Drug Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Civil Asset Forfeiture Patterns across US Counties.” Policing and Society 19, no. 1: 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460802457578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henricks, Kasey, and Cheyenne Harvey, Daina. 2017. “Not One but Many: Monetary Punishment and the Fergusons of America.” Sociological Forum 32, no. S1: 930–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Joshua B., and Marion, Nancy E.. 2016. “Presidential Rhetoric on Cybercrime: Links to Terrorism?Criminal Justice Studies 29, no. 2: 163–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1170279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Joshua B., Oliver, Willard M., and Marion, Nancy E.. 2012. “Presidential Politics and the Problem of Drugs in America: Assessing the Relationship between the President, Media, and Public Opinion.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 23, no. 1: 90107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403410396211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holcomb, Jefferson E., Williams, Marian R., Hicks, William D., Kovandzic, Tomislav V., and Bisaccia Meitl, Michele. 2018. “Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police: Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws.” Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1: 101–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Malcolm D. 2018. “Racial Threat and Police Coercion.” In The Handbook of Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice, edited by Martinez, Ramiro Jr., Hollis, Meghan E., and Stowell, Jacob I., 255–77. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119113799.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Paul. 1992. “Lungren, Assemblyman Clash over Seizing Drug Assets.” Los Angeles Times, November 6.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eric L., and Gerber, Jurg. 1996. “The Civil Forfeiture of Assets and the War on Drugs: Expanding Criminal Sanctions While Reducing Due Process Protections.” Crime & Delinquency 42, no. 3: 421–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128796042003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantor, Shawn, Kitchens, Carl T., and Pawlowski, Steven. 2021. “Civil Asset Forfeiture, Crime, and Police Incentives: Evidence from the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.” Economic Inquiry 59, no. 1: 217–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karis, Ann-Yu Chi. 2002. “Follow the Money: Getting to the Root of the Problem with Civil Asset Forfeiture in California.” California Law Review 90, no. 5: 1635–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481366.Google Scholar
Knepper, Lisa, McDonald, Jennifer, Sanchez, Kathy, and Smith Pohl, Elyse. 2020. Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture. 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/.Google Scholar
Liska, Allen E., and Chamlin, Mitchell B.. 1984. “Social Structure and Crime Control among Macrosocial Units.” American Journal of Sociology 90, no. 2: 383–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/228084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Jim. 1992. “Debate to Begin on Seizing Assets Tied to Drug Crimes.” Los Angeles Times, November 5.Google Scholar
Norris, Adele N., and Billings, Joseph. 2017. “Colorblind Ideology, Mass Incarceration, and Controlling Racial Images: An Intersectional Analysis of Presidential Rhetoric from 1969–1996.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 15, no. 1: 7898. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2016.1256847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Willard M., Hill, Joshua, and Marion, Nancy E.. 2011. “When the President Speaks … : An Analysis of Presidential Influence over Public Opinion Concerning the War on Drugs.” Criminal Justice Review 36, no. 4: 456–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016811423580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, David. 2018. “Forfeiture Policy in the United States: Is There Hope for Reform?Criminology & Public Policy 17, no. 1: 129–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 2011. “Race and Inequality in the War on Drugs.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7, no. 1: 4160. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team, 2017. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reagan, Ronald, 1981. “Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in New Orleans, Louisiana.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 28. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-annual-meeting-international-association-chiefs-police-new-orleans.Google Scholar
Reagan, Ronald. 1982. “Remarks Announcing Federal Initiatives against Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime.” American Presidency Project, October 14. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-announcing-federal-initiatives-against-drug-trafficking-and-organized-crime.Google Scholar
Reagan, Ronald. 1984. “Radio Address to the Nation on Proposed Crime Legislation.” American Presidency Project, February 18. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-address-the-nation-proposed-crime-legislation.Google Scholar
Reagan, Ronald. 1986. “Address to the Nation on the Campaign Against Drug Abuse.” National Archives, September 14. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-nation-campaign-against-drug-abuse.Google Scholar
Rosino, Michael. 2021. Debating the Drug War: Race, Politics, and the Media. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315295176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell-Brown, Katheryn. 1998. Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment, and Other Macroaggressions. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2007. Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195181081.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Brad W., and Holmes, Malcolm D.. 2014. “Police Use of Excessive Force in Minority Communities: A Test of the Minority Threat, Place, and Community Accountability Hypotheses.” Social Problems 61, no. 1: 83104. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2013.12056.Google Scholar
Stahl, Marc B. 1992. “Asset Forfeiture, Burdens of Proof and the War on Drugs.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83, no. 2: 274337. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol83/iss2/2.10.2307/1143859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stults, Brian J., and Swagar, Nic. 2018. “Racial and Ethnic Threat: Theory, Research, and New Directions.” In The Handbook of Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice, edited by Martínez, Ramiro Jr., Hollis, Meghan E., and Stowell, Jacob I., 147–71. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119113799.ch7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Marian R., Holcomb, Jefferson E., Kovandzic, Tomislav V., and Bullock, Scott. 2010. “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.” Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-first-edition/.Google Scholar
Worrall, John L., and Kovandzic, Tomislav V.. 2008. “Is Policing for Profit? Answers from Asset Forfeiture.” Criminology & Public Policy 7, no. 2: 219–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00504.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1. Data summary, asset forfeitures, and jurisdiction attributes, California, 2002–20

Figure 1

TABLE 2. Poisson regression, number of asset forfeitures, and jurisdiction attributes, California, 2002–2020

Figure 2

FIGURE 1. Marginal effects according to number of seizures.