Civil asset forfeiture (CAF) is coming under increased criticism around the country, as the immoral nature of this drug war weapon becomes exposed. New Mexico became the first state to make meaningful reforms, and even law enforcement officers are speaking out against CAF.

CAF amounts to outright theft from innocent people since cash and assets can be taken with no conviction of a crime. It brings millions in revenue to police departments so they can turn around and get more gadgets of oppression.

Case in point-the Electronic Recovery and Access to Data (ERAD) Prepaid Card Reader. This tool, developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is increasingly being deployed by local police departments.

The ERAD allows cops to swipe prepaid cards, check the balance, freeze the account and take all the money. The ostensible purpose is to go after "bad guys" with "dirty money," as drug traffickers are turning to prepaid cards instead of bundles of cash when traveling.

However, this ERAD-enabled moral crusade by government will undoubtedly bring about more theft from innocent people, including those with no actual drugs and harmless users who might have a joint lying around.

If Joseph Rivers had put his life savings on prepaid cards as he traveled to Los Angeles with dreams of becoming a music producer, he still would have been robbed by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Navajo County Sheriff's Office in Arizona was recently approved to use ERAD devices during traffic stops that result in the discovery of illegal drugs. They are paying $3,685 for three readers, but also must give 5.7 percent of the stolen wealth to the company, creating a demand for more and more CAF seizures.

Approximately $1 million has already been seized by state and local police agencies using ERAD card readers.

Bill Soto, program manager at the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, describes how the new CAF tool is becoming a hot item.

The Prepaid Card Reader has generated a lot of interest from our state and local law enforcement agency partners, and there is a growing demand by these agencies for use of this technology by their personnel. It provides a unique tool for when they encounter suspect cards with magnetic strips during the performance of their duties.

The threat to citizens is particularly significant for those who don't have the means to get a bank account, and manage their finances with prepaid cards. If they happen to have a bit of weed in their car, they could be left without a penny to their name.

"We know that many students, immigrants and unbanked persons use and rely on prepared cards as their primary means of making payments and managing their finances," said attorney Judith Rinearson. "Why should they be singled out and treated disparately from users of other payment products? Why should law enforcement have access to their account balances without a subpoena or other due process?"

If federal, state and local governments are serious about reforming the wasteful, immoral war on drugs that has criminalized and stolen from millions of nonviolent people, then CAF reform should be a top priority. They should follow New Mexico's example and require a conviction before seizing money and assets from people.

The rollout of the ERAD card reader, however, tells us that authorities are intent as ever in the quest to steal from citizens.

Yeah, can't see this lasting very long. As noted in the article, people with these cards are treated differently than those without.

You don't see peoples credit cards or ATM cards frozen, or cash from bank accounts seized just because you are charged with a crime.

Imagine a cop's girlfriend has a roach in her car with him in it? Does he get his credit card frozen? His bank balance frozen?

The whole asset forfeiture process was meant to seize the PROCEEDS of crime. That means a crime had to have taken place first, and you made money from it. Once convicted, THEN the state intercedes and takes your property.

I'm sure everyone knows of asset seizure by cops, or the IRS, that were the result of some power tripping individual. I'd like to know what the penalty is for seizures of property found to have been done incorrectly or even illegally? You need safeguards in the system to punish those who abuse it with job loss, hefty fines, or exposure to civil suits in order to keep the system 'honest' so to speak.

In most cases when you get your cash taken for example, it is usually a year and about $10,000 in legal fees to get it back. So if a cop takes $9000 from me, will I spend another $10,000 to get it back?

thats the problem with them doing this, you have to prove you gained the money legally, so the burden of proof falls on you... it seems illegal just for the fact you're proving to the police that you're not a criminal... it's not "innocent till proven guilty" anymore, it's guilty until you prove your innocence... another way the liberals walk on the constitution...

Well don't forget the abuse factor here either.

I think the state was Indiana, and a guy gets pulled over on the interstate. Cop says pop the trunk I want to search the car, and like an idiot he does.

So what does the cop find? A couple duffle bags stuffed with cash. Like a hundred grand as I recall. Cop basically says 'Ok, Dillinger, what bank did you rob?'.

The driver says he had won a poker tournament. Had the TROPHY for the tournament AND a letter from the establishment noting him as the winner. Instead of making a couple calls and validating the guys story, the cop just takes the money and says buddy will need a lawyer to get it back.

To my thinking, that's abuse of power. You have a logical explanation for the money, and you ALSO have the ability to quickly verify the story. Sure a drug dealer could buy a trophy and fake a letter on his computer, but the establishment itself, the letter, the person who signed the letter, who can verify the name in the letter are all easily checked in 5 minutes by either the cop himself, or he has a supervisor call and get the info for him.

So a year later our driver gets his money back, and incurred a very large legal bill.