News Archives
All the news that's not that new anymore...
(5/31/19 -- Alabama Political Reporter)
Civil asset forfeiture bill passes House, but is it enough?
On Thursday, the Alabama House passed Senate Bill 191 that would increase transparency around civil asset forfeiture in the state. It now moves to Gov. Kay Ivey’s desk for approval. “SB 191’s passage is a good first step toward bringing more transparency to Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture practices,” said Robyn Hyden, executive director of Alabama Arise, in an official statement. “This bill will help shine some needed light on this process, and we hope the governor signs it.” Alabama Arise is a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of congregations, organizations and individuals promoting public policies to improve the lives of low-income Alabamians. One of their 2019 issue priorities is to reform civil asset forfeiture in Alabama.
This new bill, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, would establish the Alabama Forfeiture Accountability and Integrity Reform Act. Under FAIR, the attorney general would establish and maintain a case tracking system and searchable public website with details about the seizure and property seized. The Southern Poverty Law Center weighed in on the passing of FAIR. “It’s not enough for the actors who profit from civil asset forfeiture to simply report what they take from Alabamians,” said Emily Early, staff attorney for the SPLC Action Fund. “That’s because the practice of civil asset forfeiture is, at its core, wrong.”
The SPLC is pressing Alabama lawmakers to ensure a criminal conviction prior to property seizure. “Should Alabama end the practice in future years, the state will join 16 others across the country in requiring criminal convictions to forfeit most or all types of property,” Early said. “Across the nation, legislators, mobilized citizens and impacted people are demanding that the government be focused on keeping communities safe, not policing for profit.” To Hyden and Alabama Arise, FAIR is not the final step for protecting Alabamians against civil asset forfeiture abuse. A good start? Yes. A total problem-solver? Not quite.
Read the entire article here at: alreporter.com
(5/31/19 -- NJ Spotlight)
Measure Would Strip Public Officials of Pensions if Guilty of Sexual Offenses
New Jersey is on the verge of establishing a tough new financial penalty for public officials who commit a sexual assault or similar offense in the workplace. A bipartisan bill that lawmakers sent to Gov. Phil Murphy yesterday would come down hard on any public worker or elected official who is convicted of sexual assault, sexual contact or lewdness by stripping them of a taxpayer-funded pension.
Such an approach generally has been used in New Jersey only to punish officials for offenses related to public corruption. But sponsors of the pension-forfeiture bill, which passed the Senate unanimously yesterday, have pointed to an increased need to discourage sexual misconduct in the workplace in the wake of the #MeToo social media campaign, which has raised awareness across the country.
The bill’s advancement out of the Legislature also comes just weeks after lawmakers held their last hearing on a high-profile case involving an allegation of rape against a former high-ranking member of Murphy’s administration. A final report from a special legislative committee that probed the case is still pending. “Public service is about helping people and making the state you work for a better, safer place for all,” Sen. Kristin Corrado, a prime sponsor of the pension-forfeiture bill, said yesterday.
Read the entire article here at: njspotlight.com
(5/30/19 -- Detroit Free Press)
States have changed forfeiture laws, now it's the federal government's turn
Terry Dehko and Randy Sowers aren’t household names, but their stories serve as cautionary tales. Both had tens of thousands of dollars seized by the Internal Revenue Service without any criminal charges filed against them. Both were law-abiding citizens. And both had to fight in court to get their hard-earned savings back.
Their money was seized using our nation’s abuse-prone civil asset forfeiture laws. While these laws may have originated with good intentions — helping law enforcement target criminal enterprises — the civil asset forfeiture system has become ripe for profiteering and perversely incentivizes police to confiscate private property to boost their budgets. Too many innocent Americans have had their constitutional rights trampled in the process, and the road to reclaim government-seized property is expensive, time-consuming, and filled with potholes.
In Terry Dehko’s case, the IRS seized more than $35,000 from a small family grocer in Michigan. No charges were filed, but Dehko was forced to prove his grocery store was making small bank deposits for insurance reasons and not laundering money. This, of course, reversed the proper burden of proof and it took months of legal battles for Terry to get his savings rightfully returned from the feds. Randy Sowers, a Maryland dairy farmer, suffered through a similar experience. The IRS seized money in his bank account on suspicion alone and without evidence of wrongdoing. After his life was upended, Sowers needed legal assistance to go to court and prove his innocence. Only after a lengthy process did he eventually settle his case to get a portion of his money back.
Read the entire article here at: freep.com
(5/30/19 -- Clarion Ledger)
Private property seized by Jackson police isn't being reported as required by law
Property seizures by police in Mississippi's capital city have gone unreported since July 2017 — and no one seems to care. Jackson police officers have seized at least $208,467 and four cars from 57 people suspected of drug crimes during that time. All of those seizures should have been reported on the state's forfeiture website, created by a 2017 law to increase transparency on a practice that has attracted public scrutiny and criticism nationwide.
They were not.
The police department says the Hinds County district attorney failed to upload the numbers. District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith said his office is in compliance with the law but had little further explanation.
Read the entire article here at: clarionledger.com
(5/29/19 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
EDITORIAL: Legislature should pass civil asset forfeiture reform
The state shouldn’t be allowed to seize and keep your property without first proving you’ve committed a crime. That seems uncontroversial. Yet police departments throughout the country — including in Nevada — do exactly that through a process called civil asset forfeiture. Assembly Bill 420, sponsored by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would stop this insidious practice.
Civil forfeiture laws mushroomed during the 1980s as a way to separate drug lords and other crime kingpins from their ill-gotten gains. Today, however, they’ve become a lucrative tool to pad police budgets. From a legal perspective, prosecutors charge the seized property itself, not its owner, with a crime. This means that protections in criminal court — such as innocent until proven guilty — don’t apply. Instead, the burden of proof shifts to property owners, who face an expensive and complicated process if they contest the action. Worse, the laws often allow police departments to keep forfeiture proceeds. This gives law enforcement an incentive to take property.
Horror stories involving innocent property owners and police abuses abound throughout the country. In 2008, for instance, Detroit police raided an event at a local art institute and seized 44 vehicles from those in attendance. What crime occurred? The art institute hadn’t secured a permit to serve alcohol. The car owners — who were never charged with any crime — had to pay $900 to get their property back. That sounds like a parody of justice in a Third World country. Instead, it’s just one of many examples of civil asset forfeiture abuse. AB420 would reform this tactic in a number of important ways.
Read the entire article here at: reviewjournal.com
(5/29/19 -- WHNT News)
Alabama Senate: require civil asset forfeiture tracking
The Alabama Senate has voted to make it mandatory for law enforcement to report how often they use civil actions to seize a person’s property when the person hasn’t been convicted of a crime. Senators on Tuesday voted 33-0 for the bill. It now moves to the Alabama House of Representatives.
Republican Sen. Arthur Orr had originally sought to require a criminal conviction for property seizures. The bill was amended to require mandatory tracking of cases instead of banning or altering the practice. Orr says the measure is an “incremental” step and he plans on reintroducing a bill to ban the practice next year.
(5/28/19 -- CDN)
42 arrested throughout Colorado in one of the state’s largest black-market marijuana takedowns
Forty-two people were arrested this week in one of the largest black-market marijuana enforcement actions in Colorado history. This law enforcement action identified marijuana grows in homes across the Metro Denver area. Eight businesses were also searched. More than 80,000 marijuana plants and 4,500 pounds of finished marijuana product were seized from the locations searched.
Read the entire article here at: conservativedailynews.com
(5/27/19 -- Advocates)
North Dakota Takes A Bite Out Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
On May 2, 2019, North Dakota took a major first step in civil asset forfeiture reform. Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1286, which goes a long way in limiting law enforcement agencies’ ability to arrest people, seize their property, and keep what they’ve seized even in cases where no crime can be proven.
Over the years, civil asset forfeiture has gained notoriety in criminal justice reform circles. Generally speaking, civil asset forfeiture has been a proven tactic in the so-called “War on Drugs” to target the assets of affluent drug lords. However, as witnessed with countless other government programs, civil asset forfeiture has devolved into a money grab for corrupt law enforcement bureaucracies.
Scott Shackford of Reason points out that civil asset forfeiture “has instead grown into a massively corrupt mechanism where police agencies pull people over or raid their houses on whatever pretext the cops can muster.” According to the Reason writer, “North Dakota’s rules were particularly bad for the citizens.” In fact, North Dakota is one of the worst states when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. It received a dishonorable F grade in the Institute for Justice’s “Policing for Profit” report. The only other state that received such an abysmal score was Massachusetts.
According to Shackford, “North Dakota’s rules were particularly bad for the citizens.” Before HB 1286 received the Governor’s signature, law enforcement just needed to have probable cause in order to make a property seizure attempt. Law enforcement agencies could even keep up to 100 percent of the properties they seized as long as it was worth less than $200,000. With HB 1286 in place, police must obtain a conviction before seizing people’s assets. However, there are exemptions if the person is dead, has been deported, has disappeared, or has abandoned their property.
Read the entire article here at: theadvocates.org
(5/25/19 -- The Gazette)
Filling a need, for armor and transparency
Last week, the Cedar Rapids City Council voted to authorize the Police Department’s plan to purchase a 2019 Lenco BearCat G2 armored vehicle for $268,102. The Linn County Sheriff’s Office also will be receiving a BearCat, with a $297,000 price tag. The agencies make a good case as to why they need such a vehicle. City Council members were told the BearCat, designed to take gunfire, could be utilized in active shooter scenarios where first responders, officers or civilians are wounded or pinned down. The vehicle can deliver first-responders more quickly into threat areas to provide aid to victims, among other uses. We fully support keeping officers and responders safe.
Less clear is why two law enforcement agencies headquartered within blocks of one another needed to purchase two BearCats, at a cost of more than half a million dollars. Greg Buelow, public safety communications coordinator for the city, said in an email there was talk of sharing a vehicle with the county and Marion. He said police ultimately concluded having fast access to their own vehicle, rather than working out a usage arrangement with other agencies, could save lives.
Cedar Rapids is purchasing its armored vehicle using dollars from its share of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program funds, including money confiscated from “drug dealers,” according to Police Chief Wayne Jerman. The dollars must be held in a special fund and used for law enforcement purposes. The BearCat cost will come out of a current forfeiture fund balance of $452,124, according to the department.
This editorial board has been critical over the years of forfeiture policies in Iowa and nationally. Part of our concern centers on a lack of transparency at all levels regarding how much money is being seized, who gets it and how those dollars are being spent.
Read the entire article here at: thegazette.com
(5/24/19 -- News and Tribune)
U.S. Attorney seeks to confiscate cash, guns after drug arrest
United State Attorney John Minkler has filed a motion requesting that cash and guns associated with a December drug bust in Charlestown be forfeited. On Dec. 3, a postal inspector in western Kentucky noted a suspicious package headed to an address in Charlestown, coming from Rancho Cucamonga, according to court records filed Friday in the U.S. District Court, Southern Indiana District.
The inspector secured a search warrant and after a drug-sniffing dog alerted that the box was positive for controlled substances, the box was opened to reveal "numerous bottles of THC oil and THC edible items." It was resealed and delivered under surveillance to a house on Hartford Lane in Charlestown, where it was allegedly retrieved and taken inside by a man later identified as Kyle Welch. When police entered the home on the warrant, the contents of the box were already spread out on the counter. They included 50 bottles of THC edibles, hundreds of THC oil vape refills, 99.5 grams of marijuana, 3.7 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, several tablets of amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and digital scales. A further search of the house turned up $97,447 in cash, separated into bundles and placed in a safe in a walk-in closet and five guns — two handguns, two shotguns and a rifle. Two of the guns — a Sig Sauer .380-caliber handgun and a Benelli 912 gauge shotgun — had been purchased by Welch's father, records show.
Friday's complaint calls for civil forfeiture process, which means the guns and cash would be taken permanently, due to their connection with alleged drug crimes. The document lists the currency and guns as being "proceeds of or property used to facilitate" violations to the Controlled Substances Act.
Read the entire article here at: newsandtribune.com
(5/24/19 -- The Washington Post)
Authorities raid 247 Colorado homes growing black market pot
Authorities said Friday they raided hundreds of black market marijuana operations in Colorado that flouted the state’s cannabis law by growing tens of thousands of plants in Denver-area homes and selling the drugs out of state. Investigators seized more than 80,000 plants and 4,500 pounds (2,040 kilograms) of harvested marijuana, state and federal prosecutors said at a news conference. Officers raided 247 homes and eight businesses and arrested 42 people in Denver and seven nearby counties.
State law allows up to 12 marijuana plants per residence for personal use, but some of the homes had more than 1,000 and many had hundreds, said U.S. Attorney Jason Dunn. Colorado and nine other states have broadly legalized marijuana use but it remains illegal under federal law. That has created tension between some state and federal officials.
But George Brauchler, district attorney for the south and east Denver suburbs, stressed the investigation was a joint state-federal operation, not the U.S. Department of Justice imposing its will on Colorado. “Make no mistake, we are equal partners in this,” Brauchler said.
Read the entire article here at: washingtonpost.com
(5/24/19 -- TechDirt)
Prosecutor On Forfeiture Reforms: Making Us Prosecute Drugs Cases Will Make It Harder To Prosecute Drug Cases
I thought I had read the worst defense of civil asset forfeiture when I read a former Michigan police chief's argument against a conviction requirement being instituted in his state. Former Police Chief Robert Stevenson's argument was basically this: a conviction requirement makes it too hard for cops to take property from people without proof. "Law enforcement will be severely handicapped if state lawmakers succumb to the misconception that no forfeiture should take place without a conviction on proceeds under $50,000. Drugs may not be present, but everything else confirms and indicates drug trafficking, i.e., ledger books, scales, pre-recorded narcotics buy funds and packaging materials. In this particular scenario, as well as a multitude of others, the police and prosecutors could not establish a case to seize anything if Michigan adopts the $50,000 threshold."
All this evidence and nothing to do with it, I guess. Like many in the law enforcement field, Stevenson clings to the myth that robbing random people at gunpoint somehow cripples drug cartels. This belief is backed by far less evidence than the long list of stuff Stevenson claims can't be cobbled into a successful prosecution. We're more than 40 years deep into a War on Drugs and the only thing that's changed for the positive is the public's attitude towards civil asset forfeiture.
Michigan's legislature is considering adding a conviction requirement for forfeitures under $50,000. Opponents of property rights and due process keep crawling out of the woodwork, offering up increasingly nonsensical defenses of forfeiture. But nothing is stupider than this prosecutor's objection:
”Since a conviction is now required, it will make it extremely difficult to prosecute high level drug dealers,” Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said via email.
REQUIRING PROSECUTORS TO PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS. This kind of reasoning suggests the real problem with closing the deal, prosecution-wise, might be the prosecutor's arguments. It doesn't get worse from there. But it certainly doesn't get any better. Allowing Worthy to expand on this theory does not bring enlightenment or clarification. It just makes the theory bigger and dumber.
“Often in these cases, witnesses are intimidated to the point that they do not show up for trial, sometimes losing their lives because of the retaliation,” Worthy said. “It is our fear that this will get worse now that drug dealers know that if there are no witnesses, there will be no conviction and they can get their property back.”
How in fuck do you draw the line from "taking cash from some dude cops pulled over" to "witness intimidation?" This is the brilliant legal mind handling prosecutions for Michigan's largest city. All this says is that forfeiture was never about keeping drugs and drug dealers off the street. It was always about the cash. We know this, but cops and prosecutors will never say it out loud. Worthy's attempt to portray almost-suspicionless cash seizures as leverage in prosecutions the government NEVER PLANS TO PURSUE is inadvertently transparent.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(5/23/19 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
COA orders state to reimburse $77K from illegal seizure
The state must pay back more than $77,000 to a man after seizing cash from his vehicle, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled, finding the money was unlawfully seized and turned over to the federal government.
In Alvin L. Lewis v. Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, 18A-MI-1869, Alvin Lewis’ vehicle was stopped on Interstate 70 in Putnam County after local Deputy Dwight Simmons observed the vehicle weaving back and forth with a temporary Arizona license plate that was hard to read. Lewis told Simmons he had purchased the vehicle from a friend and had taken steps to fix the title issues with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
Simmons invited Lewis to sit in his police vehicle while Simmons checked his license, and the driver agreed. Simmons then began asking Lewis questions about his family, his work and a recent hotel stay, among other personal questions. During the conversation, Lewis gave some inconsistent/evasive answers, such as referring to his partner as both his girlfriend and his wife and changing his story on who he bought the vehicle from. After about 20 minutes in the squad car, Simmons told Lewis he would let him off with a warning. However, Simmons then asked if Lewis had ever been in trouble for drugs, and the driver indicated he had some legal trouble in Detroit. Simmons then asked Lewis if he had drugs in the car, and Lewis paused before answering negatively.
Simmons then asked if Lewis would consent to a search of his vehicle, and when the driver refused, the officer conducted a K-9 sweep. The dog alerted on the vehicle, and a subsequent warrantless search of the car revealed $77,060 in cash and two digital scales. Lewis claimed the money wasn’t his, but Simmons seized the cash and the Putnam Circuit Court later granted a motion to turn the money over to the United States government.
But after hearing oral arguments last week, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the seizure of the cash and ordered the state to reimburse Lewis. Judge John Baker, after rejecting the state’s argument that Lewis lacked standing to challenge the turnover, noted at the outset of the court’s analysis that “there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred.”
Read the entire article here at: theindianalawyer.com
(5/22/19 -- KHOU 11)
Local cops are cashing in on illegal game rooms
Law enforcement agencies are cashing in on millions seized from illegal game rooms in Harris County, despite no one getting convicted in more than half of those police raids, according to an analysis of court records by KHOU 11 Investigates. A review of nearly 600 forfeiture cases from 2014 through 2018 revealed a pattern of police work that pads law enforcement budgets but does little to shut game rooms down: Police raid the establishment, seize the cash and a few machines. Sometimes no charges are filed, and, if they are, the case either gets dismissed or results in a short jail sentence. The game room opens back up, and police raid it again.
“The cycle repeats,” said Institute for Justice attorney Anya Bidwell “We call it policing for profit.” Bidwell works in the Austin office of the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit that advocates for forfeiture law reform.
“Instead of obtaining conviction and stopping the crime from happening, you actually just get to take the money and use it for your own benefit,” Bidwell said. KHOU 11 Investigates' hidden cameras were able to find previously raided game rooms back up and running.
For example, court documents show authorities raided a game room on Tidwell Road in northeast Houston twice in two years. In each case, police arrested a clerk for possession of a gambling device. Both of those cases were later dismissed, one because prosecutors “could not prove this (defendant) committed offense (beyond a reasonable doubt).” Under Texas forfeiture laws, officials kept more than $25,000 seized because nobody came forward to contest the confiscated money.
Read the entire article here at: khou.com
(5/21/19 -- Kansas City Star)
Kansas’ unjust forfeiture law amounts to policing for profit
Kansas has one of the worst forfeiture laws in the nation. Presumption of innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Judged by a jury of your peers. These aren’t just catchphrases; they are the bedrock principles that form a fair and just legal system. However, in Kansas, you currently don’t have these rights in asset forfeiture cases.
Asset forfeiture may sound innocuous enough but in practice it’s abusive and fundamentally unjust. It’s when the government seizes money or property even without a criminal conviction. Kansas has one of the worst forfeiture laws in the nation. The Kansas Legislature had the opportunity to fix the problems this session but didn’t. The problems are plentiful and need immediate correction.
The law stacks the deck in favor of the government because it’s up to property owners to prove their innocence in court. Conceptually, this runs contrary to our notion of fairness. When the government takes something, it should articulate why it has done so, under what authority it acted and be able to prove it all in court. The government needs to justify itself, not the other way around. Practically, the government has far more resources at its disposal than the average citizen: an entire police force, a statewide investigative bureau, and even access to federal authorities. It also has teams of lawyers.
Second, a jury of your peers never gets to hear the case — only a judge. This is a critical flaw in Kansas’ forfeiture law. The right to a jury trial is fundamental. It’s so important the Kansas and United States Constitutions included it in their respective Bills of Rights.
Read the entire article here at: kansascity.com
(5/21/19 -- TechDirt)
Government Generously Hands Back Two-Thirds Of The $626,000 It Stole From Two Men Driving Through Missouri
A case out of Missouri is highlighting yet again the stupidity and vindictiveness that defines civil asset forfeiture. In January 2017, law enforcement seized $626,000 from two men as they passed through the state on their way to California. According to the state highway patrol, the men presented contradictory stories about their origin, destination, and the plans for the money found during the traffic stop. The complaint filed against the money made a lot of claims about the government's suspicions this was money destined for drug purchases. Supposedly evidence was recovered from seized phones suggested the two men were involved in drug trafficking, utilizing a third person's money. Despite all of this evidence, prosecutors never went after the men. They only went after the money.
Records searches of both state and federal courts did not identify any criminal charges against Li, Peng or Huang
Even the speeding that predicated the stop (in which a drug dog "alerted" on the rental vehicle that contained no drugs) went unprosecuted. This is where the stupid begins: alleged drug dealers allowed to continue their drug dealing by state and federal agencies more interested in the men's cash. But it gets stupider. This was offered up in the complaint against the seized money as evidence of the men's criminal activities.
Authorities noted in the complaint he lived “9 houses” away from the site of a residence where drug transactions were occurring and a contact in his phone was recently the subject of a civil forfeiture action.
