Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: OCTOBER 2016 27 Canadian County Sheriff Randall Edwards (above) and Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, Western District, in Oklahoma addressed the High Noon Club last year to answer concerns regarding Civil Asset Forfeiture, a topic addressed the previous week by Senator Kyle Loveless. Love- less is sponsoring a related bill to fight what he sees as a problem with law enforcement, while the sheriffs are worried about their budgets. D e p e n d i n g o n where you’re run- ning for sheriff, people are prob- ably going to want to know where you stand on so-called civil forfeiture. After all, law enforce- ment professionals sworn to uphold the Constitution can’t just skip the Fourth Amendment because of budget cuts. In Canadian County, Oklahoma, two candidates for sheriff have different positions on the issue. Joshua Moore is a small business owner who spent 13 years working in the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office. His opponent is Chris West, the county’s current undersheriff. Because Oklahoma is nationally known as a state where civil forfeiture has been equated to robbery, candidates for sheriff need to be prepared to handle questions. According to a 2015 report from the American Civil Liberties Union of Okla- homa, law enforcement in Canadian County seized $2.7 million in 44 cases us- ing civil forfeiture. Criminal charges were filed in about half of those cases. Moore says he’s the “con- stitutional choice” and a can- didate who wants to do away with the Canadian County Sheriff’s Department’s ties to the federal government by eliminating the existing relationship between the sheriff’s office and the FBI, Drug Enforcement Admin- istration, and Department of Homeland Security. “I believe there is a loop- hole in the law that leaves room for abuse,” Moore, who opposes civil forfei- ture, told The Daily Signal in a recent interview. “As a law enforcement officer, we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that should be all parts of the Constitution. This is a clear violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.” West, on the other hand has stood behind civil forfei- ture despite the abuses and called it a “good tool” that is crucial to getting drugs off the streets. “The way I feel about it is it is either drug money or it’s not. It’s either criminal enterprise money, or it’s not,” he told Fox 25 News last February. “The burden of proof is on us.” But people now realize that cops don’t need a crimi- nal conviction to take cash and property from citizens. They just need “suspicion.” For many that’s not a loop- hole so much as it is a gaping hole you could drive a truck through. “We live in a country where we’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty,” Moore said. “It becomes more about the money than actually about justice. If it’s truly about jus- tice rather than the money, why not put more protec- tions in place?” At any rate, if you’re a cop thinking about running for the political office, you might want to see how this particular election shakes out. It could very well be the case that supporting civil forfeiture practices, as they now stand in many parts of the country, might be a li- ability politically speaking. Sheriff’s debate on civil forfeiture Editor’s note: Throughout this and other recent issues of American Police Beat, you can find law enforcement profes- sionals lamenting a real or perceived loss of respect among the general public. It’s worth thnking about the fact that many of those negative feelings are reactions not to individual police officers or their performance – but rather the policies they’re charged with administering.