Overview
During the audit period, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (PCDA) underpaid the Brockton Police Department by $6,638. When reviewing the forfeited asset splits for the 25 forfeiture cases that we examined, we found 4 cases where PCDA had received 80% of the forfeited assets, distributing only 20% to the police department involved in the seizure. The forfeited assets should have been split equally between PCDA and the police department. The Brockton Police Department, with assistance from the Massachusetts State Police Gang Unit,2 was the agency involved in the seizures for these 4 cases.3 We then reviewed the remaining 14 cases in our population that involved both the Massachusetts State Police Gang Unit and the Brockton Police Department and found that in all 14 of these cases, the forfeited assets were distributed using the same 80% and 20% split.
We identified 18 total cases, totaling $22,126, which should have been split equally between PCDA and the Brockton Police Department ($11,063 each). However, PCDA received $17,701 and the Brockton Police Department received $4,425; therefore, the Brockton Police Department was underpaid by $6,638.
If police departments do not receive all of the forfeited assets to which they are entitled, they cannot use the associated revenue for law enforcement needs such as training and equipment.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the Massachusetts General Laws states,
The final order of the court shall provide that [forfeited assets] and the proceeds of any such sale shall be distributed equally between the prosecuting district attorney . . . and the city, town or state police department involved in the seizure. If more than one department was substantially involved in the seizure, the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding shall distribute the fifty percent equitably among these departments.
Reasons for Noncompliance
PCDA management told us that they received 80% of forfeited assets and the Brockton Police Department received 20% because of an agreement the two agencies made several decades ago.4 PCDA management told us that the district attorney, the police department, and the gang unit made the agreement because PCDA provides operational support (such as supplies, equipment, and training) to the Massachusetts State Police Gang Unit, which assisted the Brockton Police Department.
Recommendation
PCDA should ensure that it accurately distributes forfeited assets to police departments.
Auditee’s Response
Historically, there has been an agreement in place between the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, the Massachusetts State Police Gang Unit and the Brockton Police Department that when the latter two agencies work together on a case, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office would retain the Gang Unit’s entire share of funds. This agreement was put in place so that the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office could support the Gang Unit investigations as needed consistent with the statutory provisions, including that forfeiture funds may be used for “other law enforcement purposes.”
Going forward the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office will request, in each Gang Unit case, a memorandum to establish the degree of involvement of each participating Department in order to have the equitable share appropriately ordered by the Court and distributed to the participating departments for Gang Unit seizures.
Auditor’s Reply
Based on its response, PCDA is taking measures to address our concerns in this area.
| Date published: | November 16, 2023 |
|---|