That's some mighty fine evidence. If you happen to live in the same neighborhood as a known criminal, I guess you're a criminal, too. That's just how society works, ladies and gentlemen. Move to a better neighborhood if you don't want to be lumped in with your worst neighbors
It appears the agencies involved in this seizure didn't think they had enough real evidence to follow through on this forfeiture. More than two years after the $626,000 was seized, the government is returning it to its rightful owners. That's where the vindictiveness comes in. The government hasn't won a criminal or civil case against any of the people involved, but it's still going to keep a third of the cash just because.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(5/20/19 -- The Inquirer)
North Korea urges UN chief to act against US ship seizure
North Korea denounced the United States as "a gangster country" for seizing one of its cargo ships and urged U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to take "urgent measures" to contribute to stabilizing the Korean peninsula.
North Korea's U.N. ambassador, Kim Song, said in a letter to Guterres obtained Monday by The Associated Press that the Trump administration committed "an unlawful and outrageous act" by taking over the ship Wise Honest and moving it to American Samoa. He called the seizure a violation of international law and the U.N. Charter. Kim called a news conference at U.N. headquarters on Tuesday to further criticize the ship's seizure.
The U.S. said on May 9 that it seized the ship because it was carrying coal in violation of U.N. sanctions, a first-of-its kind enforcement action that came amid a tense moment in relations with North Korea.
Read the entire article here at: philly.com
(5/20/19 -- Arirang)
N. Korea sends letter to UN protesting Washington's seizure of its bulk carrier 'Wise Honest'
North Korea has reportedly sent a letter to the United Nations criticizing the U.S. for holding one of its bulk carrier ships captive, and is arguing the issue should be dealt with by the international body. Radio Free Asia reports that the Office of the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General said on Monday that it received a letter from North Korea's permanent representative to the UN last week and that it is reviewing it.
The letter, as disclosed by the North's state media, argues the U.S. seizure of a North Korean vessel under "U.S. law" is an unlawful, outrageous act, and such unilateral U.S. sanctions go against the UN Charter and international law.
Read the entire article here at: arirang.com
(5/18/19 -- The Sentinel-Record)
Auction raises funds for Drug Task Force
Vehicles seized under the authority of the state's civil asset forfeiture law and auctioned Friday at the city of Hot Springs' Bill Edwards Center sold for close to $30,000. Most of the proceeds will go to the 18th Judicial District East's Civil Asset Forfeiture Fund, which supports the 18th Judicial District East Drug Task Force. The multiagency unit charged with interdicting illegal drug trafficking in Garland County is partially funded by property and money it and other agencies seize during drug arrests. A 2011 Dodge Charger raised the most money, selling for $5,600. It was one of several vehicles auctioned Friday that were owned by someone other than the person arrested in the accompanying criminal case. According to court records, the owner agreed to forfeit the vehicle in exchange for a plea agreement in a criminal case the Garland County prosecutor's office ultimately withdrew.
Read the entire article here at: hotsr.com
(5/18/19 -- WPTV)
Mongols biker club fined $500,000 but keeps logo trademarks
A federal judge on Friday fined the Mongols motorcycle club $500,000 in a racketeering and conspiracy case but refused the latest effort in a decade-long attempt by the government to take away the club's control over its logo — a Genghis Khan-style rider in sunglasses astride a chopper-style bike. Prosecutors had successfully argued before a jury that the logo was core to the identity of the Los Angeles area-based gang responsible for drug dealing, beatings and murder. They argued that bikers wore the badges like armor to intimidate.
In announcing charges in 2008, prosecutors said a forfeiture order would allow any law enforcement officer to stop a gang member and "literally take the jacket right off his back." A jury that in 2018 convicted the club as a whole of racketeering and conspiracy agreed in January that the club's trademarks should be forfeited to the government. But in February, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter nullified that part of the verdict, saying it would violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of association and Eighth Amendment protections against excessive penalties.
Read the entire article here at: wptv.com
(5/17/19 -- Detroit News)
Suit seeks search warrant records from Macomb prosecutor
A Highland Park man known for suing elected officials and government agencies to obtain public records is at it again — this time in Macomb County. Robert Davis, who has sued for information involving Taylor city hall records, the Detroit City Land Bank and other public entities, filed a lawsuit Thursday in Macomb County Circuit Court seeking documents related to search warrants executed at the office and home of Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith.
Among the records Davis wants: an inventory of items Michigan State Police seized from his Macomb Township home Tuesday and from his county office last month as part of a probe of how he used $1.8 million in asset forfeiture funds.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(5/17/19 -- Reuters)
Trump's diversion of billions for border wall faces first U.S. court test
The U.S. House of Representatives took its battle over the Trump administration’s border wall to federal court on Friday, urging a judge to stop billions of dollars from being transferred toward construction of the barrier without approval by Congress.
In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.37 billion for construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” along the border in southeast Texas, well short of President Donald Trump’s demands. To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and diverted $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $3.6 billion from military construction and $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs.
Read the entire article here at: reuters.com
(5/16/19 -- Sentinel)
Asset forfeiture faces more scrutiny
Civil asset forfeiture laws have been making headlines across the country, and are being picked apart in many courtrooms. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman who had her vehicle seized by police in a DUI-related incident. The court said current law deprived the woman of due process. Opposition to asset forfeiture laws is growing, with opponents saying it allows legalized theft by the state.
Read the entire article here at: fairmontsentinel.com
(5/15/19 -- Fox 2)
Investigation of $900K of forfeiture spending sparked raid of prosecutor's home
The Macomb County Prosecutor had his home and office searched by Michigan State Police Monday.
If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving by a Warren cop, often the police will then take the car and that is the forfeiture. "You often have to pay $900 to get your car back," said Leon Drolet. And that $900 dollars would be the asset. But where does the money go? Leon Drolet is a Macomb County Commissioner who has looked at all the records in the Eric Smith case regarding the forfeiture assets.
"When you pay that $900, that money is supposed to be put over to the county and then appropriated by the elected board of commissioners," he said. Drolet says that's what the county sheriff does, who also uses forfeiture money spent on specific police functions. "But that's not what's been happening.," he said. And here's where-it appears, the Attorney General is investigating. Where did the forfeiture money go?
Read the entire article here at: fox2detroit.com
(5/14/19 -- Joliet Patch)
Teen With 998 Vape Cartridges Faces $9,150 Forfeiture Complaint
A major drug raid by police at a house on Gaylord Road in January resulted in the arrest of 19-year-old Nicholas Gravitt. Now, the State's Attorney's Office wants a Will County judge to declare the $9,150 confiscated during the raid as a forfeited asset for the police, court filings show. However, the forfeiture is being challenged by the defendant's father, Howard Gravitt, who is the owner of the property where the raid occurred. Howard Gravitt has hired the law offices of Blake Stone, a Joliet law firm, to contest the forfeiture.
"Claimant obtained the currency via his employment (as) a self-employed carpentry contractor and side jobs at Menards in Crest Hill," the Joliet law firm for Howard Gravitt argues in court filings. "Claimant was wholly unaware of his 19-year-old son's illegal drug activity. He did not authorize such activity and none of the cash seized was the proceeds of any illicit source, drug transaction, etc."
Read the entire article here at: patch.com
(5/14/19 -- UPI)
North Korea accuses U.S. of 'illegal' seizure of cargo ship
North Korea's foreign ministry is demanding the United States return the cargo ship it seized last week from Indonesia. The Wise Honest was carrying illicit shipments of North Korean coal in 2018 when it was detained in Indonesia. The coal was released but the ship stayed at port until last week, when the U.S. Department of Justice used a civil forfeiture action to confiscate the property.
On Tuesday, Pyongyang's foreign ministry spokesman accused the United States of "illegal seizure," and demanded the immediate return of the Sierra Leonean and North Korean-flagged ship. "This act of 'maximum pressure' is a continuation of the United States' calculating style, designed to push us into submission," the North Korean foreign ministry said.
Read the entire article here at: upi.com
(5/14/19 -- Detroit Metro Times)
State police raid Macomb County prosecutor's home over forfeiture funds
Michigan State Police raided the home of Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith on Monday morning as part of an investigation into his use of forfeiture funds. Troopers were seen removing items, including security cameras, from Smith’s home. The 8:10 a.m. raid comes a month after state police executed a search warrant at Smith’s office in Mt. Clemens.
“The state attorney general’s office asked us to initiate this investigation,” Lt. Darren Green told reporters. Green said Smith was at home during the raid. "He is here, and he has been cooperating," he said. Green declined to say whether state police are working with the FBI, which also was investigating Smith’s use of forfeiture funds after county officials raised questions about the money.
State law requires prosecutors to use forfeiture funds for law enforcement purposes. But Smith used some of the funds — which are collected from repeat drunk drivers and convicted drug dealers — on office furniture, a country club, credit card bills, cell phones, DIRECTV, and Christmas parties. Smith has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and said all of the spending was lawful. The Macomb County Board of Commissioners approved a forensic audit of the expenditures in February.
Read the entire article here at: metrotimes.com
(5/13/19 -- The Center Square)
Michigan forfeiture law will curtail Wayne County’s civil property seizures
New legislation prohibiting most civil asset forfeiture in Michigan without a prior conviction is expected to curtail Wayne County’s process of seizing property without a conviction as a means to fight drug crime. Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Sen. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, would prohibit police from seizing property related to crimes involving controlled substances unless a person is convicted of a crime, enters into a plea agreement, relinquishes the property or no one claims the property. It was signed into law last week. ”Since a conviction is now required, it will make it extremely difficult to prosecute high level drug dealers,” Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy lied via email.
“Often in these cases, witnesses are intimidated to the point that they do not show up for trial, sometimes losing their lives because of the retaliation,” Worthy said. “It is our fear that this will get worse now that drug dealers know that if there are no witnesses, there will be no conviction and they can get their property back.” Exactly what this has to do with forfeiture he declined to state.
Over the past two years, the county has seized more than 2,600 vehicles and received more than $1.2 million in total revenue from the forfeitures, according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Read the entire article here at: thecentersquare.com
(5/13/19 -- Lawfuel)
First-Ever Seizure of North Korean Cargo Vessel For Sanctions Violations
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and John Brown, Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced today the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint against M/V Wise Honest (the “Wise Honest”), a 17,061-ton, single-hull bulk carrier ship registered in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“DPRK” or “North Korea”). The Wise Honest, one of North Korea’s largest bulk carriers, was used to illicitly ship coal from North Korea and to deliver heavy machinery to the DPRK. Payments for maintenance, equipment, and improvements of the Wise Honest were made in U.S. dollars through unwitting U.S. banks. This conduct violates longstanding U.S. law and United Nations Security Council resolutions.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Today’s civil action is the first-ever seizure of a North Korean cargo vessel for violating international sanctions. Our Office uncovered North Korea’s scheme to export tons of high-grade coal to foreign buyers by concealing the origin of their ship, the Wise Honest. This scheme not only allowed North Korea to evade sanctions, but the Wise Honest was also used to import heavy machinery to North Korea, helping expand North Korea’s capabilities and continuing the cycle of sanctions evasion. With this seizure, we have significantly disrupted that cycle. We are willing and able to deploy the full array of law enforcement tools to detect, deter, and prosecute North Korea’s deceptive attempts to evade sanctions.”
Read the entire article here at: lawfuel.com
(5/10/19 -- KMOV4)
St. Charles County prosecutor ludicrously claims public safety at risk if forfeiture funds limited
St. Charles County's top prosecutor unsurprisingly says your safety could be at risk, if a Missouri lawmaker gets his way. State Representative Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) introduced a bill last year that would limit forfeiture funds, which is property seized from drug criminals. St. Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lohmar says the forfeiture is almost always money. In 2018, Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway found $9.1 million worth of property in 699 seizures. Her office found that $5.7 million went to the federal government.
Lohmar says limiting these funds puts public safety in danger. “It'll absolutely be at risk,” he lied. “The quality our community experience and enjoys will suffer and on top of that the drug trade will flourish in the state of Missouri and these drug dealers will go free right through the state without any consequences. That's what will happen. That's a fact,” he declared, somehow managing to keep a straight face.
Read the entire article here at: www.kmov.com
(5/10/19 -- Honolulu Civil Beat)
Cops, Prosecutors Want Gov To Veto Seized Property Bill
A measure to reform the state’s heavily criticized civil asset forfeiture program has cleared the Legislature, but now sits on the governor’s desk with no apparent signs of whether it will become law. Supporters are urging Gov. David Ige to sign it while police and prosecutors, who would lose substantial amounts of money, want him to veto it.
The bill would change whose property can be forfeited and redirect the proceeds of forfeited property from the state Attorney General’s office to the general fund. In fiscal year 2017, the estimated value of forfeitures ordered by law enforcement agencies across the state was about $661,000, according to the program’s latest annual report. Honolulu and Maui County police departments were two of the biggest law enforcement beneficiaries that year.
One of the biggest changes the reform bill for Hawaii’s program would bring about, if signed into law, is to require a felony conviction before law enforcement officials can seize property. As it stands, state law allows agencies to take property without a court hearing or any criminal charges filed. A June 2018 state audit of the current civil asset forfeiture program found that in 26% of the cases in fiscal year 2015, property was forfeited without a corresponding criminal charge. In another 4% of cases, charges were dismissed.
“They took a whole bunch of assets from legally innocent people,” said Rep. Joy San Buenaventura, a main sponsor of the bill. “It’s basically legalized theft by the police, and that’s wrong.” The audit makes it evident that the program needs reform, she said. It also pointed out a slew of other problems, including failing to account for forfeited property, mismanaging program funds, failing to allocate 20% of the proceeds for drug prevention as is required by law, and failing to establish administrative rules. “The audit shows that the attorney general was lackadaisical in handling assets,” San Buenaventura said.
Read the entire article here at: civilbeat.org
(5/9/19 -- Mackinac Center)
Mackinac Center Applauds Michigan Civil Asset Forfeiture Reforms
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy praised Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and lawmakers for enacting a new law that will protect individuals’ property and due process rights by requiring law enforcement to convict a person in a court of law prior to permanently keeping their property through civil asset forfeiture. “This is a huge win for all Michiganders,” said Jarrett Skorup, director of marketing and communications, who has written extensively and testified on the issue for the Mackinac Center. “Just a few years ago, Michigan had the worst-rated forfeiture laws in the country and here we are today, joining the states with the best civil asset forfeiture protections.”
Read the entire article here at: mackinac.org
(5/9/19 -- WNLS.Com)
Whitmer signs civil forfeiture reforms into law
Governor Gretchen Whitmer today has signed a bill into law that will reform the state's civil asset forfeiture laws. Before the reforms, police departments could seize a person's property if they believed the property was connected to a crime, even if the owner had not been charged with anything. Now, under the new law, forfeiture could only happen after a conviction or guilty plea and the burden of proof would be on police to show that the property is connected to the crime.
(5/8/19 -- Lancaster Online)
Civil asset forfeiture, rampant in Pennsylvania, is a profound injustice
An article headlined “Cash Grab” on Page A1 of last weekend’s Sunday LNP detailed criticisms and alleged abuses in Pennsylvania of the legal procedure known as civil asset forfeiture. WHYY’s Bobby Allyn and Ryan Briggs, reporting for Keystone Crossroads, note that the practice used to be most common in big cities like Philadelphia, but there has been “a radical shift” in the past half-decade. They write: “Records show Philadelphia collected less money from police confiscation in 2017 than any recent year on record. Meanwhile, its suburbs and outlying counties like Berks and Lancaster have ramped up cash seizures, according to an analysis of five years of data from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.”
We are, of course, quite familiar with the issue of civil asset forfeiture here in Lancaster County, given how it has been at the center of months of headlines involving a court battle between LNP Media Group and District Attorney Craig Stedman. LNP’s Carter Walker filed a Right-to-Know request last September for detailed records of how seized items were processed once they were confiscated and, if sold, how the money was allocated or spent. While Stedman has provided LNP Media Group with 18 years of summary reports related to drug forfeiture assets, the state Office of Open Records has ruled that his office must comply with Walker’s full Right-to-Know request. Stedman’s office has appealed that ruling to the Court of Common Pleas.
Beyond that, the recent reporting by Allyn and Briggs sheds additional light on the evolution of civil asset forfeiture and the serious concerns associated with the practice. They summarized the practice this way: “Civil asset forfeiture ... allows authorities to take money, cars and other assets of those suspected of selling drugs — even before a person is charged or found guilty. Proceeds are liquidated and used at the whim of law enforcement outside of county budget oversight.”
Read the entire article here at: lancasteronline.com
(5/7/19 -- Index-Journal)
Civil asset forfeiture study panel begins work
The future seems short for civil asset forfeiture in South Carolina, with a panel of lawmakers uniting behind the need to do away with the practice. A study committee formed at the request of House Speaker Jay Lucas in the wake of a failed effort to abolish the system through legislation introduced earlier this year met for the first time on Tuesday.
“Once we got into it, we realized that we needed some conformity of this proposed statute to South Carolina law,” said state Rep. Gary Clary, R-Clemson and committee chairman. “This is an issue that we realized needed input from actual practitioners and people that apply this law.”
Across South Carolina, more than $17 million worth of assets were seized from people from 2014 to 2016, helping finance purchases for dozens of law enforcement agencies — covering costs of everything from bulletproof vests to meals at training sessions, according to findings from a yearslong investigation by The Independent-Mail and The Greenville News. Of the more than 3,200 cases in which personal property was taken, half weren’t linked to criminal charges or convictions, the probe found.
Read the entire article here at: indexjournal.com
(5/7/19 -- Columbia Daily Tribune)
Federal government returns $418,000 seized as drug money
More than two years after two men were stopped on Interstate 70 in Boone County with nearly $627,000 in suspected drug money, the federal government has agreed to return about 67 percent to its owner. U.S. District Attorney for Western Missouri Tim Garrison, in a settlement agreement dated April 25, wrote the government will return almost $418,000 to claimant Lu Li, of Chicago, and will keep almost $209,000. Garrison spokesman Don Ledford wrote in an emailed response he was unable to respond to questions about the case asking why the money was returned and why charges were not pursued. He did say that settlement agreements are fairly common in civil asset forfeiture cases.
“We’re not able to respond to most of your questions due to Department of Justice policy that restricts commenting upon investigations unless or until charges are filed and the fact that there is a settlement agreement and we don’t want to violate the terms or spirit of that agreement by commenting outside the bounds of what was agreed upon by all parties,” Ledford wrote.
To date, no criminal charges have been filed against Li or the two men transporting the money, Zhimin Peng and Ting Wei Huang. Li argued the seizure was a civil rights violation, as the men were taking the cash to California to purchase a house.
Read the entire article here at: columbiatribune.com
(5/6/19 -- Reason)
North Dakota Makes it Harder for Police to Take Property Without a Conviction
Big forfeiture reforms are coming to North Dakota, a state notorious for allowing police to seize and keep people's property without actually convicted them of a crime. Last week the state's Republican governor, Doug Burgum, signed House Bill 1286, which seriously curtails law enforcement agencies' ability to arrest somebody, take his or her property, and attempt to keep what they've seized for themselves even when they cannot prove an underlying crime.
We're talking about the controversial (and arguably unconstitutional) practice of civil asset forfeiture. Promoted as a way to fight drugs by seizing the assets of wealthy kingpins, it has instead grown into a massively corrupt mechanism where police agencies pull people over or raid their houses on whatever pretext the cops can muster. If they find people carrying large amounts of cash, for example, they seize it and attempt to claim the money must be related to the drug trade so that they can keep the cash for themselves. It gets its name because it's a "civil" as opposed to a "criminal" proceeding—so the evidentiary threshold to successfully take somebody's property is lower than what's required to get a conviction, and so people have to pay for their own attorneys to fight the process.
North Dakota's rules were particularly bad for the citizens. It's one of only two states to get an F grade in the Institute for Justice's "Policing for Profit" state-by-state analysis. (Massachusetts is the other.) Prior to HB 1286, police only needed to meet the threshold of probable cause (the level of evidence needed to get a search warrant) to attempt to force forfeiture of property. Individual law enforcement agencies also got to keep 100 percent of what they took as long as they kept their forfeiture fund under $200,000—though it's not clear how North Dakotans would even know the status of those funds, since the state had no forfeiture tracking or reporting requirements. The Institute for Justice doesn't even have numbers for how much money North Dakota police have taken in from asset forfeiture, except in cases where police have partnered with the federal Department of Justice.
Thanks to the bill signed last week, police will now have to get a conviction before they can try to force most people to forfeit their assets. There are exemptions in cases where the defendant is dead, has been deported, has disappeared, or has abandoned the property. It also allows an exception if police and prosecutors can provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the assets they want to seize were directly connected to a crime. That's relevant because in asset forfeiture cases, the things to be seized are actually the subject of the legal case, not the people accused of crimes.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(5/5/19 -- Alabama.Com)
Federal lawsuit claims Alabama’s civil asset forfeitures are unconstitutional
Lena Sutton was separated from her spouse and staying with a friend on the night of Feb. 20, 2018, when her car was seized during a drug trafficking arrest in Leesburg. Sutton, however, wasn’t inside the car and was unaware it would be used in connection with drug activity. To date, she hasn’t been arrested nor charged with a crime. But her car has yet to be returned. Sutton’s story is now being highlighted in a federal class-action lawsuit – believed to be the first of its kind in Alabama -- that questions the constitutionality of Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture system.
“We believe it’s unconstitutional at a minimum of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments,” said Allen Armstrong, a Birmingham-based based attorney representing Sutton in the case filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The case seeks injunctive relief for Sutton and anyone else who has faced a similar situation. According to the lawsuit, the number of potential plaintiffs is “at least hundreds.” The lawsuit names Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall as the defendant. His office declined comment Friday. The lawsuit challenges state law that allows civil courts to determine if an agency involved in the seizure can keep the property. The determination can be made even if a person, such as Sutton, is not convicted of a crime or even arrested.
