Law enforcement officers across the land are taking property and cash from people without even having to prove that person guilty of a crime.

Today, Sept. 10, the state assembly will vote on SB 443, a bill that would rein in civil asset forfeiture. CALL your state assemblymember now and urge them to vote YES on SB 443 to end "theft by cop."

Read these true stories.

LA music producer

Last year, in 2014, a Los Angeles music promoter had his cash seized twice. He had sent his staff to collect the door receipts at big Mexican music concerts that he promotes and organizes. In both cases, a simple traffic stop turned into a loss of property, even though there was no evidence of a crime. In neither case was a driver charged with a crime. In Shasta County, $13,000 was taken, and in Woodland, Oregon, $32,000. In both cases, after lengthily delays by both local law enforcement and then federal prosecutors, the funds were returned to the lawful owner, but only because they had the means to hire lawyers to fight their case. In the Shasta case, he knew that the legal fees might exceed the recovery, but he was so angry, he wasn’t about to let it go.

Elizabeth James — East Palo Alto

When Elizabeth James (first name changed at her request) retired after thirty-one years at the phone company, she looked forward to finally taking a trip across the country with her husband. She’d worked hard, raised two kids, and cared for a developmentally disabled sister whom she put up in a house she bought and renovated two blocks away from her modest East Palo Alto bungalow. Mrs. James is still waiting to take that trip. In 2009, East Palo Alto police, working with the US attorney, arrested James’ son for his involvement in a drug ring.  He’d been living along with his aunt in the home his parents had purchased for her. The government evicted the aunt and proceeded to forfeit the house. As they went after Elizabeth James’ property, federal prosecutors never charged her with a crime; they didn’t even allege that she knew her son was selling drugs. The James fought for over a year and a half to get their property back. As the legal bills piled up, Mr. James, a machinist, took out additional credit cards. With no end in sight, their lawyer advised them to accept a deal. In exchange for a guilty plea from their son, the government dropped its forfeiture of their house, but declined to reimburse their legal fees or the cost of repairing the damage left behind when police kicked in the doors of the house and ransacked it. Mrs. James says the ordeal cost them close to $70,000. Not only were the Jameses, senior citizens, left to take care of three young grandchildren after their son was sent to prison for selling drugs, Mr. James has borrowed against his future retirement income to pay off the debt they incurred to get their house back. Mrs. James feels betrayed. “The government, they can come in and just take anything. They have no respect for a person who works all their lives,” she says. “I need to move on with my life, I want to travel. I want to do something before I leave this world,” she says. But she doesn’t know when that day will come. “I don’t think I’m going to pay off the debt in this lifetime unless my husband hits the lotto.”

U.S. versus $10,000 — Los Angeles

A taco truck owner had $10,000 taken by LA Sheriff’s Department near Lancaster. He answered honestly that he was carrying a large sum of money. Why wouldn’t he?  He wasn’t breaking the law, he was traveling with his own money, from his own legal business. There were no drugs in the car, no evidence of a crime, but a K9 keyed on the money. The driver was not arrested or charged. But his property was seized and put into forfeiture proceedings. And even though he got a CA lawyer, and went to a CA court, and had a CA judge order the return of his money, the LASD declared that it had already been transferred to federal jurisdiction.  At that point he was advised by his attorney to drop the case, because  fighting the US Government is too expensive, and has been known to morph from asset forfeiture, into deportation investigations of relatives, IRS involvement  such is the interlocking and overwhelming power of the federal government.

Tony Jalali — Anaheim

When Tony Jalali fled Iran in 1978, he came to America seeking protection of the rule of law, due process, and justice. He never would have imagined that 35 years later he would be battling in federal court to save the small office building that represented his family’s life savings. Mr. Jalali had previously rented an office space to a medical marijuana dispensary. And although Mr. Jalali was never been charged with any crime nor were his tenants, the Anaheim Police Department and the federal government attempted to use civil forfeiture to take his entire $1.5 million commercial building. His modest building was also the home to an insurance company, a dentist and the business office of a car dealer. Neither he nor the dispensary were ever charged with a crime, and he would have lost his life savings, except that the Institute of Justice provided him with pro bono legal help. It took 2 years of heartache and intimidation. Mr. Jalali was able to survive, but only because he had significant legal support.

By Peter Bibring and Jay Stanley

The ACLU of Southern California asked the Department of Justice today not to provide grant money to the Los Angeles Police Department for body cameras, because the LAPD’s policy for the cameras is so poor.

In particular, as the letter states, the policy “does not promote — and in fact undermines — the goals of transparency, accountability and creation of public trust that body cameras should serve.” The letter continues:

We believe that the policy LAPD ultimately adopted to govern body cameras suffers from such serious flaws that we oppose the use of body cameras under its terms. By withholding video from the public, requiring officers to review video before making statements in use of force and misconduct investigations, and failing to include protections against the use of body cameras as general surveillance tools, LAPD’s policy provides no transparency and threatens to taint the integrity of investigations and undermine the public trust.

The ACLU has said since the beginning that we support body cameras provided that they are deployed with good policies that will ensure they actually live up to their potential as a tool for increased police transparency and accountability.

In December 2014, in the wake of the Ferguson and Eric Garner protests, President Obama announced a plan to dedicate $75 million towards police body cameras. In May, the DOJ announced that it would tie funding for the cameras to good policies.

“Successful applicants must demonstrate a commitment and adherence to a strong BWC [body-worn camera] Policy framework,” the DOJ proclaimed, adding that “policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility” and “provide appropriate access to information.”

The LAPD is now applying for grant funds from the DOJ program. The problem is, as the ACLU SoCal letter puts it:

The body camera program implemented by LAPD’s policy is very different from the kind of program contemplated by the DOJ. Nationally, both the White House and the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing have cast body-worn cameras as tools for improving transparency, trust, and oversight…. The policy adopted by LAPD explicitly sets out a very different set of objectives which nowhere mention as goals increasing transparency and public trust.

The letter also points out that the process by which the LAPD adopted its policy was deeply flawed. While the department did hold community meetings on the cameras (including a meeting with the ACLU), the policy that resulted from this process was sprung on the public less than two business days before the meeting at which the Board of Police Commissioners voted to approve it, allowing no meaningful opportunity for community analysis, criticism, and feedback.

The DOJ’s first major grant to support police body cameras should not fund a program that fails to promote transparency and that allow officers to use body cameras footage in ways that undermine the integrity of investigations into police misconduct and use of force.

The DOJ has recognized the importance of good policies surrounding the deployment of police body cameras. Now it is time for them to follow through and deny DOJ funds to those departments that lack such policies. If they don’t, word will quickly spread within the police community that the program’s stated goals are just lofty rhetoric, and all that’s required to get grants is to have some kind of policy in place — any kind — and to go through some motions of community engagement, merely as bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

Spending millions on a technology because of its promise to build trust between communities and police, but not requiring departments to use them in ways that will actually build trust, would be to squander not only taxpayer money but a valuable opportunity to change the dynamic of policing in America.

Read the letter

Peter Bibring is director of police practices at the ACLU of Southern California Jay Stanley is senior policy analyst with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.