And if you removed the financial incentives for police departments to seize property to pad their budgets along with that, I think you’d see much of the abuses disappear.
The perverse incentives right now are immense.
Police departments should never benefit directly from ANY property that is seized, legitimately or otherwise.
Although, on the surface, this seems pretty sensible, would you also think that DWI task forces that receive remuneration (of any kind) for finding drunk drivers should be outlawed? No offense, but if you agree, forget task forces that target DWI drivers. They are usually funded, INITIALLY, by the feds, but have to apprehend (catch) drunks to be remain funded.
Although, on the surface, this seems pretty sensible, would you also think that DWI task forces that receive remuneration (of any kind) for finding drunk drivers should be outlawed? No offense, but if you agree, forget task forces that target DWI drivers. They are usually funded, INITIALLY, by the feds, but have to apprehend (catch) drunks to be remain funded.
Why should they get paid directly per DWI? Or for any “quota”-based action?
They are public servants that should do the job they are instructed to do. Whether that is a “task force” or not, should make no difference.
So you agree those should be stopped, too? Because as goose notes, their funding is often dependant on them arresting people.
I do think the two parallel pretty good, and the whole civil forfeiture thing should be modeled after targeted DWI enforcement - lots of innocent people may be inconvenienced for a bit, but then the cops move on and only put the screws to those who are guilty. Forcing law enforcement to quickly (within a couple days) justify the forfeiture to a judge would make a vast majority of the abuse disappear almost overnight.
Why do you think they don’t or won’t? Was it something in my post?
It seemed to imply that they were only doing their directed job when there was some other pay-for-performance incentive in place (quota on DWIs).
Then I didn’t write it properly.
What I was trying to say was DWI task forces are usually funded by their results. Alternatively, if a DWI task force is not catching impaired drivers, why fund the task force?
If it’s not clear, a task force is a group that are tasked with one particular objective, such as catching impaired drivers, preventing/catching auto thieves, catching people that are breaking into homes, etc. As an example, Philadelphia may soon have a carjacking task force. 
I’m aware of what a task force is and their purpose.
My opinion is simply that, if the problem exists to where a “task force” is needed – then they get special funding from the local, state, or federal government to do the work, and they do the work as instructed and funded with no further “reward” related to quota.
If, for some reason, the nature of the task force results in “additional income” (due to auction of seized property, or direct fines in the case of DWI) – that money should flow back into primary tax coffers to be distributed through normal budgetary processes. Having it as “direct reward” for the local law enforcement unit is a perverse incentive, clearly so in the case of “civil asset forfeiture”.
Sorry if it sounded like I was talking down to you. But since you know, I’m not sure how you perceived my original message as cops not doing their job without “rewards”?
If they don’t write-up/arrest enough impaired drivers, then the initial funding dries up and the task force is disbanded. This does not mean patrol cops ignore impaired drivers.
For the initial funding, sure. But if they aren’t productive arresting drunks, that funding will come to an end. And since such task force funding is “extra”, it’s renewal is the reward for catching lots of drunks.
I don’t have a problem with this sort of incentive. It’s directly catching people provably breaking the law and being a danger to others. And one key difference from civil asset forfeiture is that proof of guilt is obtained readily via tests. The equivalent with civil asset forfeiture would be if cops looked at you and decided to book you claiming you were more likely impaired than not, and then you (or your car maybe) would have to prove to a judge that you were under the limit days later via a long and expensive process.
The issue with civil asset forfeiture is the level of evidence required, the costly and time consuming process to get your stuff back, and third the financial incentive. The ultra-low level of evidence and the costly process merely allow the incentive to be abused.