Read the entire article here at: al.com
(5/5/19 -- Lancaster.Com)
Cash grab: As asset forfeiture quietly expands across PA, abuses follow
Berks County narcotics detectives were ready to pounce. From a distance, they spied Jose Veloz and Ambioris Cruz sitting in a 2005 Nissan Murano on a leafy residential block in Reading. The SUV was stashed with bags of heroin and about $5,000 in cash. Veloz and Cruz thought they were about to pull off a lucrative drug deal, but police were one step ahead. They had flipped one of the pair’s associates against them. It was a setup.
In a flash, detectives rushed the pair and made arrests — seizing the cash, the drugs and the SUV. It was a nice haul for the Berks County District Attorney’s Office. The property could be confiscated using a legal procedure known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to take money, cars and other assets of those suspected of selling drugs — even before a person is charged or found guilty. Proceeds are liquidated and used at the whim of law enforcement outside of county budget oversight. Criminal justice advocates have long criticized the practice.
But to officials in Berks County, which a Keystone Crossroads investigation found to be a statewide leader in civil forfeiture, it’s a common-sense solution. In this case, the $5,000 and the Nissan Murano were just another easy prize: a way to keep taxpayers off the hook while using property of suspected drug dealers to fund more drug investigations. But there was a problem.
The car was registered to Ambioris Cruz’s now-estranged spouse, Daisilee Cruz. An honor student enrolled at the University of Saint Joseph’s in Hartford, Connecticut, she was 240 miles away at the time of the bust. She had nothing to do with her ex’s drug operation. She was never charged with a crime. And she wanted her SUV back. This was 2016.
Veloz and Ambioris Cruz pleaded guilty and took multiyear prison sentences over the heroin bust. But Daisilee Cruz, who had no right to legal counsel in a civil forfeiture case, was effectively helpless. She notified the district attorney about her situation, but, by early 2019, she wasn’t any closer to retrieving her vehicle. Contacted recently, she said she moved on. “I’ve given up on trying to get it back,” Cruz said.
Read the entire article here at: lancasteronline.com
(5/4/19 -- Fredericksburg.Com)
Will Supreme Court ruling curb pre-conviction civil asset forfeiture?
No: Decision won’t have much impact
TIMBS v. Indiana has received a lot of attention because it deals with a controversial subject—civil asset forfeitures. But as a practical matter, this case is unlikely to have much of an impact. That’s because what this case now requires under the U.S. Constitution has long since been required under state constitutions. In Timbs, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to states and local governments. This ruling is unsurprising given that the Supreme Court has “incorporated” almost all of the Bill of Rights against states and local governments since the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.
The Supreme Court’s opinion explains why this case doesn’t change much. All 50 state constitutions have excessive fines clauses that apply to states and local governments—some for centuries. It is possible that some of these state constitutional provisions have been interpreted differently than the federal provision. But there is so little federal case law on what is an excessive fine that it is unlikely most interpretations of state constitutions contradict the scant federal case law. If the Supreme Court had ruled that the fine in this case was (or even wasn’t) excessive, that would have been a much bigger deal. Remarkably, in only one case has the Supreme Court ever considered whether a fine was excessive.
Read the entire article here at: fredericksburg.com
(5/3/19 -- Capital Research Center)
Chicago’s Crazy Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
A controversial Chicago program is challenged in court for violating property rights.
Watch the entire episode here at: capitalresearch.org
(5/3/19 -- Big Island Now)
Bill Would Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Program
The Hawai‘i State Legislature has sent HB748 HD2 SD2—a bill that would significantly reform the state’s civil asset forfeiture program—to Gov. Ige for his signature. The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai‘i (ACLU of Hawai‘i) and Drug Policy Forum of Hawai‘i (DPFH), both of which supported HB748, have long championed policies to end the use of forfeiture, which is a relic of the failed War on Drugs.
Although HB748 doesn’t stop law enforcement from initially seizing property, it will require a felony conviction before property is forfeited to the government. Moreover, it will dilute the “policing for profit” incentive for law enforcement by directing proceeds to the state’s general fund instead of earmarking funds back to the police and prosecutors.
As the Hawai‘i State Auditor’s bombshell audit revealed in 2018, in 26% of civil asset forfeiture cases no charges were even filed, let alone any conviction obtained. This underscored the legal absurdity of asset forfeiture: the owners were innocent, but the property somehow remained guilty. From 2006-2015, the average value of a vehicle forfeiture was $2,200 and $4,100. Such modest numbers indicate that asset forfeiture is used against average community members rather than drug kingpins. Finally, 85% of individuals whose property was seized did not even try to get it back. This is because people who do file a suit get stuck with costs for court bonds, attorney fees and missed days of work—and even after all that, they still might not win their property back.
Read the entire article here at: bigislandnow.com
(5/2/19 -- Bismarck Tribune)
Gov. Burgum signs bill reforming forfeiture in North Dakota
Gov. Doug Burgum on Thursday signed the last 53 bills remaining from the 2019 North Dakota legislative session, including one reforming civil asset forfeiture. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, brought the original bill to eliminate the "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit." Civil asset forfeiture applies to property involved in crime. The bill evolved greatly over lawmakers' 76-day session, which ended April 26, with extensive work from the House Judiciary Committee before its smoother Senate passage.
A number of components came into the reform, including raising the evidentiary standard for forfeiture from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. The bill requires reporting from courts, prosecutors and the attorney general and allows interjurisdictional prosecution and for city and county commissions to oversee a fund of forfeiture proceeds. There is also a proportionality test to not forfeit property worth in excess of a criminal penalty, as addressed in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion handed down as the bill first passed the House in February.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(5/1/19 -- ABC 6 News)
Proposed Bill Affects Drug Seizures
A proposed law (HF1971/SF2155 ) is asking for possible changes for the way property is seized by law enforcement. The changes are aimed to prevent abuse of power when it comes to items that law enforcement deem as guilty evidence during drug busts, however, some local agencies say it would hurt their operation or could force the drug task force in southeast Minnesota to fold completely.
On Wednesday, Sheriff Rodney Bartsh lied through his teeth on the effects the proposed bill would have. Sheriff Bartsh is the chairman for the SE Minnesota Drug Task Force. He broke down on how the operation currently runs and lied about what what would happen if the bill were to pass.
Watch the entire fiasco here at: kaaltv.com
(5/1/19 -- Chicago Sun-Times)
Chicago’s ‘impound racket’ is ‘unconstitutional,’ lawsuit says
Spencer Byrd’s 1996 Cadillac DeVille meant a lot to the 51-year-old carpenter and part-time mechanic. Byrd, who lives in Harvey, kept most of his tools in the trunk and would travel to help people with car troubles to earn extra cash. In June 2016, Byrd came to Chicago to help a client whose car had broken down. After failing to get the car up and running, Byrd agreed to drop his client off at home. On his way there, Chicago police officers pulled Byrd over for having a broken turn signal. Police searched both men and found that Byrd’s client had heroin in his pocket. Byrd was released without being charged — but police kept his car. Nearly three years and several court hearings later, Byrd’s still fighting to get it back. He owes the city more than $17,000 in storage and tow fees.
“It’s been a rough road these past three years,” said Byrd, who, with others, filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court Monday that seeks to upend Chicago’s controversial impound system. The suit — which was also filed by two other car owners and the Institute for Justice, a national civil liberties law firm — seeks to end the city’s “impound racket,” return all impounded cars to their owners, and have the city reimburse owners whose cars were scrapped or sold while impounded.
“Chicago imposes harsh penalties on owners of impounded vehicles, even if they did not know that someone used their car to break the law. Moreover, Chicago holds all impounded cars as ransom until an owner pays all fines and fees,” said Diana Simpson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. “This unjust process violates both the Illinois Constitution and the United States Constitution.”
Chicago initiated more than 22,000 impoundment cases in 2017, with associated fines and fees topping $28 million, according to an analysis by WBEZ that is cited in the suit. Most of these cases involved police stopping someone for driving with a suspended or revoked license. After the city impounds a car, the owner must request an administrative hearing downtown within 15 days. If he or she doesn’t, they are responsible for all accruing fines and penalties.
Read the entire article here at: chicago.suntimes.com
(5/1/19 -- The Daily News)
Changes in state forfeiture law long past due
Although some in the law enforcement community might take issue, we believe legislation that’s headed to the desk of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer making fundamental changes in Michigan’s forfeiture law is not only appropriate but long past due. Under the bill, which enjoyed rare bi-partisan support, police would be prohibited from permanently seizing property and cash taken in drug cases unless specific circumstances are met.
The Associated Press reported the legislation would prohibit assets taken in suspected drug crimes from being forfeited unless the defendant is convicted or the value of the money and property is more than $50,000, excluding the value of contraband. A conviction or guilty plea would not be required in instances where no one claims an interest in the property, the owner allows the forfeiture, or a defendant has been charged but cannot be located or extradited back to Michigan, stated AP. Whitmer has pledged to sign the bill into law.
Read the entire article here at: ironmountaindailynews.com
(4/30/19 -- WRAL)
When it wants to, our government can behave like a thug.
That's not to say the people who work for the government are thugs, but the sheer size of government can cast a long, imposing shadow over the individual in regulatory matters and when it comes to criminal justice. In that latter model, it all seems good as long as we can easily assume the targeted individual is guilty, but one of the great things about this country is the protection it affords every American to keep an all-too-powerful government from running roughshod over the individual.
But that's not the way it's worked when it comes to asset forfeitures. That is, when the government wants to take property away from people as a form of punishment, even people who haven't been convicted of a crime. Most people will lose little sleep about a drug dealer who loses a shiny sports car that he used to conduct his illicit business. We suspect most people would also assume the government wouldn't be able to take that sports car until it proves a criminal case against the alleged drug dealer. That assumption would be wrong.
Read the entire article here at: wral.com
(4/29/19 -- QNS)
Lasak would use asset forfeiture money to fund youth camps if elected Queens DA
With less than two months to go in the seven-candidate race for District Attorney, retired Judge Greg Lasak released his innovative plan to redirect asset forfeiture money directly into the community by using it to fund one weeklong summer camp for youth in each of the 18 Queens Assembly districts. The camps would be led by the Community DAs that Lasak plans to hire for each district to help diversify perspective in the office.
Lasak explained he would use funds seized from criminals to fund the camps that would help build relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve by having various agencies to participate and work with the children. The various benevolent associations in the city would be asked to sponsor sporting events at the camps. The District Attorney’s office would sponsor an educational mock trial program and other city agencies would be asked to participate as well. “Asset forfeiture money should always go back into the community to help build up programs that benefit our residents,” Lasak said. “What better way to do that than to fund a youth summer camp that kids can enjoy during the summer. Aside from being enjoyable, the camps will help strengthen relationships between law enforcement and the communities we serve, building trust and understanding and allowing our children to learn more about the system along the way.”
Read the entire article here at: qns.com
(4/29/19 -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Closing civil forfeiture loophole would enable law enforcement to build public trust
I joined the Winfield police force to assist victims of sexual assault by helping develop the first sex crimes unit in Lincoln County. I’m proud of what my department accomplished, but one issue that impedes our efforts and the efforts of police departments across the United States is the practice of civil forfeiture. Missouri legislators now have the opportunity to fix this damaging policy, which allows police to seize property and assets from people without necessarily having to charge them with a crime.
On the surface, Missouri may appear to have excellent civil forfeiture laws. In 2001, our Legislature amended the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act, supposedly eliminating pressure for law enforcement to seize property to help fund their departments. Now, 100 percent of proceeds from cash and property forfeitures that result in convictions must be allocated for public school funding. But that’s not happening.
There is a loophole: To avoid this state law, police can cooperate with federal prosecutors to seize assets under federal law. The Federal Equitable Sharing program allows 80 percent of the proceeds to be funneled directly back to the agency that seized it. Missouri agencies received $126.7 million in federal equitable sharing proceeds between 2000 and 2013 — more than $9 million per year, according to the Institute for Justice.
Read the entire article here at: stltoday.com
(4/29/19 -- The Sentinel-Record)
Prosecutor responds to new asset forfeiture law
The Garland County prosecutor's office and the trust holding a security interest in Royal property the prosecutor's office seized and auctioned off are at odds over the disposition of the sale proceeds. The controversy involving the $165,000 from the December sale of 14 acres on Ragweed Valley Road the prosecutor's office has said was linked to a substantial marijuana cultivation enterprise is playing out against the recent passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019.
The new law requires the person from whom property is seized be convicted of a felony related to the seizure before a forfeiture claim is granted. Courts can waive the requirement for numerous circumstances, including if the owner failed to file a timely response to the forfeiture claim or agreed in writing to their property being expropriated without an accompanying criminal conviction. Many of the forfeitures granted to the prosecutor's office result from default judgments, with owners failing to respond to civil complaints within the allotted time. Some are granted as part of plea agreements or other arrangements.
"This office will always act in accordance with the laws of both the state of Arkansas and the United States of America," Prosecuting Attorney Michelle Lawrence said in a memo she sent in response to a request for comment. "We follow all criteria as set forth by both government entities in regard to civil forfeiture matters. If the laws change, we will then, most certainly, follow the laws as amended."
A November 2016 agreement allowed Don and Silvia Martin, owners of more than 30 acres on Ragweed Valley Road, to avoid prosecution by deeding the property to the prosecutor's office.
Read the entire article here at: hotsr.com
(4/27/19 -- Liberal First)
Biden 3.0 has to recant past positions
As Joe Biden launches his third bid for president (the others were in 1988 and 2008), he will run into a collection of his old positions and commitments out of which he will have to wriggle.
A sponsor of the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act that expanded civil forfeiture, he bragged that “we changed the law so that if you are arrested, and you are a drug dealer, under our forfeiture statutes, the government can take everything you own.”
Most candidates have the luxury of laying out a broad agenda of positive proposals to animate their candidacies. But Biden must open his campaign with a series of retractions and recantations to avoid being skewered in his opponents’ negative ads.
Read the entire article here at: liberalfirst.com
(4/25/19 -- Bridge)
Michigan civil asset forfeiture bills headed to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
Police may soon need a criminal conviction before they can keep most assets taken while investigating a suspected crime. House and Senate bills that would restrict a process known as civil asset forfeiture passed out of the Legislature Thursday on nearly-unanimous votes.
Proponents of the legislation say it’s an important step to protect constitutional rights, and that the current system is ripe for abuse by cash-strapped law enforcement agencies. Opponents, primarily police organizations, argue civil asset forfeiture discourages crime by dissuading drug dealers. “It’s important that we secure the constitutional rights that the people of this state have and deserve,” said Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield. “This chamber has been debating those bills for the last 20 years and I couldn't be more proud of the House chamber for stepping up and delivering real results to people in our state.”
The bills now go to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has indicated she is likely to sign it: “The Administration believes that this legislation is good bipartisan policy,” said spokeswoman Tiffany Brown via email.
Read the entire article here at: bridgemi.com
(4/25/19 -- Filter)
Joe Biden: Another Drug War Champion Enters the 2020 Ring
On April 25, Joe Biden announced his long-anticipated bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination. He has polled as favorite and, like many candidates, is positioning himself as the antithesis to President Donald Trump, vowing in his launch announcement to fight “everything Trump embraces.” Yet from rhetoric to straightforward policy, Biden’s approach to drugs has plenty in common with that of his supposed nemesis. Just as Trump pushes the draconian fantasy of a “drug-free America,” Biden’s long record suggests that he, too, dreams of the total elimination of drug use, despite the human rights consequences.
In a 1989 response to then-President George H. W. Bush, Biden asserted, “If there are no drug users, there will be no appetite for drugs, and there will be no market for them.” If Obama’s vice president is going to live up to his commitment to stand apart from Trump, he has a major transformation to undergo, given his consistent espousal of the War on Drugs, from the crack era through the growth of the harm reduction movement. Just like Trump, Biden has advocated for harsher punishments for people who use and sell drugs. (As we know, they are often the same people, given that many sell to support their own use.) Biden backed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, one of the most glaring examples of different drug-war approaches to white and black people. It made the quantity required for a mandatory minimum sentence for crack—a drug perceived to be used by black Americans—100 times less than that needed for powder, which was commonly associated with white people. This disparity further fueled the disproportionate mass incarceration of black Americans.
Read the entire article here at: filtermag.org
(4/25/19 -- Michigan Radio)
Police urge Gov. Whitmer to veto civil asset forfeiture bills
Some members of law enforcement hope Governor Gretchen Whitmer vetoes legislation headed for her desk. The Legislature passed bills to change the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws on Thursday. The bills would require a criminal conviction before law enforcement can keep a person’s property worth less than $50,000. Law enforcement only needs probable cause in order to take it.
Bob Stevenson is the executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. He says there are times when police will find money and some evidence of drug dealing – but no drugs. Stevenson says that’s not enough for a conviction, but the money was clearly proceeds from drug activity. “We’re going back to the bad old days of the 80’s. The reason that criminal forfeiture and asset forfeiture came about was to try to take the profit out of drug dealing and we’re putting it right back in again,” he lied.
Senator Peter Lucido (R-Shelby Township) is a bill sponsor. He’s been working on these changes since he was first a representative in 2015. “That was my number one bill I entered when I came up to this place. I saw the injustices done, I want to fix it, and I also said it’s time for making a change,” he says.
(4/24/19 -- The Island Packet)
The Press-Enterprise on authorities' reaction to a California law that limited civil asset forfeiture
When the Legislature debated a bill to restrict California law enforcement agencies' ability to seize houses, cars and cash they say may be "linked to crimes," police and prosecutors complained that its passage would cost them millions of dollars that they depend upon to fund various programs. A new analysis by the Southern California News Group has found that Senate Bill 443, which went into effect in 2017, has indeed slashed the money California agencies receive from "equitable sharing" — a civil-asset-forfeiture program whereby state and federal law enforcement split the proceeds of any private assets they take. With the data in, police are complaining again about the financial hit, but the drop in revenue is good news for Californians. There's nothing "equitable" about a program by which the government seizes property without first convicting its owners of a crime.
Asset forfeiture was created during the height of the 1980s War on Drugs to give cops a tool to attack the profit motive of drug kingpins. But then police agencies became addicted to the profits. Instead of targeting the likes of Pablo Escobar, they focused on easy marks. There is no due process, because the property, not its owners, is the target. So police don't need to gain a conviction and victims have to go through a long process to try to get their property back. That process is, quite frankly, un-American. Two former Justice Department officials who helped create asset forfeiture later argued that "the tactic has turned into an evil itself, with the corruption it engendered among government and law enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits." They called for the program to be abolished, but there are few things tougher than prying funds from the hands of government agencies.
Read the entire article here at: islandpacket.com
4/24/19 -- Detroit News)
House restricts drug forfeitures
House lawmakers Wednesday passed separate criminal justice reform legislation 107-3 that would put further strictures on Michigan's controversial drug forfeiture law. The civil asset forfeiture bill approved by the House would allow police to seize certain property in a drug investigation, but the property could not be permanently forfeited without a conviction or guilty plea. The measure needs Senate concurrence before it is sent to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s desk. Currently, officials can permanently seize items recovered during drug investigations even without a criminal conviction since the civil forfeiture procedure is separate and has a lower burden of proof than the criminal process. The legislation approved Wednesday includes exceptions to the conviction requirement if the value of the property exceeds $50,000, if the individual gives up the property, or if a defendant can’t be located or reasonably extradited for prosecution.
Michigan law enforcement agencies compiled more than $13.1 million in 6,662 cash and asset forfeitures in 2017. About 21% of the items stemmed from cases that did not result in a conviction and another 43% still had a conviction pending when the data was collected in 2018.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(4/24/19 -- WITF)
Cash grab: As asset forfeiture quietly expands across Pa., abuses follow
From a distance, they spied Jose Veloz and Ambioris Cruz sitting in a 2005 Nissan Murano on a leafy residential block on Spring Street in Reading, Pa. The SUV was stashed with bags of heroin and about $5,000 in cash. Veloz and Cruz thought they were about to pull off a lucrative drug deal, but police were one step ahead: Cops had flipped one of the pair's associates against them. It was a setup. In a flash, detectives rushed the pair and made arrests -- seizing the cash, the drugs and the SUV.
It was a nice haul for the Berks County District Attorney's Office. An open-and-shut drug case, the property could be confiscated using a legal procedure known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to take money, cars and other assets of those suspected of selling drugs -- even before a person is charged or found guilty. Proceeds are liquidated and used at the whim of law enforcement outside of county budget oversight. Criminal justice advocates have long criticized the practice. But to officials in Berks County, which a Keystone Crossroads' investigation found to be a statewide leader in civil forfeiture, it's a common-sense solution. In this case, the $5,000 and the Nissan Murano were just another easy prize: a way to keep taxpayers off the hook while using property of suspected drug dealers to fund more drug investigations.
But there was a problem. The car was registered to Ambioris Cruz's now-estranged spouse, Daisilee Cruz. An honor student enrolled at the University of Saint Joseph's in Hartford, Conn., she was 240 miles away at the time of the bust. She had nothing to do with her ex's drug operation. She was never charged with a crime. And she wanted her SUV back. This was 2016. Veloz and Ambioris Cruz pleaded guilty and took multi-year prison sentences over the heroin bust. But Daisilee Cruz, who had no right to legal counsel in a civil forfeiture case, was effectively helpless. She notified the DA about her situation, but, by early 2019, she wasn't any closer to retrieving her vehicle. Contacted recently, she said she moved on. "I've given up on trying to get it back," Cruz said.
