Riot Shields, Militarization, and Asset Forfeiture's Shadow
Portland City Council recently greenlit the purchase of military-style "riot shields" by the Portland Police Bureau. While the Special Resources Division of PPB claims these shields are primarily defensive, there's a track record of using them for aggressive crowd control.
This isn't reform; it's just acquisition of a different weapon. The approval of these shields is also part of a concerning trend of police militarization and excessive force. Is PPB gearing up for another confrontation with the citizens they are meant to “protect and serve?”
Also concerning is the source of funding for these riot shields: seized assets through a process called asset forfeiture.
Asset forfeiture allows the police to seize money, property, and assets during arrests, often based on what they consider "evidence." In 2022, Oregon law enforcement agencies netted a total of $673,946.97 from seized assets, according to the state’s yearly asset forfeiture report.
This practice has faced ongoing criticism for granting law enforcement excessive power, prompting several states, including Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New Mexico, to outright ban the practice.
Recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals raised questions about its legality, ruling it unconstitutional in March. This decision stemmed from a 2000 ballot measure in Oregon that significantly restricted civil asset forfeiture, requiring law enforcement to obtain a conviction before seizing property and demonstrating that the seizure's value was proportional to the crime.
The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that voters in 2000 not only limited but also deemed civil forfeiture unconstitutional.
We can only hope this ruling stands, and that asset forfeiture is eradicated in Oregon and not used to buy law enforcement to purchase more milItarized equipment.