The fact that civil forfeiture has increased in suburban and rural parts of Pennsylvania comes as little surprise to the nation's leading scholars on the subject. "Counties pressed for funds are going to increase civil forfeiture," said University of Pennsylvania Professor Louis Rulli. "DAs know that this is a very profitable funding stream." In Philadelphia, Rulli says a lesson was learned over the decades: When forfeiture is used as a cash cow, everything can look like drug money. Everything can look like a prize.
Read the entire article here at: witf.org
(4/24/19 -- Real Clear Politics)
It's Time to Reform Federal Forfeiture Law
Margaret Davis, elderly and bedridden, must have been alarmed when drug dealers fleeing the police broke into her home to hide their drugs. But she must have been horrified when she learned that Philadelphia prosecutors wanted to seize her home for their crime. Davis did nothing wrong, but Philadelphia spent 18 months trying to evict her. Davis’ case is shocking and appalling, but it is not is unique. Many cases have emerged recently in which the power to seize property allegedly tied to criminal activity — known as civil forfeiture — has been misused and abused to strip innocent Americans of their homes, cars, and life’s savings.
In the last five years, 30 states have acted to rein in civil forfeiture. Now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives want Congress to follow suit. They recently reintroduced the aptly named FAIR, or Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration, Act. The bill would overhaul federal civil forfeiture law and bring innocent property owners like Margaret Davis the due process protections they deserve.
Read the entire article here at: realclearpolitics.com
(4/23/19 -- Mondaq)
Lawmakers Reintroduce Companion STATES Act To Clarify Cannabis Treatment Under Federal Law
Late last week, a bipartisan team of lawmakers reintroduced the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (the "STATES Act") in the Senate and House of Representatives. The STATES Act would amend the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") to restrict federal enforcement against state-legal cannabis activity. In particular, the STATES Act would prevent the application of the CSA to persons complying with state law with respect to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration or delivery of cannabis. Additionally, the STATES Act would prevent forfeiture of any assets derived from state-legal cannabis businesses, and would also exempt funds derived from state-legal cannabis businesses from the definition of "specified proceeds of illegal activity" under the money-laundering laws.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said "Our federal marijuana laws are outdated and pose a threat to our public health and safety. Marijuana should be legalized, and we must reverse the harm of these failed policies by wiping clean the records of those unjustly jailed for minor marijuana crimes." Representative David Joyce (R-OH), a co-sponsor of the bill in the House, said that "[t]he current federal policy interferes with the ability of states to implement their own cannabis laws, and the resulting system has stifled important medical research, hurt legitimate businesses and diverted critical law enforcement resources needed elsewhere." The STATES Act was first introduced in Congress in 2018.
Read the entire article here at: mondaq.com
(4/21/19 -- Common Wealth)
Proposal nudges sheriffs into civil asset forfeiture
THE BAKER ADMINISTRATION and House leaders seem intent on giving the state’s sheriffs a more formal role in accessing civil asset forfeiture money – the controversial bounty that law enforcement officials take from suspected criminals. State law calls for forfeiture funds to be split evenly between police and prosecutors, but occasionally some of the funds have been shared with at least one sheriff. The budgets proposed by Gov. Charlie Baker and House leaders contain a provision that would set up trusts to collect those funds. Baker officials portray the budget provision as an accounting change, but some are wary of what it might portend.
Rep. Antonio Cabral, a New Bedford Democrat who thinks that some of the forfeiture funds should go towards substance abuse treatment, said sheriffs should not be taking part in the system at all and filed an amendment to eliminate the budget provision. “They’re not involved in any of that, so why would we need to amend that section of the law to include sheriffs?” Cabral asked ahead of the House budget deliberations that begin today. The primary responsibility of sheriffs is to oversee jails and houses of correction, but they can also play a role in other law enforcement activities.
Read the entire article here at: commonwealthmagazine.org
(4/21/19 -- The Mercury News)
Police agencies forfeit millions after new law chokes off funds from asset seizures
Jewels worth $7.2 million were seized in Los Angeles. Fine art worth $4.1 million was seized in Signal Hill. U.S. currency totaling $30.8 million was seized in Beverly Hills. Federal law enforcement operations seized nearly $1.9 billion worth of airplanes, houses, cash, jewelry, cars and other items from suspected wrongdoers nationwide in 2018 — a precipitous drop from $2.6 billion just three years earlier, according to federal data.
Local agencies have lost millions of dollars. For example, LA IMPACT — the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force — saw equitable-sharing revenue shrink from $6.9 million to $3.7 million from 2015 to 2018. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department share dropped from from $5.3 million to $3.7 million; San Bernardino agencies went from $2.9 million to $258,996; Riverside agencies dipped from $2.1 million to $1.2 million; and in Orange County, the Santa Ana and Anaheim police departments went from $4.2 million to $1.7 million.
Read the entire article here at: mercurynews.com
(4/21/19 -- Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette)
Officials agree Arkansas' forfeiture law is unfair
A new law intended to allow more people to get their seized property back from the government contains too many loopholes to be effective, critics say. And the new legislation, which takes effect later this year, does nothing to address what defense lawyers call the biggest flaw in the civil forfeiture system: Defendants are required to hire lawyers, appear in court and prove their innocence to get property back, the opposite of the burden of proof required in criminal cases.
Players on both sides agreed Arkansas' forfeiture law is unfair, sometimes causing people arrested for drug crimes but never convicted to lose their property to the state anyway. While the new law is intended to require a conviction before property is forfeited, it may not turn out that way. It often costs more to get the property back than it's worth, lawyers said. So the owner, who is also facing a criminal charge, doesn't show up in court for civil forfeiture cases. The property is automatically forfeited in a default judgment, according to Sara Swearengin, a deputy prosecutor who handles forfeitures in Washington County.
Read the entire article here at: nwaonline.com
(4/19/19 -- Michigan Radio)
Criminal justice system changes continue to move through state Legislature
Lawmakers at the state Capitol have made changing the state’s criminal justice system a priority this session. Two packages of bills are close to the governor’s desk – with crucial votes taking place earlier this week. One bill package would change the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws. Representative David LaGrand (D-Grand Rapids) is a sponsor of the legislation. He says it’s aimed at preventing police from taking small amounts of property without a high level of evidence.
Read the entire article here at: michiganradio.org
(4/19/19 -- My Horry News)
When cops seize assets, your rights are violated
The Greenville News and Anderson Independent Mail recently published an investigative series of stories about civil forfeiture that has created shock waves in Columbia. South Carolina’s antiquated civil forfeiture laws give law enforcement the ability to seize cash, cars, jewelry and almost anything of value that they think might be connected to criminal activity. When this occurs, the presumption of innocence gets tossed out the window and it becomes the responsibility of citizens to prove their innocence in order to recover their property.
Horry County legislators Rep. Alan Clemmons along with Rep. Russell Fry, recently sponsored legislation in the S.C. General Assembly to make major revisions to the state’s civil forfeiture laws. The state would still be able to confiscate property, but only after a suspect is found guilty.
Law enforcement agencies throughout South Carolina cried foul after hearing about the proposed legislation. They contend the ability to sieze property and keep it helps fund efforts to combat drug trafficking.
I really liked the bill sponsored by Clemmons and Fry and was hoping that it would become law. However, after a backlash from law enforcement, it’s gotten hung up in the legislature. Recently, it underwent a number of revisions that weaken the bill considerably.
Read the entire article here at: myhorrynews.com
(4/18/19 -- The Mercury News)
The $60,000 wager between a Bay Area pimp and the prosecutor who put him in prison
James Vernon Joseph Jr. wanted his stuff back. Sure, he’d been convicted and sentenced to life in one of the biggest human trafficking cases in Contra Costa County’s history, but the cops were still holding onto about $60,000 in cars and luxury items Joseph considered his. County prosecutors wanted to sell the items — consisting of jewelry, Louis Vuitton accessories, fancy shoes, a Range Rover and two Mercedes Benz sedans — and use the money to fund law enforcement activities, in a civil process called asset forfeiture.
But Joseph was so intent that they remain in his possession, he became his own attorney and vowed to fight, even securing a trip from state prison back to county jail so he could appear in court. But later that day, DeFerrari and Joseph met at the Martinez Detention Facility face to face, set aside their differences and came up with a gentleman’s agreement, or something like that. The document, which they both signed, says that law enforcement will sell the stuff and keep the money in a bank account.
Read the entire article here at: mercurynews.com
(4/17/19 -- Click On Detroit)
Spreadsheet shows how Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith spent forfeiture funds
A spreadsheet from the Macomb County Finance Department shows how forfeiture funds were spent. Prosecutor Eric Smith is under investigation for how he handled the funds, which are supposed to be used for specific police and law enforcement activities.
According to the spreadsheet that covers how the money was spent from 2014 to 2018, Smith spent a considerable amount of money on local police departments and the sheriff's department, but there were other purchases made that weren't obvious police activities.
Nearly $2,000 was spent on two refrigerators and equipment, while nearly $20,000 worth of checks were written to AT&T and another $8,000 went to DIRECTV. More than $10,000 worth of checks were also written to Culligan and Purified Water to Go. More than $7,000 was also spent on retirement and Christmas parties at Fern Hill Country Club. The spreadsheet shows that $83,514 was spent with American Express. Many of those charges were made with Smith's secretary's Amex card. The secretary's name, Lori Addelia, appears on more than 100 checks totaling $63,020. Addelia reportedly would used her own card for purchases and Smith would reimburse her from forfeiture accounts. The notations on the checks say they were reimbursements for supplies, lunches and equipment.
(4/17/19 -- The Daily Signal)
A Promising Proposal to Stop Wrongful Seizure of Assets
One day in 2012, the IRS turned Randy Sowers’ life upside down when agents seized his entire bank account—$63,000 in hard-earned money. Now, Congress is advancing legislation that would end the practice that made that travesty possible.
Sowers was not, after all, a tax evader, criminal conspirator, or money launderer. He is a hard-working Maryland dairy farmer. But the IRS decided to take his money anyway, citing “structuring” laws designed to stop criminals from evading financial reporting requirements. Merely to end the matter, Sowers eventually agreed to forfeit $29,500 to the IRS in a settlement that bordered on extortion. These so-called legal source structuring cases are permitted because federal law requires banks to report financial transactions that exceed $10,000 in value, and separately makes it a crime to “structure” deposits or withdrawals to avoid that threshold and the reporting requirements it triggers.
If the agency believes that an individual has structured payments—even if the funds themselves are not illegally earned—it can seize and seek forfeiture of his entire bank account. According to the Institute for Justice, the agency used that power to pursue legal-source structuring cases with alarming frequency. Between 2005 and 2012, the IRS seized some $242 million in more than 2,500 cases. Fully one-third of these civil cases involved only allegations of structuring—no other wrongdoing was alleged.
That initial report was backed up in 2017 by a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration audit of a sampling of IRS structuring cases. The inspector general found no evidence of underlying crimes in 91% of the sample structuring cases it reviewed, and noted that IRS investigators often ignored business owners’ reasonable explanations for their withdrawals and deposits.
Read the entire article here at: dailysignal.com
(4/17/19 -- Detroit Metro Times)
State police raid Macomb County Prosecutor's Office over suspicious spending
Michigan State Police are raided Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith’s office in Mt. Clemens after he was accused of misspending asset forfeiture funds. Attorney General Dana Nessel launched an investigation into Smith’s use of forfeiture funds earlier this year after several county officials questioned whether some of the spending violated state forfeiture laws. State law requires prosecutors to use forfeiture funds for law enforcement purposes.
But Smith used some of the funds — which are collected from repeat drunk drivers and convicted drug dealers — on office furniture, a country club, credit card bills, cell phones, DIRECTV, and Christmas parties. Smith has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and said all of the spending was lawful. The Macomb County Board of Commissioners approved a forensic audit of the expenditures in February.
(4/16/19 -- Rocket City News)
Controversy boils over asset forfeiture bill
Controversy stirs as a bill on asset forfeiture goes to the state senate. Even if you haven't been convicted of a crime, police can keep your property. Senator Arthur Orr from Decatur wants to change that. Advocates for the bill say the criminal justice system takes advantage of people the way the law is now. On the other hand county district attorneys say the types of cases this bill would deal with may not be what you think (although, of course, it is).
The Alabama bill would stop law enforcement agencies from seizing your property if you haven't been convicted of a crime. The way it works now, police can keep what's yours with a civil court order even if you're found innocent. Advocates of the bill, like Alabama Arise, believe reform is needed. "We see the overarching atmosphere as being heavily employed against people who are in poverty, people who can't afford to fight back, and it gets people who are members of racial minority groups," said Dev Wakeley, policy analyst with Alabama Arise.
Read the entire article here at: rocketcitynow.com
(4/16/19 -- Clarion Ledger)
Civil forfeiture: Fighting socialism in Mississippi and throughout the Deep South
What does present-day Venezuela have in common with Mississippi in 2014? Both empowered the government to take private property without the benefit of a court proceeding. Until late 2018, Mississippi practiced administrative forfeiture, a policy in which the state could take property worth up to $20,000 if government lawyers merely suspected it was connected to illegal drugs. If the owner failed to retain a lawyer and file suit within a month, the property was automatically forfeited. No trial was necessary. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt was needed — suspicion was enough. About half of seized property was worth less than $1,000. Few victims could afford to fight back for what was rightly theirs.
As conservatives, we support law enforcement. But not when it empowers government bureaucrats to seize property without a criminal conviction. Less than a year after the state’s most egregious forfeiture practices were eliminated, a vocal minority attempted to reinstate the retired policy. Policy-makers in Jackson should be commended not for what they did in this last legislative session but for what they didn't do. They listened to the concerns of their constituents and refused to bring administrative forfeiture back to life.
Mississippi’s asset forfeiture regime was an affront to the founding fathers’ belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It fed a bloated bureaucracy while disrupting ordinary Mississippians’ efforts to work their way into better lives.
Read the entire article here at: clarionledger.com
(4/16/19 -- Greenville News)
Here’s why civil forfeiture reforms are stalled, even though ‘everyone wants’ it
While a bill that would provide accountability to the public for law enforcement’s use of civil asset forfeiture has passed the state House of Representatives and been introduced into the Senate, a comprehensive bill to bring sweeping reform to the practice has stalled more than likely for the year. The reform bill was prompted by TAKEN, an investigation by The Greenville News and Independent Mail that found law-enforcement agencies statewide collected more than $17 million over three years using state laws that allow police to take money and property without requiring a conviction or even an arrest.
The TAKEN investigation revealed that law enforcement had used forfeiture more than 3,200 times in three years in South Carolina, seizing more than $17 million from people in addition to cars, televisions and even houses. In nearly 800 cases no criminal charges were filed, and in nearly 800 cases where a criminal charge was filed, there was no conviction. In the wake of TAKEN, legislators eager to change the law quickly didn’t realize the issues that trying to fold the civil forfeiture reform into existing law would create, Clemmons said. There were disconnects that weren’t caught in initial reviews by legal staff and research across the breadth of state law impacts that would have created more issues if changed as stated in the bill, he said.
Rep. Gary Clary, R-Clemson, a retired circuit judge who co-sponsored reform legislation and spoke of the need for reform at a Statehouse press conference in February, will lead the study committee tasked with developing a bill that will work for South Carolina. “To a person, I think everyone wants to reform civil asset forfeiture,” Clary said.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(4/15/19 -- AL.Com)
BIll would change civil asset forfeiture’s predatory practices by law officers
This year, Alabama lawmakers have an opportunity to end this harmful practice. SB191, which passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 3, would strengthen due process and property rights in Alabama by requiring the state to use the criminal process to forfeit property. If it passes, the state in most instances could only keep assets taken from people convicted of crimes. SB191 would also protect the constitutional rights of people whose property was involved in criminal activity without their knowledge or permission. Under current law, a father whose son used his car to transport illegal drugs could lose the car, even if he had no idea it was being used for criminal purposes. SB191 would fix that. It would also create a robust tracking system requiring the government to show what was taken each year by state and local government agencies, and how those assets are used. And it would limit the state’s ability to move assets into federal civil asset forfeiture proceedings, which would otherwise serve as a backdoor way of avoiding constitutional protections for innocent property owners.
Read the entire article here at: al.com
(4/15/19 -- Pasadena Now)
Police Chief Will Detail How Department Spends Funds Received from Asset Seizures
Pasadena Police Chief John Perez will tell a City committee this week how Pasadena police spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past four years received as the Department’s share of asset forfeiture funds shared by federal agencies with local law enforcement.
Pasadena police have, over the past two years, spent some of their funds on lease payments for undercover vehicles, surveillance equipment, monthly charges for electronic surveillance, training munitions, and training for narcotics investigators and the K-9, Perez will tell the Public Safety Committee on Wednesday. Funds were also used to purchase operational equipment and tactical vests, a new narcotics dog, and weapons and related equipment. The Department also used the funds to pay for capital improvements.
This fiscal year’s collections jumped significantly to $788,089 from the $28,929 it collected from forfeitures in all of fiscal year 2018. In 2017, the Department received $154,165 from asset forfeitures.
Read the entire article here at: pasadenanow.com
(4/14/19 -- TimesDaily)
Bill would halt asset seizures without conviction
Legislation pending in the Alabama Senate would prohibit law enforcement agencies from seizing the assets of people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. “I think that’s how the public assumes it works — before the government takes people’s stuff there has to be a conviction or a plea,” said Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur. But that’s not always the case under Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture law.
Currently, police can seize property if they have reason to believe it was criminally gained. Even if there’s no conviction, law enforcement can keep the property with a civil court order. The property owner must prove his or her property wasn’t part of a crime — at his or her own expense. “The law was originally established to go after the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and those who were profiting from their criminal activities,” Orr said. “But it’s being used for low-level crimes for defendants who can’t afford a lawyer on the civil side (to get their property returned).” Orr’s Senate Bill 191 would require a conviction in order for seized property to be kept by law enforcement, and makes the seizure part of the criminal proceedings, not a separate civil action.
The Alabama District Attorneys Association is predictably opposed to the bill. “We believe the bill is flawed in many ways, including constitutionally,” Executive Director Barry Matson unsurprisingly claimed last week. He argues criminal proceedings should remain separate from civil asset seizure. "How can we steal stuff from innocent people if we have to convict them of a crime first?" he might well have added.
Read the entire article here at: timesdaily.com
(4/13/19 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Forfeiture reform moves forward in Carson City
There hasn’t been much for Republicans and Democrats to agree on during the 2019 legislative session. GOP lawmakers, relegated to the minority by Nevada voters following the November election, have been forced to play perpetual defense against a host of Democratic proposals. But at least one worthwhile measure that has so far survived in Carson City offers a rare opportunity for bipartisanship. Let’s hope legislative leaders in both parties seize the opportunity.
Friday was the deadline for bills to emerge out of committee or be shuttled off to the legislative boneyard. There are some exceptions, including for budget measures. One proposal that moved forward was Assembly Bill 420, which would reform the state’s civil forfeiture laws. It’s a long-overdue and important measure.
Nobody should lose their property to the state without first being convicted of a criminal offense. And that’s exactly what AB420 would ensure. The proposal provides that property is subject to forfeiture only if there is “(1) proof of a criminal conviction; (2) a plea agreement, or (3) an agreement by the parties.” It also places the burden on the state to prove that “the seized property is forfeitable by clear and convincing evidence” and ensures that property owners are entitled to a timely hearing if they contest the action.
Read the entire article here at: reviewjournal.com
(4/13/19 -- WND)
Fight brews as DA hides details about mass confiscations
Civil forfeiture is not a well-known process, even though the Supreme Court recently ruled against Indiana’s plan to confiscate a $40,000 Land Rover for a minor drug offense. The Institute for Justice announced it is teaming up with a newspaper in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to try to expose the government benefit. “Pennsylvanians deserve an opportunity to shed some light on civil forfeiture,” said IJ attorney Kirby West in an announcement about the campaign. “Law enforcement in Pennsylvania is allowed to take property, even when there are no criminal charges, and spend the proceeds on virtually anything they want. The Right to Know Law exists to hold government officials accountable.”
The group has begun working with reporter Carter Walker and the LNP Media Group to “fight the district attorney in court and bring this information into the light of day. The case could determine whether district attorneys across the commonwealth have to make information about their forfeiture proceeds available to the public.” The Lancaster County district attorney “uses civil forfeiture to take hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and other property each year.” “Under Pennsylvania law, he is able to spend the proceeds with few restrictions,” IJ said. But the relevant records are secret.
A formal request for civil forfeiture records by the reporter was rejected by the DA. When the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records concluded that the records were subject to the Commonwealth’s Right to Know Law, the DA went to court to keep them secret.
Read the entire article here at: wnd.com
(4/12/19 -- National League of Cities)
Why Timbs v. Indiana Won’t Have Much Impact
Timbs v. Indiana has received a lot of attention because it deals with a controversial subject—civil asset forfeitures. But as a practical matter this case is unlikely to have much of an impact. What this case now requires under the federal constitution has long since been required under state constitutions. In Timbs the Supreme Court held unanimously that the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause applies to states and local governments. This ruling is unsurprising given that the Supreme Court has “incorporated” almost all of the Bill of Rights against states and local governments since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868.
The Supreme Court’s opinion explains why this case doesn’t change much. All 50 states constitutions have excessive fines clauses which apply to states and local governments—some for centuries. It is possible that some of these state constitutional provisions have been interpreted differently than the federal provision. But there is so little federal case law on what is an excessive fine that it is unlikely most interpretations of state constitutions contradict the scant federal case law.
If the Supreme Court had ruled that the fine in this case was (or even wasn’t) excessive that would have been a much bigger deal. Remarkably, in only one case has the Supreme Court ever considered whether a fine was excessive. In United States v. Bajakajian Hosep Bajakajian failed to comply with federal law requiring him to report that he was leaving the United States with more than $10,000. The federal government sought to forfeit the entire amount: $357,144. The Supreme Court concluded the amount of the forfeiture was unconstitutionally excessive because it wasn’t proportional to the gravity of the offense. Bajakajian didn’t “fit into the class of persons for whom the statute was principally designed: He is not a money launderer, a drug trafficker, or a tax evader.” The maximum monetary penalty for his crime was $5,000. And as Justice Thomas pointed out: “[h]ad his crime gone undetected, the Government would have been deprived only of the information that $357,144 had left the country.”
Read the entire article here at: citiesspeak.org
(4/11/19 -- ABC27.Com)
National firm joins court battle for DA records
A national law firm is joining the fight to see how Lancaster County's district attorney is using drug forfeiture money. The Institute For Justice is providing its services free to LNP, Lancaster Online. The media group has been involved in a clash with the district attorney's office since filing a right-to-know request for the records. LNP says having the law firm on board should help them.
"Our missions in this particular case are aligned. We're both really interested in transparency here and getting the information to the taxpayers and citizens of Lancaster County and Pennsylvania," managing editor Tom Murse said. The district attorney's office on Thursday provided LNP with some of the records it was seeking. The office maintains some of the records cannot be released due to the drug forfeiture law.
(4/11/19 -- Mesquite Local News)
Bill would curb policing for profit
A bill being considered by lawmakers in Carson City would end the current practice by law enforcement of seizing property suspected of being used in a crime by using civil law, rather than criminal law, and keeping the proceeds of the seized property for themselves — pejoratively labeled policing for profit. Assembly Bill 200 would require all seizures to be handled in a criminal case and require proof of a criminal conviction or plea agreement. Also the property or proceeds from its sale would go to education, not the police agency that seized it.
In the past, several Nevada law enforcement agencies have seized cash suspected of being drug profits without even charging anyone with a crime. The state attorney general’s office reported that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, Nevada police agencies took in forfeitures totaling $4.9 million. During testimony explaining AB200 it was noted that many defendants whose property is seized are indigent and have appointed public defenders who are not allowed to work on the separate civil asset forfeiture cases, meaning the defendant cannot afford to legally fight for return of the property.
The Institute for Justice in a 2015 report called “Policing for Profit” gave Nevada a D- grade for its handling of asset forfeitures. IJ said this grade was due to “weak protections for innocent owners and a strong financial incentive to seize.” For example, an innocent party might be the owner of a vehicle driven during a crime by a relative. The incentive is that law enforcement agencies may retain up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds unless the value exceeds $100,000, then 70 percent must go to the local school district.
Read the entire article here at: mesquitelocalnews.com
(4/11/19 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
Justices hear probable cause questions in case of $60K seized cash
Questions of whether probable cause existed for law enforcement to seize more than $60,000 in cash from a FedEx package were heard before the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday, with an attorney for the state urging justices to overturn recent precedent to allow the seizure.
Justices heard oral argument in Michael Hodges v. State of Indiana, 19S-MI-117, in which more than $60,000 in cash was seized by an Indianapolis detective at a package shipping company after finding insufficient evidence to prove the money was involved in illegal activities. Due to the parcel’s appearance and his K-9’s reaction to the parcel’s odor, the detective inspecting the package suspected it was related to drug trafficking or money laundering. But upon finding no evidence of illegal activity and no allegation that Michael Hodges had been charged with any state or federal offenses in connection with the package, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the cash could not reasonably be suspected to be involved in drug trafficking or money laundering, therefore ordered its return.
Representing Hodges before the high court, Indianapolis attorney Matt Abels maintained that the there was insufficient evidence to support the three bases for the cash’s seizure — proceeds of bulk cash smuggling, money laundering and drug trafficking. “The trial court seemed to think that just a large amount of money in and of itself was evidence that it was bulk cash smuggling,” Abels contended. He argued that little to no evidence existed connecting the money as proceeds of criminal activity, as required for money laundering under Indiana statute, and that the package was sent in the same manner of thousands of parcels shipped across the country daily, separating it from the drug trafficking argument.
Read the entire article here at: theindianalawyer.com
(4/10/19 -- AL.Com)
Federal grant to help Alabama establish a civil asset forfeiture database
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey’s office announced Wednesday a $38,336 grant that will go toward establishing a statewide database to enable the tracking of property seized by police during arrests. The money, which is provided to the state from the U.S. Department of Justice, will go to the Alabama Justice Information Commission for the development of a civil asset forfeiture plan. The plan includes the development of a database.
“Our police and deputies work long and hard to enforce laws and keep our communities safe,” Ivey said in statement. “Establishing these regulations will ensure that seizures related to crimes are done above board and without question.”
Read the entire article here at: al.com
(4/8/19 -- TechDirt)
Former Police Chief Says Conviction Requirement For Forfeitures Makes It Too Hard To Take Cash From People
One of the worst defenses of civil asset forfeiture has been penned by retired police chief Robert Stevenson for the Michigan news site, the Bridge. It's written in response to two things: pending forfeiture reform bills in the state legislature and the Supreme Court's Timbs decision, which indicated forfeiture may fall on the wrong side of the 8th and 14th Amendments. Michigan definitely needs to overhaul its forfeiture laws. Law enforcement claims it's dismantling drug cartels, but a look at the state's forfeiture stats shows cops are just piling up low ball seizures to create a suitably impressive total. Cash seizures are routinely below $1,000. Vehicle seizures are also popular with Michigan cops, but the average value of vehicles taken from alleged drug dealers also falls below the $1,000 mark.
It's these tiny seizures -- the ones not worth fighting in court -- that the state legislature is trying to curb. It's hoping to implement a conviction requirement for any forfeiture under $50,000. Chief Stevenson says this would let the drug dealers win. But beyond using some florid language to flesh out a tiny parade of horribles, Stevenson cannot actually say why this conviction requirement would harm drug enforcement efforts. He tries. Lord, how he tries. But there's nothing coherent in his defense of cops taking property from citizens just because.
In the eyes of LEOs like Stevenson, cash being carried by people stopped by officers can only be the product of illegal activity. It's simply inconceivable anyone would carry cash in this day and age, apparently. This isn't conjecture on my part. Stevenson actually states that people carrying cash are legally obligated to explain its origin to cops.
Stevenson says people should have to explain their cash to cops. That's a really weird statement to make, considering previous forfeiture reform efforts raised the burden of proof for the state, not for the public. The public doesn't owe law enforcement a "valid explanation" for cash (and other property) it possesses. This is completely the wrong way around and it explains law enforcement's inherent resistance to conviction requirements. Cops want the cash, but they don't want to put in the work needed to link seizures to illegal activity. They want the burden of proof to rest most heavily on those whose property has been taken.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(4/8/19 -- SC Times)
Minnesota's civil forfeiture laws need major reform
Imagine for a moment the government comes to your house, takes property from you and then refuses to give it back without ever charging you with a crime. Continue to imagine that the same government then can sell said property and share the proceeds with the groups that helped take it from you. This scenario sounds like it is straight out of some corrupt foreign country, doesn’t it? Welcome to the world of civil asset forfeiture – a practice that is legal, albeit in differing forms, in Central Minnesota. I have written about this topic in the past. Given some large developments, now is a great time to revisit the subject.
Read the entire opinion here at: sctimes.com
(4/8/19 -- Myrtle Beach News)
Why The Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill Went Sideways
Last Month, MyrtleBeachSC news covered the investigative report put out by the Greenville News. The report exposes how local government police forces and sheriffs offices are taking millions of dollars in asset seizures without charging anyone with a crime. Reason.com covered this same article and explained how South Carolina police seized more than $17 million over a three-year period. When we published our report, Representative Alan Clemmons took to social media and stated he had been working on this for years. A press conference was soon called in Columbia featuring Clemmons among other state legislators. Clemmons promised to pass new legislation to end this injustice. However, Fitsnews reported days later that Mr. Clemmons applied for the job opening for Myrtle Beach City Atttorney. That article turned out to be true. Mr. Clemmons is one of four candidates applying for that job.
The City of Myrtle Beach then came out full force in the local press stating through Myrtle Beach Police Chief Amy Prock: State civil forfeiture law may be damaging to local law enforcement, police chief says.
On April 4th, State Representative District 38, Josiah Magnuson took to Facebook writing, “What a travesty. I regret to inform you that the civil asset forfeiture bill (H3307 as previously amended) which was passed by a huge margin in the House was “reconsidered” by House leadership and an amendment was passed to essentially strip the bill of real meaning and instead do a study committee on the issue.” The House leadership Magnuson speaks of is none other than Alan Clemmons. Representative Clemmons gutted his own bill. Why? What happened?
Tourists who visit the city of Myrtle Beach are told by police officers, if you simply surrender your (cash – or valuable asset taken), no charges will be filed and you won’t have to show back up in court. The seizures are often under $300 in cash or cash value. As those same tourists need to be back on the job in OH, NY, PA, etc on Monday morning, surrendering the money is easier and usually cheaper than coming back to Myrtle Beach and fighting for their legal rights in court. Say other legislators including Russell Fry and Magnuson: No crime, no charges, no justice. And the city of Myrtle Beach is enriched by the entire process.
Read the entire article here at: myrtlebeachsc.com
(4/4/19 -- WMBF News)
City of Myrtle Beach, SC, asking lawmakers to change civil forfeiture bill
City leaders and the Myrtle Beach Police Department are taking a stand on a bill that would change a law regarding civil forfeiture. Myrtle Beach Police Chief Amy Prock said if the civil forfeiture bill passes, it will not only impact the department but would be detrimental to the Myrtle Beach community. “This is not about law enforcement pirating or looting citizens property. This is not what this is about,” Prock predictably lied.
“If there is anybody that abuses that law they should be held accountable and I encourage that,” Prock explained. “But we need to make sure the law is changed so it does not indirectly affect our community.” The proposed bill would get rid of civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture. Any money seized in criminal forfeiture cases would no longer go to the police department, but instead go into the state general fund. “The biggest issues that we foresee is it would impact investigations and impact what we can evaluate during them,” Prock said.
During their council workshop on Thursday, city leaders ignorantly said they understand there was good intent creating this bill, but said it went too far.
Read the entire article here at: wmbfnews.com
(4/4/19 -- Hit & Run)
Brave Cops Pose With Drugs, 'Paraphernalia,' and a Confiscated $2 Bill
If there is one thing worse than a drug bust, it is, undoubtedly, the corny social media posting that follows. It is not uncommon nowadays for local law enforcement to celebrate a haul of a few pounds of drugs with enthusiasm similar to the Colombian authorities who shot and killed Pablo Escobar. This week, the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office in Virginia was the latest to learn that the public is largely tired of seeing these lame brags. "Kudos to Deputies Gardner, Bucco and Hall for helping get illegal drugs, money and other paraphernalia off the streets last month," read a now-deleted Facebook post from Tuesday. (No worries, there are screenshots.) The Virginia deputies proudly posed in front of their haul of weed, cocaine, and other drugs, kneeling as one would in a junior varsity football picture for a school yearbook.
What's so terrible about this picture? Let's start with the cash. Per the unofficial Rap Video and Strip Club Code of Conduct, there is a universal understanding that displaying bills of a value lesser than $10 makes one a certified broke boy. If the Loudoun County deputies want to feel like big shots, then what is with all of the $1 bills in this picture? And the random $2 bill makes for an even stranger flex. The only bills we should see are the "ten, twenties and them fifties," and, of course, the "hundreds."
While the "paraphernalia" label could certainly apply to some of the other items on the table, it truly makes no sense to include simple household items in this categorization. Though used in the process of this drug operation, the items were not specifically created for the manufacture and sale of drugs. But semantics be damned. States have long abided by legal precedents that allow otherwise harmless items to be considered drug paraphernalia. Because of this nice little stretch, an apple could be paraphernalia. So could baby formula!
After social media users responded negatively to the underwhelming drug bust, and at least one commenter pointed out the similarities between the deputy on the right and a hypothetical Anthony Bourdain/Bill Clinton love child, the sheriff's office deleted the post altogether. Unfortunately for Loudoun County residents, it is unlikely that the deputies used the public outcry as an opportunity to reexamine the role they played in an overzealous and unpopular drug war.
Read the entire article and view the photo here at: reason.com
(4/4/19 -- The Heartland Institute)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Advances in Michigan Legislature
Bipartisan legislation to reform civil asset forfeiture procedures has been passed by both houses of the Michigan State Legislature. The state Senate passed S.B. 2, sponsored by Sen. Peter Lucido (R-Shelby Township), which would require officers to show probable cause before seizing a suspect’s assets and to return the assets if the individual is not convicted of a crime. The law would apply to seized money or property valued at less than $50,000. The bill passed the Senate on February 13.
H.B. 4001 and H.B. 4002, sponsored by Reps. Jason Wentworth (R-Clare) and David LaGrand (D-Grand Rapids), respectively, have provisions similar to the Senate bill but are not identical to it. Both House bills passed on February 28. The state House and Senate must approve a final bill with identical language before it can be sent to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her approval.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(4/3/19 -- Alabama Political Reporter)
How Alabama’s civil forfeiture laws left a couple living in a storage shed
Teresa and Greg Almond are living in a storage shed. In their 50s, business owners and upstanding citizens, they live in a storage shed, are warmed by a propane heater and use solar panels to get a smidge of energy to power a small TV at night. They didn’t get there by personal mistakes. It wasn’t opioids or meth. Bad investments didn’t take their life savings. An Alabama tornado didn’t destroy the home they once lived in near Woodland. Civil asset forfeiture destroyed the Almonds.
These laws have emboldened police — desperate for revenue sources and easy money — to flaunt the laws, trample rights and ruin lives. Which is exactly what happened to the Almonds, as reported by Appleseed on its blog last week.
A Randolph County drug task force agent claimed to smell marijuana from outside the Almonds’ home, providing probable cause for a raid. Once inside, the cops found a $50 bag of weed, which the Almonds’ adult son told Randolph police was his, and a single Lunesta pill resting outside of a prescription bottle with Greg Almond’s name on it. Greg and Teresa were arrested and charged with second degree marijuana possession, a misdemeanor, and FELONY possession of a controlled substance for the lone Lunesta pill. On the basis of this arrest, the Randolph County task force then tore through the Almonds’ home, tearing it apart and taking with them Greg’s large gun collection, Teresa’s wedding rings, antique guitars, a coin collection and $8,000 in cash.
But even worse was that the Almonds were scheduled to meet with a bank the following morning to refinance their mortgage and business loans to avoid foreclosure. They missed that meeting because they were in jail and ended up losing their home. It also didn’t help that the raid curtailed business to their engraving shop. By the time it was all over, a good and decent family had lost literally everything. Greg is working part time as a handyman. They live in what was once a storage shed on old family property.
Read the entire article here at: alreporter.com
(4/3/19 -- TechDirt)
Judge Rips Drug Task Force For Going On Asset Forfeiture 'Shopping Sprees'
A Pennsylvania judge has delivered an earful to the York County Drug Task Force and its handling of property forfeitures. Christopher Hawkins, represented by Korey Leslie (who was kind enough to email me the ruling the York Dispatch couldn't be bothered to post with its article), challenged the seizure of two vehicles and a bunch of electronics from his house. Hawkins was arrested after a controlled heroin purchase. There appears to be no question Hawkins participated in drug dealing. But that doesn't excuse the government's decision to take two cars and some TVs from him as "evidence." Judge Craig T. Trebilcock doesn't like anything about the Task Force's seizures, since it appears to be more concerned with taking things with resale value, rather than property with an actual nexus to drug distribution. The opinion [PDF] repeatedly calls Task Force detectives out for their lack of credibility and the dollar signs continually dancing in their eyes. The Task Force originally seized four vehicles from Hawkins before returning two of them for a lack of drug nexus. But it still couldn't connect the two it kept.
Detective S. testified that the Dodge Neon and the Mercedes were kept by the police because "we thought there was clear and convincing nexus between drugs and those vehicles" However, no credible facts were provided by Detective S. to substantiate these conclusions. During cross examination. Detective S. indicated the vehicles did not play any role in the drug transactions on the 22nd or 23rd.
The only thing Detective S. offered as evidence of this drug nexus was a statement by Hawkins that he used the Mercedes to "meet people for money primary for drugs." But, as the court notes, this statement was not corroborated by any other detectives involved in the arrest and seizure, nor was it recorded in any fashion. The court, however, knows exactly why these two vehicles were seized, even if the Task Force members won't admit it.
Detective S. testified that there was no lien on either the Neon or Mercedes Benz, the apparent sole distinguishing factor as to why they were seized, instead of the other vehicles.
The detectives also couldn't offer a good explanation for the seizure of two flatscreen TVs from the house. One claimed Hawkins wasn't working, so he couldn't have purchased them with legal funds. Again, the court points out Hawkins offered proof of his employment with a temp agency and lived with his girlfriend, who had a full-time job. And again, the court knows the Task Force just took the TVs because it thought it could turn them into cash quickly. The judge also calls out the perverse incentives that have led to the task force appearing before him repeatedly to forfeit televisions, video game systems, and vehicles -- all without making much of an effort to tie these items to illegal activity.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(4/2/19 -- The City)
How Manhattan DA Vance Spent $250K of Asset-Forfeiture Funds on Travel and Food
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance is a traveling man with some high-end tastes. The prosecutor spent $249,716 on meals and work trips to everywhere from the City of Angels to the City of Lights over the past five years, according to records obtained via a Freedom of Information Law request. Vance paid for it all – including a $4,780 roundtrip flight to London and a $2,800 stay at a five-star Paris hotel – with money his office obtained from state-asset forfeiture funds largely tied to big-sum legal settlements with banks, records show. He controls more than $600 million stemming from forfeitures.
The Manhattan prosecutor far outspent the city’s other four district attorneys, the data reveals: Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark, who expensed $18,407 to cover travel to multiple conferences across the country since taking office on Jan. 1, 2016, came in a distant second.
Clark and the other city district attorneys say they did not use asset forfeiture money to cover their work travel expenses. Vance says his trips were necessary to attend conferences covering anti-terrorism, cybersecurity and gun control, among other issues. “I can’t look at my defensive perimeter as the southern and northern tip of Manhattan,” he told THE CITY. “It requires an international approach and international partnerships and relationships to do the work that we do.” Still, fiscal watchdogs note that forfeiture-fund spending gets little scrutiny. “There’s very little transparency when it comes to how the DAs use state asset forfeiture funds,” said Bernard O’Brien, a senior budget analyst with the city’s Independent Budget Office.
Read the entire article here at: thecity.nyc
(4/2/19 -- Yellowhammer)
State Sen. Whatley: Protect the property rights of innocent Alabama citizens
A cornerstone of the American justice system is the principle that you’re innocent until proven guilty. Civil asset forfeiture turns the principle upside down. Under current Alabama law, your property is guilty until you prove its innocence. The government is allowed to seize and confiscate cash, vehicles, guns and other private property on the mere suspicion that it was either involved in a crime or came from criminal activity. That’s why I’m co-sponsoring a bill with my colleague, Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), that would not only require a criminal conviction before someone’s property in Alabama could be permanently taken by the government, but would also require more transparency in the process.
The state’s unified state court database, Alacourt, already maintains a record of all civil asset forfeiture cases, but that data isn’t available to the public and doesn’t describe how the government uses property obtained through civil asset forfeiture. It’s not enough for a voluntary system of generalized data compilation to be set up by the same government actors who benefit financially from keeping forfeiture processes secret. The public should know exactly what local and state governments are doing with the money and assets they take from citizens—something the voluntary system does not accomplish. Reports have been compiled across the country detailing the property rights violations involved in civil asset forfeiture and have motivated legislators to change their states’ systems.
Read the entire article here at: yellowhammernews.com
(4/2/19 -- New York Law Journal)
Change in Civil Forfeiture Law Makes Sense
In Lawmakers Look to Curb Civil Asset Forfeiture in NY Budget Proposal (March 30, 2019), the New York Law Journal reported an important modification in New York State’s civil forfeiture laws. Under the old regime, prosecutors could freeze not just funds they believed were tainted by crime, but also funds that had no criminal taint at all. For people accused of wrongdoing, the results were often large-scale freezes of their assets, causing financial despair lasting the duration of criminal cases.
The new regime reduces this problem, allowing prosecutors to freeze only those assets that they anchor to the crimes charged. This change is welcome. New Yorkers—like defendants in every other state—are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Allowing prosecutors to freeze untainted assets reversed this principle: it allowed law enforcement to destroy someone’s finances not by the scope of proven wrongdoing but by the scope of the sheer allegations.
Surely, victims had a better chance of obtaining full restitution when prosecutors could impose large-scale freezes of people’s assets. But this defense of the old regime was narrow-minded. Victims would benefit if police could search people’s homes without a warrant, too, or if juries could convict despite reasonable doubt. But our society has countervailing interests—like reducing the pretrial suffering of innocent criminal defendants, and reducing the frequency with which people plead guilty simply because of that pretrial suffering.
(4/1/19 -- Shakopee Valley News)
Civil forfeiture affirmed by Supreme Court in Shakopee case
When Shakopee resident Megan Olson drove her mother’s 1999 Lexus drunk in 2015 and received her third DWI in 10 years, she was arrested by Shakopee police and the car was confiscated since the repeat offense was considered a felony. The confiscated car was registered under Helen Olson, Megan’s mother, despite the fact that Helen had no driver’s license and knew of Megan Olson’s history of driving drunk. The women argued that, because the Lexus was Helen Olson’s car, it shouldn’t have been confiscated, because the law does not allow innocent people’s vehicles to be seized. However, the law also has a exception to that if the driver has three or more drunk driving convictions and is a family member of the driver. The Olsons also argued that the Minnesota vehicle forfeiture statute is unconstitutional on its face.
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently affirmed that vehicle forfeiture is constitutional, but said in the Olsons’ case, the 18-month wait to get the vehicle back “unconstitutionally denied the Olsons prompt review of the pre-hearing seizure of the Lexus” and denied her due process. An amicus brief filed by the Institute for Justice against civil asset forfeiture argued that the government delays cases when it wants to forfeit property. “Few can afford to go without their property for months or years — while paying an attorney all the while — even if they are innocent and would ultimately prevail in a forfeiture case. By holding seized property without a hearing, government creates extraordinary pressure for property owners to walk away without a fight.”
Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate and Todd Zettler, the Scott County Appellate Division Head, say vehicle forfeiture is a last-ditch — but very necessary — action to take when civilians can’t be trusted to drive their vehicles safely.
Read the entire article here at: swnewsmedia.com
(4/1/19 -- Star Advertiser)
Hawaii Legislature to consider bills on asset forfeiture
State lawmakers have scheduled hearings on bills that would reform Hawaii’s civil asset forfeiture program, allow developers to build solar farms on prime agricultural land and extend the period of time that companies and farming interests have to comply with a deadline for obtaining water leases as a Friday deadline approaches for moving bills out of their final committee. If bills haven’t been scheduled for a hearing by early this week, they are likely dead for the year.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on House Bill 748 on Wednesday which would make changes to Hawaii’s civil asset forfeiture program. The program allows law enforcement to seize cash and property that is believed to be connected to criminal activity. The bill would require that the suspected crime be a felony and that the property be returned if there ultimately is no criminal conviction related to the case. Groups such as the Hawaii chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii support the measure and have argued that Hawaii’s civil asset forfeiture program tramples due process principles.
A state audit found that in 26 percent of asset forfeiture cases during the 2015 fiscal year, law enforcement hadn’t filed related criminal charges in the cases.
Read the entire article here at: staradvertiser.com
(4/1/19 -- Bismarck Tribune)
North Dakota Senate passes amended bill for forfeiture reform
North Dakota's Senate on Monday passed an amended bill to reform North Dakota's forfeiture laws. Senators voted 46-1 on House Bill 1286, brought by Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, to eliminate the "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit." Civil asset forfeiture applies to property involved in criminal activity.
The bill requires a conviction for forfeiture proceedings, requires annual reporting of seizures and forfeitures to the attorney general and raises forfeiture proceedings' standard of proof from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. But the bill has some exceptions to a conviction, including death, disappearance, deportation, abandoned property and a Senate amendment for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a property's criminal involvement.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also amended the bill to allow city and county commissions to oversee a fund for forfeiture proceeds.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(4/1/19 -- Macomb Daily)
Michigan State Police opens investigation into Eric Smith forfeiture fund
Michigan State Police has opened an investigation into expenditures from a forfeiture fund controlled for several years by Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith. Kelly Rossman-McKinney, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Dana Nessel, said Monday her office received a request for investigation from County Executive Mark Hackel last week and forwarded it to state police. “We got a formal request from the county executive to investigate,” Rossman-McKinney told The Macomb Daily. “We have forwarded the documents to the Michigan State Police to open an investigation. We will support the investigation as needed.”
Several county officials have questioned the legality of spending of up to $900,000, half of the money collected in the fund from 2012 to 2018. Officials have questioned spending for items such as holiday parties, credit card bills, cell phones, a security firm, a website company, bottled water, donations to churches and other non-profits, among others.
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(4/1/19 -- MedCity Beat)
Olmsted County sheriff claims civil forfeiture bill would handcuff his department
Lawmakers and law enforcement officials are at odds over a rewrite of civil forfeiture laws now making its way through the Minneosta Legislature. The legislation would replace the state’s existing civil forfeiture law with provisions limiting government seizures of money or property to criminal cases, and then only after convictions are made. Companion bills in the House and Senate have garnered support from both sides of the aisle.
Advocates for the legislation, like Rep. Tina Liebling, a Democrat from Rochester, argue that the current law creates incentives for law enforcement to seize assets as a way of boosting their budgets. “One of the most egregious features of current forfeiture law is that law enforcement get a cut of the money they take from people they accuse of crimes,” said Rep. Liebling, a co-author of the House bill. “Even if they are not abusing this,” she added, “the fact that these agencies get even some of their funding by seizing cash and property from individuals is deeply disturbing and undermines public trust.”
Law enforcement groups, though, are pushing back against the legislation, “The authors and supporters of these bills clearly are in favor of more drugs, mental health, social issues, homelessness and addiction rather than holding the people accountable for profiting from creating and sustaining these social challenges,” said Olmsted County Sheriff Kevin Torgerson, once again proving the police's ability to lie through their teeth with a straight face.
“The question I ask is what kind of community do you want? One where criminals run free and profit, don't pay taxes and tear our communities and families apart one by one,” he wrote, sinking to a new low. “or a community where law enforcement and prosecutors have every tool they can use to combat the daily battle illegal drugs create.”
Asked to respond to Torgerson’s statements, Liebling said she can understand agencies wanting to defend their budgets. However, she questioned whether the sheriff was offering his “independent, professional opinion on the matter, or trying to preserve his agency's ability to keep making money by grabbing it from citizens?” She called the sheriff’s allegations about lawmakers being in favor of drugs, homelessness, etc. “a cheap shot that further illustrates the point.”
Read the entire article here at: medcitybeat.com
(3/31/19 -- Lockport Union Sun & Journal)
Drug Task Force forfeiture funds on the rise for Lockport
The Lockport Police Department and the Niagara County Sheriff's Office have negotiated a new memorandum of understanding on the percentage of funds Lockport is entitled to from Drug Task Force asset forfeiture funds. Scott Lombardo, the captain of the DTF, informed the police board back in October about changes to federal asset forfeiture law that would have required changes to the MOU with the participating agencies in the DTF. Under the old agreement, the county received 50 percent of the funds, the DTF received 35 percent, Niagara Falls Police Department, LPD and the North Tonawanda Police Department received 5 percent. Interim Police Chief Steven Preisch said with the updated agreement that he negotiated with NCSO Sheriff James Voutour, LPD will be receiving 15 percent of the funds.
Read the entire article here at: lockportjournal.com
(3/31/19 -- Washington Free Beacon)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill in Nevada Would Eliminate ‘Policing for Profit’ Incentive
Nevada lawmakers introduced a bill that would reform the state’s civil asset forfeiture procedures, a move proponents say would end "policing for profit" practices that violate due process rights. Nevada allows law enforcement to seize an individual's property without charging or convicting them of a crime. Current law also allows agencies to keep a portion of the property seized, a practice called "policing for profit."
Assembly Bill 420 would require a conviction for forfeiture proceedings and would award forfeiture proceeds to the State Permanent School Fund instead of to the law enforcement agency that seized the property. The bill is supported by Assemblyman Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas. The Nevada Policy Research Institute said in a statement the bill would remove the incentive to "policing for profit."
"For decades, forfeiture laws have upended the due-process rights of ordinary Nevadans," said Daniel Honchariw, a senior policy analyst for Nevada Policy. "It’s well past time for legislation of this type." Several states across the country have passed similar civil asset forfeiture reforms. The U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled unanimously that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to state and local government agencies seizing property.
Read the entire article here at: freebeacon.com
(3/30/19 -- New York Law Journal)
Lawmakers Look to Curb Civil Asset Forfeiture in NY Budget Proposal
Prosecutors in New York will no longer be able to seize a defendant’s assets in most cases unless they can show those funds are the direct product of illicit activity, according to legislation that’s expected to be passed as part of the state budget Sunday. The proposal will amend the state’s law on so-called civil asset forfeiture, which is currently used by prosecutors in some cases to either freeze or collect the assets of a defendant throughout a criminal proceeding.
There are three major provisions of the legislation, all of which are opposed by the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York. The proposal was included in one of 10 omnibus bills that will make up the $175 billion state budget—a mishmash of policy items and appropriations.
Read the entire article here at: law.com
(3/30/19 -- World Net Daily)
U.S. Congress looking to block police bonanzas from seized property
Millions of dollars worth of property connected to crimes has successfully been confiscated. But the U.S. Supreme Court recently threw a wrench in the works with its ruling against Indiana’s seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover from a smalltime drug dealer. The unanimous ruling said: “Like the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and ‘excessive bail,’ the protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or criminal-law-enforcement authority.” Now Congress is trying to address the cash windfalls.
Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., Tom McClintock, R-Calif, and Bobby Rush, D-Ill., have proposed the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act. The FAIR Act proposes a sweeping overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws.
Under civil forfeiture, the government can permanently confiscate property without charging anyone with a crime. Worse, federal law even encourages law enforcement to forfeit property by letting the seizing agencies keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds, pointed out the Institute for Justice. “For too long, tens of thousands of Americans have lost their hard-earned savings, cars, businesses and even their homes to an unjust civil forfeiture system,” said Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice and who heads IJ’s End Forfeiture Initiative.
Read the entire article here at: wnd.com
(3/30/19 -- Star Tribune)
Asset forfeiture law change getting bipartisan backing in Legislature
Minnesota’s civil asset forfeiture law could be wiped out under legislation that has won the backing of lawmakers from across the political spectrum. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, would limit government seizures of money or property to criminal cases, and then only after a conviction. Under existing law, authorities can take property from suspects without a court order, with property owners forced to file suit to regain their belongings — even in cases where they have not been charged with a crime.
The measure is advancing in the Legislature one month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines also applies to the states. It has backing from both progressive groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Americans for Prosperity. But not everyone is happy.
Testifying before a Senate committee last week, Faribault Police Chief Andy Bohlen said the measure would dismantle law enforcement’s ability to use seized funds to disrupt Mexican cartel operations that continue to funnel record amounts of methamphetamine and heroin into the state. But Newman stressed the importance of protecting the due process rights of citizens who have lost property without being convicted of a crime. “In this day and age — as divided as our society is — I think we need more due process, not less,” Newman said.
(3/29/19 -- Albuquerque Journal)
City vehicle seizures spark class-action suit
In August 2017, Courtney Foster lent her 2006 Kia to a childhood friend who ended up driving drunk and getting arrested in the middle of the night. Her car was seized. Foster still doesn’t have a car and now walks to her job at the Weekly Alibi newspaper each day.
As one of more than 2,000 people who lost a car to the city’s vehicle seizure program over the past three years, Foster filed a federal lawsuit this week asking for compensation for the hefty fees, court costs and other damages associated with losing her vehicle. She and another plaintiff, Matthew Kiscaden, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Mexico and are asking for it to be designated as a class-action suit on behalf of themselves and all other people who were in the same situation over the past three years.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(3/29/19 -- BCR News)
Cash recovered from Interstate 80 traffic stop forfeited
More than $300,000 of forfeiture funds seized during a traffic stop on Interstate 80 in November will be divided among Illinois law enforcement agencies and the courts. On Nov. 12, an Illinois State Police trooper located $300,030 inside the door panels of a vehicle during a search. The traffic stop took place on Interstate 80 near mile marker 47, which is about two miles east of the Route 40 interchange. According to case documents from Bureau County Circuit Clerk’s Office, ISP Trooper Sean Veryzer stopped the vehicle around 3:34 p.m. after he clocked it driving 52 mph in a 70 mph zone and witnessed it cross over the white line.
Read the entire article here at: bcrnews.com
(3/29/19 -- KIMT3 News)
How will criminal forfeiture bills impact law enforcement?
Freeborn County Sheriff Kurt Freitag says if Minnesota goes through with restricting criminal forfeiture, it could negatively impact law enforcement. If we scrap the whole thing altogether and we allow criminals, drug dealers and those who drive impaired continually, we allow them to have these proceeds, we are basically re-investing into their criminal activity," Freitag said. Freitag wants forfeiture laws to remain intact. He recalls one incident where a drug suspect was arrested carrying $26,000 in cash. "We seized the cash subject to forfeiture," Freitag said. "His wife filed an appeal and was able to show that 26,000 dollars was not illegally obtained. She gave it to us, she gave us proof. Within 2 weeks, we had a check in their hands. They got their money back."
Institute for Justice attorney Lee McGrath does not believe forfeiture is the way to fund law enforcement. "They shouldn't do it by themselves," McGrath said. "They shouldn't be engaged in self-funding. That gives a horrible perception that law enforcement is focused in on only going after crimes that have a financial component to it." McGrath says the current forfeiture protocol is unacceptable. "No one is acquitted of a crime should lose their property and today that is happening too often," McGrath said.
The Sheriff, though, sees the timing of this legislation as lousy. "This is not the time to hamstring us and make it harder for us to do our job," Freitag said. Once the bills go through the House and Senate, they will make their way to the floor of each chamber.
(3/29/19 -- Michigan Watchdog)
Michigan County seizes more than $1.2 million in personal property over two years
Though bipartisan majorities in both chambers of the Legislature have passed bills to significantly rein in a controversial legal process for police taking ownership of private property seized from individuals, Michigan’s largest county appears to be ramping up the practice. In an ongoing crackdown, Wayne County has seized more than 2,600 vehicles and collected more than $1.2 million in revenue from civil asset forfeiture over the past two years. That’s according to information received by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The apparent windfall is the product of a county campaign called “Operation Push-Off.” In that campaign, law enforcement agencies use civil asset forfeiture to take ownership of property seized from individuals by contending that it may be associated with a crime. Officials do not have to obtain a conviction to take ownership of someone’s property, and they are not even required to charge the owner with a crime. In 2017, nearly 400 people lost their vehicles to Wayne County without being charged, according to data received from the sheriff’s department and Michigan State Police.
Operation Push-Off targets specific areas of Detroit and surrounding communities that are known to have high rates of illegal drug sales and prostitution. If police officers suspect that a driver has been involved with those crimes, they will stop the individual and may seize the vehicle and any money, according to Maria Miller, the director of communications for the Wayne County prosecutor.
The county gives owners of seized vehicles a choice, which is outlined in a form called “Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit.” An owner who wants to challenge a forfeiture must file a claim but may then have to wait months or even years before the matter comes before a court. When it does go to court, the county must only meet a “clear and convincing” evidence standard that the item was associated with a crime before it can keep it. Alternatively, the form allows the owner to get a vehicle back by paying a $900 “settlement fee,” plus any towing and storage fees. This appears to eliminate the possibility of the county later pursuing forfeiture, but it does not clear any outstanding criminal charges related to the seizure.
The third option stated on the form is “Prove you are an innocent owner.” The form does not offer owners any procedures for doing so or for establishing that they are not guilty of a crime. The Wayne County prosecutor’s office defends the practice.
Read the entire article here at: watchdog.org
(3/29/19 -- WPBF)
Officials seek to seize condos, cash, cars belonging to defendants in spa prostitution investigation
Law enforcement has filed court cases against at least three people charged in the Palm Beach and Martin County spa raids, under a state law that gives police the right to seize items they can prove were bought with proceeds of illegal activity. According to court records, the owner of the Orchids of Asia Day Spa, Hua Zhang, is part owner of a condominium near the beach in Jupiter. Records show the Martin County sheriff and Jupiter police chief filed a joint forfeiture action to take the house, valued at about $200,000.
In Martin County, court records show officials filed a case to seize a condominium on SE Mariner Gardens Circle that records show belong to an LLC owned by Ruimei Li. Also in the forfeiture claim are two cars and more than $150,000 cash. According to court records, deputies seized the cars and cash while raiding the Bridge Day Spa in Hobe Sound, The Cove Day Spa in Stuart and the Therapy Day Spa, also in Stuart, where police said Lixia Zhu was president.
Lei Wang, whom police say was the manager of Orchids of Asia in Jupiter, is facing forfeiture of a condominium in Hobe Sound, as well as cars, cash, cellphones and jewelry. The forfeiture cases will be decided by a judge and are separate civil actions from the ongoing criminal cases.
(3/28/19 -- York Daily Record)
PA civil asset forfeiture reforms are good, but York case suggests more changes are needed
A few years ago, York County District Attorney Tom Kearney was very upset about legislation proposed by state Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, that would reform Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture rules. Mr. Kearney called the proposal “appalling,” said the reforms would force the county's drug task force to "close up shop" – and even took a shot at Sen. Folmer for being soft on drugs because he’s the father of Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana law. Folmer’s bill would have made it clear that the government can't dispose of seized property until after the property's owner has been convicted of the crime. And it also required the proceeds of selling the seized property to go into government general funds rather than directly to police departments or to drug task forces. State or county officials could still allocate that money to police, but the idea was to put it through a more publicly accountable process.
A watered-down version of Folmer’s bill eventually passed the Legislature, and Gov. Tom Wolf signed it into law. A couple of years into the new rules, the county drug task force hasn’t closed up shop, forfeitures continue – and the semi-annual auction of cars and other seized property by the task force at Schaad Detective Agency has continued. And it turns out the abuses that many people feared were possible in a process with weak checks and balances and no real public accounting were actually happening – at least in one case, and, according to York County Common Pleas Court Judge Craig Trebilcock, likely in other cases as well.
Read the entire article here at: ydr.com
(3/28/19 -- Hannibal Courier-Post)
Auditor Galloway issues compilation of law enforcement federal forfeiture reports
Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway has released her office’s compilation of 2018 federal forfeiture reports. Law enforcement agencies that participate in a federal asset forfeiture program must file information regarding federal seizures and proceeds with the State Auditor’s Office.
In 2018, 676 Missouri law enforcement agencies were identified as being potential participants in the federal program. Of these agencies, 125 filed reports. During their fiscal year, they reported receiving $6.1 million and spending $5.2 million. The remaining 551 agencies did not file a report, although they were not required to file if they did not participate in the program. A list of the reporting agencies with amounts reported is included in the complete report.
Read the entire article here at: hannibal.net
(3/28/19 -- Nevada Watchdog)
Civil asset forfeiture reform bill in Nevada would eliminate 'policing for profit' incentive
Nevada lawmakers introduced a bill that would reform the state’s civil asset forfeiture procedures, a move proponents say would end “policing for profit” practices that violate due process rights. Nevada allows law enforcement to seize an individual's property without charging or convicting them of a crime. Current law also allows agencies to keep a portion of the property seized, a practice called “policing for profit.” Assembly Bill 420 would require a conviction for forfeiture proceedings and would award forfeiture proceeds to the State Permanent School Fund instead of to the law enforcement agency that seized the property. The bill is supported by Assemblyman Steve Yeager, D-Las Vegas.
Several states across the country have passed similar civil asset forfeiture reforms. The U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled unanimously that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to state and local government agencies seizing property. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, gave Nevada a “D-” rating in its 2015 study “Policing for Profit,” ranking it 23rd nationally.
Read the entire article here at: watchdog.org
(3/28/19 -- Providence Journal)
Judge rejects bid by imprisoned gold dealer to get gold bars, money back
A federal judge this week rejected Cranston coin dealer Stephen Saccoccia’s bid to hang on to his family’s assets, including gold bars, jewelry and other belongings. U.S. District Court Chief Judge William E. Smith on Wednesday granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Saccoccia, who is serving 660 years in prison for laundering money for a Colombian drug cartel.
Saccoccia, 60, and his wife, Donna, filed separate actions last year challenging retired U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres’ order that they forfeit more than $136 million in assets as punishment for laundering that sum in a drug lord’s cocaine profits through his businesses. The Saccoccias were seeking the return of millions of dollars in assets that they say are actually “untainted, legally obtained” property. They argued that federal authorities seized more property than they are entitled to under the law. The assets include the Saccoccias’ home at 2 Brimfield Rd. in Cranston; money from bank and trust accounts; and personal jewelry and collectibles taken from safe-deposit boxes in the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg. In addition, they challenge the seizure of 83 gold bars found buried in the backyard and cellar of Saccoccia’s mother’s house. Smith rejected Stephen Saccoccia’s action but has not ruled on his wife’s complaint. She argues that the court misapplied the forfeiture law and failed to determine the actual dollar amount of tainted funds. Instead, she stated, Torres held her liable for the total amount of proceeds obtained by all eight other conspirators.
Read the entire article here at: providencejournal.com
(3/28/19 -- Greenville News)
U.S. House reps cite TAKEN investigation in pitch to reform the nation's civil forfeiture laws
Citing The Greenville News' TAKEN investigation of civil asset forfeiture, a bipartisan group reintroduced legislation Wednesday into the U.S. House of Representatives to reform the nation's civil forfeiture laws. U.S. Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, and Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), which would bring sweeping reform to the federal use of civil forfeiture, which works in much the same way as South Carolina's civil forfeiture law, the focus of the TAKEN series.
“Due process means the government can’t take your body, your rights, or your property without a fair process, the presumption of innocence, and the opportunity to be heard," Raskin said in press release. "But the lawless seizure and ‘forfeiture’ of people’s private property is now standard operating procedure in far too many police jurisdictions across the country, as vividly detailed by an excellent Greenville News investigative reporting series called ‘Taken.’ Reforming America’s civil asset forfeiture laws is a constitutional imperative that goes right to the heart of our Bill of Rights. I’m proud to introduce this important bipartisan legislation with Rep. Walberg to rein in the nation’s reckless asset forfeiture policies."
The proposed legislation would ban the equitable sharing program, which many law enforcement agencies have relied on as a loophole after states across the country have reformed their own forfeiture laws. The sharing program returns up to 80 percent of forfeiture revenue in federal cases to local agencies that made the initial seizure. It would also ban the Department of Justice from retaining forfeiture proceeds and would instead send forfeiture proceeds to the U.S. Treasury's general fund. In 2018, federal forfeiture revenue topped $1.3 billion. The proposal would shift the burden of proof from the individual to the government, lift the standard of proof from "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing" evidence and would allow individuals who have assets seized to request a prompt hearing when their assets are seized on suspicion of structuring bank deposits to avoid IRS rules.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(3/27/19 -- WMBF News)
WMBF Investigates: Do civil forfeiture cases always hit their mark?
When Braden Carlisle was pulled over for a traffic offense, he had no idea police could take him and his cash into custody. Carlisle is one of more than 600 people who had their assets seized by law enforcement through Horry, Florence and Marion counties from 2014 to 2016. His $6,600 is just a fraction of the $2.3 million forfeited to departments across the three counties during those years.
Civil forfeiture is a practice utilized by departments across the state. Officers call it an invaluable tool to target criminals’ motives by hitting them where it matters most – their pocketbooks. While its aim may be true, many, including state lawmakers are questioning if the practice always hits its intended target.
Carlisle traveled from Charlotte to Myrtle Beach for a weekend away in early May of 2016. He and his friends were bartenders with cash tips and tax returns to spend. “We decided to go gambling. Usually we go to the Big M Casino boat that is down there by the Myrtle Beach area,” he said. “In the meantime, we were just going to enjoy the beach and a few bars in that area.” Shortly after arriving, Carlisle was pulled over by a police officer. “We were pulled over and they initially got me out of the car and had me do a sobriety test, which I passed,” he recalled. “After they did the sobriety test, they did then search the car.”
Court documents state the officer found 3.6 grams of marijuana, pills “stamped with a kangaroo” that tested positive for MDMA (Ecstasy) and $6,600 in cash. Carlisle was placed under arrest and his cash seized. “It scared the heck out of me. I was like this is insane. This is insane. This is worse than the stuff you see on the movies. It was pretty bad,” Carlisle said. Carlisle said the pills were his friend’s male enhancement pills and not MDMA at all. Horry County court records show Carlisle’s charges were dismissed and he was able to win his money back, but he said it doesn’t feel like he won. “It was more of a loss than anything. I mean, almost $10,000 total through this whole ordeal, so the victory, yes, of this not being on my record or anything and everything being dismissed and dropped but still this fiasco of the money being lost. I mean that’s something that I’m never going to see back,” he said. After paying for bond and attorney fees, Carlisle said he got back less than a quarter of the original amount taken. It was cash that also belonged to his friends.
Carlisle’s case is unique but not rare. Throughout Horry, Florence and Marion counties, only 50 percent of civil forfeiture cases led to a conviction between 2014 and 2016. In 22 percent of cases, individuals had their assets seized but were never charged with a crime. This data comes from The Greenville News’ in-depth investigation across the state.
Read the entire article here at: wmbfnews.com
(3/27/19 -- Institute For Justice)
Bipartisan Bill In Congress Would Dramatically reform Civil Forfeiture
On Wednesday, Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), and Bobby Rush (D-IL) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), which would enact a sweeping overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws. Under civil forfeiture, the government can permanently confiscate property without charging anyone with—let alone convicting them of—a crime. Worse, federal law even encourages law enforcement to forfeit property by letting the seizing agencies keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.
“For too long, tens of thousands of Americans have lost their hard-earned savings, cars, businesses and even their homes to an unjust civil forfeiture system,” said Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice and who heads IJ’s End Forfeiture Initiative. “The FAIR Act is a bold effort that would enact urgently needed reforms and end many of the appalling practices endemic to current law. Critically, the FAIR Act would end the perverse financial incentives that fuel forfeiture abuse,” Sheth added.
Read the entire article here at: ij.org
(3/27/19 -- The Charlotte Observer)
Bill to create forfeiture database in SC passes House
The South Carolina House has given key approval to a bill to create a searchable database of property seized by police. The House voted 104-6 to approve the bill requiring the State Law Enforcement Division to keep the database. It faces one more routine vote before it is sent to the Senate. Lawmakers did make one change to the bill, saying a criminal charge is needed before police can take money or other assets.
A second bill overhauling South Carolina laws on forfeiture is in a House committee. The bills were prompted by a series of stories by The Greenville News that detailed $17 million taken from people in South Carolina from 2014 to 2016. The report said 65 percent of those targeted for civil asset forfeiture were black men.
(3/27/19 -- Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus)
Civil asset forfeiture reform clears key Senate committee
On Tuesday, legislation to reform Minnesota’s asset forfeiture laws cleared a key Senate committee. The bill, designed to add clarity to the state’s patchwork of asset forfeiture laws, passed from the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee with bipartisan support. “For decades, asset forfeiture has been used as a means of punishing criminals by taking the proceeds of illegal criminal activity. Unfortunately, that can come at the cost of an innocent property owner’s right to due process,” said Senator Scott Newman (R-Hutchinson), the bill’s author. “It is time for significant reform to Minnesota’s asset forfeiture laws.” Currently, Minnesota’s asset forfeiture laws vary, with separate sections for DWI law, game and fish law, and criminal law. Senate File 2155 repeals those laws and replaces them with a single statute governing asset forfeiture. The bill eliminates administrative forfeiture – an archaic process used to seize assets without a court order, requiring a property owner to file a lawsuit to retrieve their property, even if the property owner did not commit a crime.
“Think of a situation involving a car, where a bank is the lien holder or the car was used in criminal activity without the owner’s knowledge. Under current law, the property owner must sue the state to get their car back and must wait until criminal proceedings are over before the car can be returned to its rightful owner,” Senator Newman continued. “Due process for all citizens is a fundamental right – and this is a perfect example of due process being denied.”
The legislation requires a forfeiture action to be brought at the same time as a criminal charge and requires a conviction before carrying out the forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies are also barred from using federal forfeiture sharing programs to skirt state law and will be required to make dramatic changes to how seized property, or proceeds from that property, is treated once a forfeiture takes place. Finally, the bill ensures individuals subject to criminal forfeiture are afforded ample due process through additional opportunities for court hearings. The bill was awaits a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.
(3/26/19 -- Grand Forks Herald)
North Dakota civil asset forfeiture reform begins Senate path with some common ground
Reform of civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota has found some common ground on its Senate path. After a nearly two-hour hearing on Tuesday, March 26, Sen. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the committee may look at amendments to House Bill 1286 in committee work on Wednesday. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, brought the bill, citing a "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit."
he House in February passed the bill 57-33 amid a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on proportionality in states' forfeitures, or not forfeiting property worth more than a crime's monetary penalty. Civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota applies to property suspected of criminal involvement and doesn't require a conviction or criminal charges.
Most testifiers expressed support Tuesday for the bill's higher burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, annual reporting to the attorney general's office and a provision for proportionality. "Those are three things that can make great sense," said North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. The bill also includes a conviction requirement for forfeiture proceedings.
Law enforcement and prosecutors have naturally opposed a conviction requirement as they say some offenses cannot land convictions or even charges, such as absconded drug dealers whose cash is seized or for interjurisdictional crimes. "We can't get a conviction if the crimes are in Montana but the car was coming down (Interstate) 94 with the money," lied McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson. But the bill does include a stipulation to forfeit property in cases of death, disappearance, deportation or abandoned property, as well as a provision for multi-jurisdictional prosecution.
Becker told Larson's committee that his bill relies on three elements: reporting of seizures and forfeitures, a conviction requirement and a neutral disposition of proceeds from forfeitures.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(3/26/19 -- York Daily Record)
Judge criticizes 'overzealous forfeiture actions' by drug task force; DA making reforms
A York County judge has stated that law enforcement engaged in a “disconcerting pattern” of seizing property with resale value regardless of any link to drug money or illegal activity in the past, but the district attorney says he’s implemented a series of reforms since taking office in 2018.
Christopher “Bmore” Hawkins, 46, was arrested on March 23, 2016, for selling heroin to two confidential informants. The York County Drug Task Force executed a search warrant at his home on Rathton Road near South Queen Street in Spring Garden Township and seized items through civil asset forfeiture including a 2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK, a 1996 Dodge Neon and two TVs. Hawkins later pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to deliver heroin and related offenses in exchange for a sentence of four to eight years in prison.
In a 17-page opinion dated March 20, Common Pleas Judge Craig T. Trebilcock wrote that Hawkins is a “criminal” who does not have “clean hands.” But law enforcement, the court found, violated his constitutional rights and “engaged in a shopping spree, for the benefit of their budget, based solely on the property’s value” though there was no evidence that the items were linked to drugs. “This case is being decided on the facts of this case alone,” Trebilcock said. “It is important to note, however, that overzealous forfeiture actions by the Drug Task Force in the time frame of this case have not been isolated in nature.”
“While the property seized may vary from case to case, with some cases involving automobile, firearms or other property, a disconcerting pattern is evidence that Drug Task Force officers seize big screen TV’s that are present in the property regardless of any link to drug money or illegal activity,” he added. “In addition, they disproportionately seize all game systems and video games, present in the property.
(3/26/19 -- Coeur d'Alene/Post Falls Press)
Sheriff: We did nothing wrong
Kootenai County Sheriff Ben Wolfinger maintains his department’s sharing of drug asset forfeiture funds with the North Idaho Children’s Advocacy Center was legal and vetted by the county prosecutor and U.S. Department of Justice. Wolfinger issued a statement over the weekend in response to news stories published last week detailing allegations made in a federal lawsuit filed last year by a former sheriff’s captain. “The dollars donated to the Child Advocacy Center from the Sheriff’s Drug Forfeiture Account were intended to combat domestic violence, sexual abuse, and like crimes, and were donated as a public service to the community,” said Wolfinger. “There was no intrinsic gain to the Sheriff’s Office other than using dollars seized from drug dealers to help investigate and prevent child abuse.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by attorneys for Dan Soumas, a former sheriff’s captain whose employment was terminated by Wolfinger in September 2017. The complaint alleges that Soumas’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated through his termination, including a right to due process. Soumas’ lawyer, Larry Beck of Hayden, said in the lawsuit that although Soumas was tasked with ensuring proposed expenditures from the Sheriff’s Drug Asset Forfeiture Account complied with Department of Justice regulations, for several months, beginning in March 2017, Soumas was not consulted when expenditures occurred.
According to Beck, in June 2017, Soumas questioned a proposed payment of $30,000 to the Children’s Advocacy Center to pay an employee’s salary. Per DOJ rules, a state or local law enforcement agency can transfer shared funds to a nonprofit whose mission is consistent with a law enforcement effort, policy or initiative, but there’s a $25,000 cap and the money cannot be used to pay a salary. Soumas claims senior county command officers were not happy because he contacted the county prosecutor about the proposed $30,000 expense.
He was let go in September 2017, a month after it was reported to this paper that the Sheriff’s Office had shared $23,000 from its Drug Asset Forfeiture Account with the Children’s Advocacy Center. The bulk of the allegations in the Soumas complaint are related to the former captain’s employment and termination, which Wolfinger did not address in his statement.
Read the entire article here at: cdapress.com
(3/26/19 -- Overton County News)
SCOTUS limits asset forfeiture
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously ‘Wednesday, Feb. 20 that civil asset forfeiture as widely practiced by state and local governments can violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition against excessive fines. On her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg announced the Timbs v. Indiana decision. “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. ... Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark said after the verdict, “Today, a unanimous Supreme Court struck a blow against the organized system of highway robbery that state governments have used to take the life savings of people over minor drug offenses. Thanks to the efforts of attorneys from the Institute for Justice, people all over the country will be safer from civil asset forfeiture.”
he Institute for Justice received amicus brief support from libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation, but support for this case also proved to span the ideological spectrum. The left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also filed their own supportive briefs alongside the right-leaning Judicial Watch, Institute for Free Speech, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This judicial check on government expropriation illustrates the resilience of the separation of powers provided for by the Constitution,” Sarwark said. “It also illustrates how people from across the political and social landscape can band together to halt government abuses. When we work together for individual liberty, we can move mountains.”
Read the entire article here at: overtoncountynews.com
(3/25/19 -- Land Line Magazine)
The War on Drugs put civil asset forfeiture on steroids
Civil asset forfeiture is one of the unruly children of the “War on Drugs” proclaimed in 1971 by President Richard Nixon. Back in the day, counter-culture hippies and revolutionary black civil rights activists had Nixon and many others deeply worried. Nixon ran on a law-and-order platform. He called drug abuse “America’s public enemy No. 1” and declared an all-out offensive. The Drug Enforcement Agency came into being in 1973, and the U.S. poured millions of dollars into stopping drug trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border. In time, civil asset forfeiture would become a great source of funds for the DEA.
The War on Drugs didn’t start with Nixon. Prohibition was 40 years in the past, but the same moralist tendencies simmered. The War on Drugs certainly didn’t end with Nixon, either. President Ronald Reagan took up the rallying cry. He adopted a “zero tolerance” stance while his wife banged the drum to “Just say no” to drugs. During Reagan’s tenure, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created new mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana. Congress was escalating the War on Drugs. Just before Reagan took office, Congress passed a law expanding the range of property subject to forfeiture to money and other proceeds traceable to drug transactions. Another law passed in 1986 expanded civil asset forfeiture to cash, bank accounts, vehicles, businesses and real estate. Perhaps the most troubling development was when Congress in 1984 decided law enforcement authorities could keep proceeds from civil asset forfeiture.
At the same time, Congress put into place a federal “equitable sharing” program. This is the means used by state and local authorities to circumvent state law when it’s more stringent than federal law. States and local authorities turn assets over to the Department of Justice for federal “adoption” of the case and property. When they do that, states and local authorities can get up to 80 percent of the value of the assets. That is usually much higher than state laws allow.
Read the entire article here at: landlinemag.com
(3/25/19 -- Macomb Daily)
Legislation would require criminal convictions before assets could be forfeited
In early 2013, federal agents seized $35,000 from the bank account of a family that owned a grocery store in Fraser for allegedly violating bank reporting requirements. Family members were never charged with a crime but had to file a lawsuit against federal officials to get their money back. In November 2013, 10 months after the money that the business used for payroll and other expenses was seized, U.S. attorneys representing the IRS dismissed the case against the family and abandoned the forfeiture of the money.
Two bills approved in the Michigan Legislature may have protected the family from having their assets seized in the first place and could help rein in police seizures of property from criminal suspects. Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 4001 would require a criminal conviction before law enforcement can seize property valued at $50,000 or less and proceed with the civil asset forfeiture process. Assets seized by civil forfeiture, as opposed to criminal asset forfeiture, do not require a conviction or plea agreement before being seized. Introduced by Sen. Peter Lucido (R-Shelby Twp.) and Rep. Jason Wentworth (R-Clare), both bills target civil asset forfeiture through which government entities take possession of seized property during criminal investigations and then sell or use it.
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(3/25/19 -- USA Online Casino News)
North Florida Bingo Operators Forfeit Nearly $6M in Illegal Profits
It is no secret that gambling can sometimes bring out the worst in people. When the stakes are high, people can sometimes get so enthralled with the huge jackpot that they will do anything to get the money in their possession and keep it. Illegal gambling rings are also more common than some may think. Law enforcement is cracking down on many of these operations, and those in charge of the illicit gaming rings pay for their crimes. Recently, a couple in Pensacola has been ordered to give up almost $6 million. The couple made money while facilitating illegal bingo games. The news comes from a release from the Northern District of Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office.
In February 2018, a federal jury for running an unlawful gambling business and money laundering convicted Larry Masino, 68 and Dixie Masino, 66. Mr. Masino is from Gulf Breeze; his wife is from Pensacola. The couple had been running the bingo games for years before being caught. Between 2006 and 2015, the Masinos received over $20 million from the illegal bingo games they were running at Racetrack Bingo, their business in Fort Walton Beach. The pair, as well as their three children, kept $5,813,584 of the profits from the bingo games. Recently, M. Casey Rodgers, a U.S. District Judge, signed off on a forfeiture order. The order will require the Masinos to return the money. The couple will also have to give up the three houses they bought using the money from their illegal business dealings.
Read the entire article here at: usaonlinecasino.com
(3/24/19 -- Macomb Daily)
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith to hire outside firm for forfeiture fund lawsuit
A subcommittee of the Macomb County Board of Commissioners approved an outside attorney firm to represent county Prosecutor Eric Smith in a lawsuit filed against him related to disputed forfeiture fund expenditures. Three members of the Government Oversight Committee last Tuesday approved the hiring of Royal Oak-based Howard and Howard in a special, emergency procedure, with final approval granted the next day by board Vice Chairman James Carabelli, R-Shelby Township. The matter will go the full committee and full board next month.
Oversight Committee Chairman Don Brown, R-Washington Township, told The Macomb Daily the panel had no choice but to approve the request. The county must provide legal representation for Smith acting under the scope of his duties.
The county board in February approved hiring Yeo & Yeo CPAs and Business Consultants, a Michigan-based firm, to conduct a forensic audit. Smith has denied any wrongdoing and said he welcomes an audit. He said he properly spent the money in question on law enforcement enhancements and within the limits of the state Crime Victims Rights Act.
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(3/24/19 -- Royal Oak tribune)
Legislation moving in Lansing could change local law enforcement handling of civil asset forfeitures
Although it's been nearly five years, Donny Barnes doesn't plan to give up the fight. In 2014, the Oakland County Narcotic Enforcement Team (NET) seized the bank account Barnes shared with his grandmother, along with his two SUVs and children’s Christmas presents. Police also raided and shut down three of his businesses, including a furniture resale firm, a spyware shop and a medical marijuana magazine based in Waterford. Barnes said his property was unfairly seized and he was taken advantage of that day. The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office has maintained that Barnes', a state-registered medical marijuana caregiver, was operating an illegal marijuana dispensary under the guise of a caregiver and dealing pot to more than just his registered patients.
The criminal charge, marijuana possession with intent to distribute, was eventually dismissed after a judge ruled police failed to establish probable cause for the raid of Barnes' property. Thousands of dollars in fees were also awarded to the defense for the sheriff’s office’s delay in unfreezing Barnes’ bank account. The prosecutor's office filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals on the dismissed criminal charge. That’s now pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. Barnes’ ability to get his belongings returned will depend on what decision the Supreme Court reaches.
Over the past five years, Barnes and his lawyer, David Moffitt, have been fighting to get his belongings back after filing a claim of interest in the property and objection to its seizure. To date, Barnes has only received his Mercedes SUV, which he bought back from the sheriff's office.
Two new pieces of state legislation, recently given approval in the state House and Senate, might have protected Barnes from having his assets seized in the first place and could help rein in police seizures of property from criminal suspects.
Read the entire article here at: dailytribune.com
(3/23/19 -- Martinez News-Gazette)
Federal attorneys file to seize $65 million in DC Solar case
Three federal attorneys have filed a civil forfeiture action in California for more than $65 million in bank accounts, cash and property seized last year in a Federal Bureau of Investigation raid against Jeff and Paulette Carpoff and their companies, including DC Solar and real estate corporations. United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott and two assistant U.S. attorneys, Andre M. Espinosa and Kevin C. Khasigian, of Sacramento, filed their civil action in rem Monday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Civil action in rem is against property, which is considered the defendant in the case. Because it is a civil action, no criminal charges need be placed against the property’s owner, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. However, the attorneys are claiming their list of 87 defendant items are traceable to an investment fraud and money laundering scheme run by companies described in other court documents as those associated with DC Solar.
The attorneys wrote that law enforcement reviewed multiple domestic and foreign bank records showing that hundreds of millions of dollars resulted from fraud, and that fraud can be traced to the bank accounts. The asset defendants listed by the attorneys are bank and investment accounts associated with and connected to Company S, Company D, two individuals listed as “1” and “2” and the California Limited Liability Companies they controlled. Other court documents have indicated Companies S and D are different arms of DC Solar and the individuals are the Carpoffs.
Read the entire article here at: martinezgazette.com
(3/22/19 -- York Dispatch)
York judge: Drug task force was 'overzealous' in seizing property
The York County Drug Task Force was, in the recent past, overzealous about seizing property of some alleged drug dealers — a practice that violated the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions, according to a York County judge. Common Pleas Judge Craig T. Trebilcock filed his 17-page opinion Wednesday, March 20. It directs the York County District Attorney's Office to return two vehicles and two big-screen televisions to a Springettsbury Township couple, the male half of which was convicted of selling heroin. He did not order the couple's other property returned — $924 cash, a .380 handgun and a safe.
"This case is being decided on the facts of this case alone," Trebilcock wrote. "It is important to note, however, that overzealous forfeiture actions by the Drug Task Force in the time frame of this case has not been isolated in nature." According to the judge, "a disconcerting pattern is evident" that some property was being seized by the drug task force "regardless of any link to drug money or illegal activity."
The task force in 2016 and around that time "disproportionately" seized big-screen TVs, video games and game systems, Trebilcock wrote.
Read the entire article here at: yorkdispatch.com
(3/21/19 -- Times Leader)
Baker votes to OK tougher pension forfeiture law
State Sen. Lisa Baker voted “yes” this week on Senate Bill 113, which closes the so-called Mellow loophole in Pennsylvania’s pension forfeiture law and requires that pension systems be informed when there is a conviction or plea in a case that could lead to someone losing their pension.
“Pennsylvania’s pension forfeiture law was approved years ago as a meaningful anti-corruption measure,” Baker said. “Unfortunately, over time, a significant loophole has become apparent, one that will be exploited more frequently unless a fix is approved. Individuals facing criminal charges can sometimes plead guilty to a non-forfeiture crime in order to protect their pensions. Taxpayers are understandably outraged when such evasions of penalties come to light.”
Read the entire article here at: timesleader.com
(3/21/19 -- Greenville News)
Gov. Henry McMaster 'very much in favor' of reforms in SC civil forfeiture laws
In an exclusive interview this week with The Greenville News and Independent Mail, Gov. Henry McMaster said he is "very much in favor" of reforming South Carolina's forfeiture laws in the wake of the TAKEN investigation that's helped spur legislation in the state House of Representatives and Senate. The investigation found that law-enforcement agencies statewide collected more than $17 million over three years using state laws that allow police to take money and property without requiring a criminal conviction or even an arrest. McMaster said there have been instances where law enforcement agencies in the state have gone "too far" in seizing money and possessions. "You can't just take everybody's property," McMaster said.
At least three bills calling for an array of changes in the state's forfeiture laws have been introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly since the TAKEN investigative series was published last month. One of the reforms under consideration calls for eliminating civil forfeiture altogether, creating instead a system of criminal forfeiture. If a person is found guilty of a felony that includes forfeiture as a punishment, their forfeiture case would be tried after the criminal conviction.
In examining every court case involving civil asset forfeiture in the state from 2014 to 2016, the TAKEN investigation found that in about 20 percent of forfeiture cases, there was no criminal conviction, and that in 19 percent of cases, there was no criminal arrest. In 71 percent of the cases, the seizures took money and property from black people.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(3/21/19 -- Salt Lake Tribune)
Of course police came out in force to kill a reasonable attempt to prevent unjust seizure of property
One of the craziest stories of the recently completed 2019 Utah legislative session played out almost completely behind the scenes surrounding attempts to rein in the potential abuses of a process known as civil asset forfeiture. It’s not a sexy name, but civil asset forfeiture is a contentious topic across the country. Critics have called it “highway robbery.”
In 2017, Utah law enforcement reported seizing $2.7 million in assets that were believed to be proceeds from criminal acts. But note that they are alleged crimes committed by suspects. Fifty-eight percent of those suspects were eventually convicted — meaning 42 percent of them were not, according to the report. The average amount taken was about $1,000, meaning we’re not exactly talking about Mexican drug kingpin “El Chapo” here. You can see where this could be a problem.
State Sen. Todd Weiler’s bill, SB109, would have made two simple improvements: First, it would have removed a requirement that law enforcement agencies contribute to the asset forfeiture fund in order to qualify for a grant. Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said forcing them to seize property to get money amounts to a “pay-to-play” incentive. Second, it would have made it harder for local cops to hand over seized money or property from a suspect to federal partners. There’s a good reason to make that change — namely that federal law makes forfeiture much, much easier than state law, and local agencies get a percentage of the money back.
Weiler’s bill was an attempt to comply with the court’s ruling by requiring a judge to sign off when an agency wants to hand over seized assets — a fairly reasonable step. What happened behind the scenes on this bill, though, was unlike anything I’ve seen in the years I’ve covered the Legislature.
Read the entire article here at: sltrib.com
(3/21/19 -- The Heartland Institute)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Under Consideration in Texas Legislature
Two bills to reform Texas’ civil asset forfeiture laws are being considered in the state legislature. H.B. 404, introduced by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), would end civil asset forfeiture and transition the state to a criminal-asset forfeiture process. H.B. 182, introduced by Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg), and the identical S.B. 247, by Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-Edinburg), address criminal asset forfeiture. Texas’ civil asset forfeiture laws are rated among the worst in the nation, receiving a grade of D+ in a report by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a legal reform group.
Texas police agencies are rewarded for asset seizures because, when the property is sold, they are allowed to keep the money for departmental use, the IJ report states. “In cases where a default judgment is entered—as is the case in the majority of forfeiture actions—agencies retain up to 70 percent of forfeiture proceeds,” the report states. “In contested cases—those in which the property owner challenges the basis for the seizure—agencies retain up to 100 percent of proceeds.” To address the incentive for law enforcement to seize as much property as possible, H.B. 404 requires all proceeds from seizures be deposited in the general fund of the county where the agency is located.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(3/20/19 -- Recuro)
Tennessee GOP Kills Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform in the State
Yesterday, Tennessee House Bill 340 was placed into “summer study” by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee effectively giving it “the kiss of death.” Summer study is a designation placed on bills to field them for further review during the time when the legislature is not in session. Rarely do bills return from this designation for a vote. The legislation, introduced by East Tennessee’s own Rep. Martin Daniel, was pointed to make real changes to civil asset forfeiture (CAF) by supporting due process at the state level and effectively stopping the federal government's equitable sharing program from victimizing innocent Tennesseans.
During the months of lobbying and prep work, Tennesseans Against Civil Asset Forfeiture procured 39 cosponsors on HB0340 including Daniel ,Todd, Lafferty, Staples, Faison, Terry, Holt, Hill T, Hill M, Rudder, Hall, Parkinson, Sexton J, DeBerry, Jernigan, Hulsey, Hardaway, Lamar, Hodges, Thompson, Hakeem, Calfee, Dixie, Bricken, Rudd, Dunn, Cepicky, Crawford, Eldridge, Byrd, Wright, Love, Kumar, Chism, Cooper, Miller, Van Huss, Shaw, and Carr. Rep Daniel took a strong stand for the autonomy of state law by fighting against the equitable sharing loophole often used by law enforcement to skirt state law for asset forfeiture cases.
Unsurprisingly, sources within Tennesseans Against Civil Asset Forfeiture have informed us that the police lobby was working overtime to keep this bill from being even considered in committee, calling and meeting with legislators and subcommittee members, putting extreme pressure on the group to continue the anti-American practice of federal equitable sharing and civil asset forfeiture.
During the 11th hour before the subcommittee vote, members and advocates for HB340 were told their remarks would not be heard as there was an agreement made before the vote to place this legislation on summer study, rather than giving subcommittee members the negative exposure of a vote against CAF reform.
Read the entire article here at: recuro.org
(3/20/19 -- FITS News)
SC Medical Marijuana Debate: Todd Rutherford Goes Off
The minority leader of the South Carolina House of Representatives was not in a mood to mince words when we spoke with him earlier this week. Reminded that he could speak with us off-the-record, without fear of having his comments reproduced for attribution, Todd Rutherford told us he didn’t care. He wanted to be on the record.
What has Rutherford so fired up? Ongoing law enforcement opposition to legislation that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes. These bills have drawn significant public support, however, enduring law enforcement opposition has prompted Republican governor Henry McMaster to withhold his support.
Without McMaster on board, the legislation would need to pass both the S.C. House of Representatives and State Senate by veto-proof majorities.
Rutherford is unhappy about that, especially given what he believes is a culture of corruption within the Palmetto State’s law enforcement complex – i.e. those lobbying most vociferously against legalizing pot. Specifically, Rutherford blasted South Carolina’s sheriffs – several of whom were on the receiving end of some decidedly unflattering coverage this week.
“The sheriffs – they are lobbying to make sure they can keep money they are stealing from people who have committed no crime,” Rutherford told us, referring to the ongoing debate over civil asset forfeiture. “I met with the sheriffs – the only thing I heard from them was concern over how they get revenue. Nothing about protecting people or their rights.” Rutherford also slammed a contention often cited by police – that civil asset forfeiture enables them to drain drug cartels and other criminal elements of their financial resources. “They could provide no evidence on the cartels,” he told us. “None whatsoever.”
Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the S.C. Sheriffs Association, took issue with Rutherford’s characterization. “Asset forfeiture is incredibly important to South Carolina’s sheriffs as it has proven to be an effective tool in separating criminal activity from financial gain,” he lied. “I have explained, on numerous occasions, that our state’s current asset forfeiture laws are built upon due process. Prosecutors and the courts are integral parts to our forfeiture systems." Somehow managing to keep a straight face, he continued, "Therefore, the notion that law enforcement officers are legally and unilaterally stealing money from innocent individuals is simply inaccurate.”
Acknowleging that when he says there is NO illegal forfeiture going on, he actually means that there is SOME illegal forfeiture going on, he stated that “(forfeiture) abuses may exist in our state and we stand ready to work with legislators to refine our processes so that we eliminate the potential for abuse.”
Rutherford – who is a sponsor of the forfeiture reform bill (H. 3968) – was having none of Bruder’s explanation. “I’m done listening to lobbyists who don’t know anything,” he said.
Rutherford specifically cited an expansive story that ran in The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier on Sunday detailing various alleged abuses involving multiple sheriffs – including several who stand accused of misappropriating funds obtained via forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: fitsnews.com
(3/19/19 -- KHQ)
Kootenai County Sheriff's Office accused of misspending drug money, lawsuit over firing
A veteran law enforcer was suddenly terminated from the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office back in 2017. The reason for the firing was unknown until now. Former Kootenai County Sheriff's Captain Daniel Soumas claims he was fired over trumped up charges just weeks after he allegedly blew the whistle on what he believed was an illegal use of previously seized drug money. Under federal asset forfeiture rules, it's legal for police departments to seize cash, cars, and even homes that may be connected to a crime.
But, there are very strict rules as to how those proceeds may be later used by law enforcement. For example, the money can't be used to pay for someone's salary. That's what the lawsuit filed by Soumas claims was happening, the sheriff's office allegedly planned to spend $30,000 to hire an individual at the Child Advocacy Center.
The lawsuit states Soumas flagged the county attorney about the potential violation on June 1st, 2017. One week later, according to Soumas, he was brought before his supervisor and told that Undersheriff Dan Mattos felt Soumas was an "obstructionist" about the use of the drug account and that "he better get on board or he would be gone from the KCSO." Soumas was fired a little less than four months later.
Read the entire article here at: khq.com
(3/19/19 -- Salon)
Is Joe Biden risking a reckoning for his work fashioning the War on Drugs?
Last week former, Vice-President Joe Biden used an appearance before theInternational Association of Firefighters to stoke media speculation about his entering the 2020 Democratic Primary free for all. “We’re ready to take anybody on,” he declared to the enthusiastic union crowd which includes hard core Biden boosters. According to the RealClear Politics poll compendium, which includes Monmouth University’s survey, Biden leads the field of a dozen announced Democratic presidential want-to-bes by several points (29 percent). Meanwhile, Senator Cory Booker, New Jersey’s favorite son is in fifth place (5.8 percent) behind Senators Bernie Sanders (22 percent), Kamala Harris (11.3 percent), and Elizabeth Warren (7 percent).
Biden is being pitched as ‘the grown-up moderate in the room’ who knows how to get America back to those long gone halcyon days of beltway bi-partisanship and can prevent the Democratic Party from lurching ‘self-destructively too far to the left’. Yet, Biden’s name recognition and long tenure in public service that catapulted him to the front of the pack is a two-edged sword. Between his botched Anita Hill hearings he presided over, and his tireless efforts on behalf of the banking and credit card industry, it is Biden’s baggage which weighs heaviest on his presidential prospects.
Consider the collateral damage done by the bi-partisan effort push in the 1980’s led by the bi-partisan tag team of Senator Strom Thurmond and Senator Joe Biden to criminalize drug abuse under the guise of ‘getting tough on crime’. As recounted in a devastating Biden profile by Andrew Cockburn in Harper’s, the Senators from South Carolina and Delaware crafted the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which, “among other repressive measures, abolished parole for federal prisoners and cut the amount of time by which sentences could be reduced for good behavior. “
Cockburn reminds his readers that “Biden later took pride in reminding audiences that ‘through the leadership of Senator Thurmond, and myself, and others,’ Congress had passed a law mandating a five-year sentence, with no parole, for anyone caught with a piece of crack cocaine ‘no bigger than [a] quarter.’” “That is, they created the infamous disparity in penalties between those caught with powder cocaine (white people) and those carrying crack (black people),” writes Cockburn. “Biden also unblushingly cited his and Thurmond’s leading role in enacting laws allowing for the execution of drug dealers convicted of homicide, and expanding the practice of civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement’s plunder of property belonging to people suspected of crimes, even if they are neither charged nor convicted.”
By 2010, this strategy resulted in the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world with close to 2.4 million mostly men of color incarcerated on local, county, state and federal prisons. Another almost 7 million were tethered to some form of post-prison supervision like parole and probation.
Read the entire article here at: salon.com
(3/19/19 -- Pasadena News Now)
Police Asset Forfeiture Collections Explode, Approach $800,000 in Just 8 Months
Pasadena Police Chief John Perez is expected to tell the City’s Public Safety Committee Wednesday that his department has raked in an eye-popping $788,089 from asset forfeitures since last July – a huge jump from the $28,929 it collected from forfeitures in all of fiscal year 2018.
Clawson explained that the police department’s percentage cut of forfeited assets rises and falls with the amount of work done on a case as compared to work done by other participating agencies. The funds result from property seizures by the Pasadena Police Department through its participation with state and federal task forces. If a Pasadena Police Department narcotics team seizes $1 million dollars during an investigation, and the department is the only team in the case, Pasadena may receive up to 80 percent of those funds if seizure is granted.”
Read the entire article here at: pasadenanow.com
(3/17/19 -- The Davis Vanguard)
Supreme Court Decision Didn’t End Civil Asset Forfeiture
The 84 percent of Americans who oppose civil asset forfeiture can be forgiven for having the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court ended abusive use of this practice last month in Timbs v. Indiana when it ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states. Some media hailed it as a huge victory. But the celebration is premature.
The Timbs opinion recognizes that the Constitution guarantees freedom from excessive monetary sanctions as a fundamental right. But crucial questions remain about what practical difference the Supreme Court’s decision will make in ordinary people’s lives, particularly in the context of civil asset forfeiture. The question of whether the Excessive Fines Clause should apply to the states wasn’t a difficult one to answer. Indeed, at the oral argument, Justice Gorsuch made fun of Indiana’s Solicitor General, saying: “I mean, most … of the incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s.” Yet, he noted, that we’re “still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really?”
The oft-divided court was able to rule unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Tyson Timbs, partly because the narrow issue of whether the clause is “incorporated” and therefore binding on the states was the only question before it. So while the court said that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to Timbs’ civil asset forfeiture case, it didn’t say that Timbs’ forfeiture case violates the Excessive Fines Clause. That means the case isn’t over. Instead, it will return to the Indiana Supreme Court. That court will decide whether the forfeiture of Timbs’ car violates the Eighth Amendment. And how will the Indiana court decide, and how will the rest of us know, if a forfeiture case violates the Eighth Amendment?
As we noted in our amicus brief, the historical roots of the Excessive Fines Clause indicate that courts need to consider an individual’s financial circumstances in order to evaluate whether a fine or forfeiture is excessive. But the Supreme Court has never squarely answered this crucial question, and it didn’t reach it in Timbs. So far, the court has only held that a criminal asset forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause when it is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense.”
Read the entire article here at: davisvanguard.org
(3/15/19 -- Albuquerque Journal)
City of ABQ trying to return seized vehicles
After years of lawsuits, controversies, court decisions and a new mayoral administration, Albuquerque’s controversial vehicle seizure program has officially come to an end. And now city attorneys say they are in the process of trying to return hundreds of cars seized from suspected drunken drivers over the years. They say the vehicles will be returned free of charge, and owners will not have to pay fines or fees.
As of Thursday, 354 vehicles remained on the lot on Edith near Montaño NE – the oldest a ’92 Ford that was seized almost nine years ago in April 2010. Of those vehicles, the city says 232 need to be returned to their owners. The remaining 122 have been disclaimed by their owner or the city has already acquired ownership of them.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(3/15/19 -- Gainesville Times)
DA's office drops case seeking to seize man’s moped over meth possession
In early October, the Northeastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office filed a case to seize the property of Richard Jamison Smith under what is known as civil forfeiture, where property connected to illegal activity may be seized by law enforcement. Assistant public defender Matthew Cavedon, who had represented Smith on the underlying drug offense, said he would work pro bono outside of his public defender duties to defend against the seizure.
Chief Assistant District Attorney Wanda Vance filed a dismissal Tuesday, March 12 “on the grounds that the costs of continuing the litigation are so great in comparison to the costs of the vehicle that the forfeiture is no longer in the interests of (the) state of Georgia.”
Read the entire article here at: gainesvilletimes.com
(3/15/19 -- American Civil Liberties Union)
The Supreme Court Didn’t Put the Nail in Civil Asset Forfeiture’s Coffin
The 84 percent of Americans who oppose civil asset forfeiture can be forgiven for having the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court ended abusive use of this practice last month in Timbs v. Indiana when it ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states. Some media hailed it as a huge victory. But the celebration is premature.
The Timbs opinion recognizes that the Constitution guarantees freedom from excessive monetary sanctions as a fundamental right. But crucial questions remain about what practical difference the Supreme Court’s decision will make in ordinary people’s lives, particularly in the context of civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(3/16/19 -- Penn Live)
DA raises stakes in turf war, sues county commissioners
Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman has ramped up a political and financial turf war by suing the county commissioners. At issue is what Stedman claims is the commissioners’ improper attempt to scrutinize his spending of more than $21,000 in funds secured through his office’s forfeitures in drug cases to lease an SUV for work use. “It is a work vehicle,” said Brett Hambright, spokesman for Stedman. “he has multiple vehicles (of his own) for personal use."
In the lawsuit filed in Commonwealth Court on Thursday, Stedman accuses Commissioners Josh Parsons, Dennis Stuckey, and Craig Lehman trying to “encroach upon the independent powers of the Lancaster County District Attorney." Under state law, the call on how to spend forfeiture funds is solely his, Stedman contends.
Read the entire article here at: pennlive.com
(3/14/19 -- KARK)
Arkansas to end most civil asset forfeitures
Arkansas lawmakers have passed without opposition a bill to curb civil asset forfeiture, a practice commonly used by law enforcement. SB308, called the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019", is sponsored by Sen. Bart Hester and Reps. Austin McCollum and Mickey Gates,. The bill would amend current Arkansas law to prevent such seizures, unless the person from whom property is being seized is convicted of a felony related to that property, and permits the forfeiture of the property.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2019 passed with 35 yes votes in the Arkansas Senate, and 93 yes votes in the Arkansas House. It now heads to Gov. Asa Hutchinson's desk for signature.
Read the entire article here at: kark.com
(3/14/19 -- WGAL)
Lancaster County commissioners vote to intervene in lawsuit involving district attorney
Tension is building between Lancaster County commissioners and the district attorney over questions about how the district attorney spends drug forfeiture money. Commissioners voted Wednesday to get involved in a Right to Know lawsuit between District Attorney Craig Stedman and Lancaster Newspapers.
LNP wants records from the county's drug forfeiture program to be made public after it questioned Stedman about using drug money to lease a vehicle. Commissioner Josh Parsons wouldn't comment, but the county solicitor said the move isn't about whether Stedman is right or wrong. "We're looking for legal clarification on this issue going forward," said Christina Hausner.
Stedman said he's legally not allowed to release some of the information being requested and added that he invited the commissioners to look at all the documents.
Read the entire article here at: wgal.com
(3/14/19 -- Reason)
Arkansas Legislature Effectively Votes To Abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture
The Arkansas legislature unanimously passed a significant asset forfeiture reform bill Wednesday. The new law will require police and prosecutors to obtain a criminal conviction in most cases before they can seize someone's property. The bill, S.B. 308, passed the Arkansas Senate by a unanimous vote last month. On Wednesday, the bill similarly sailed through the Arkansas House by a vote of 93-0. If the bill is signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas will join four three states—North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska—that have severely curtailed or abolished asset forfeiture.
The new law would require prosecutors to obtain a criminal conviction to forfeit property. There are a list of exceptions, however, including if the property owner is deceased, deported, flees the jurisdiction or fails to challenge the forfeiture, or if the property is abandoned. Jenna Moll, the deputy director of the Justice Action Network, a criminal justice advocacy group, called the passage of the bill "a watershed moment for forfeiture reform efforts in the United States."
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(3/13/19 -- Michigan Live)
Breaking down MSP's Civil Asset Forfeiture report: What was taken, why, and how it was spent
The Michigan State Police's 25th Asset Forfeiture Report for 2017 details the assets seized during an investigation into violation of four specific laws, and what became of the proceeds of those assets. This report is the second filed after lawmakers passed The Uniform Forfeiture Reporting Act, which became effective in 2016.
Most of the $13M in assets seized by Michigan police in 2017 came from drug cases. Below is a breakdown of the various aspects of the reporting, including what laws were violated to enable forfeiture, where the proceeds were spent and whether or not a search warrant was used or a conviction was reached in the course of the investigation.
When it comes to the kind of case that brought police to investigate, the predominate issue was - in both 2017 and 2016 - drugs. Violations of the Public Health Code as it relates to controlled substances made up more than 83% of all instances of forfeiture last year.
Read the entire article here at: mlive.com
(3/13/19 -- Minnesota Public Radio)
MN Supreme Court: Mom shouldn’t have lost car, when daughter used it to drive drunk
Megan Olson already had three DWI convictions to her name when she was arrested by Shakopee police in August 2015. Under Minnesota law, her “first-degree DWI” meant the authorities could seize the car she was driving — a 1999 Lexus. There was just one problem: it wasn’t her car. It belonged to her mother.
There is a provision in the state’s vehicle forfeiture law that prevents innocent people from losing their cars. But there’s also this provision:
If the offender is a family or household member of any of the owners who petition the court and has three or more prior impaired driving convictions, the petitioning owner is presumed to know of any vehicle use by the offender that is contrary to law.
On Wednesday, a divided Minnesota Supreme Court declined to find the provision unconstitutional, but still said Helen Olson, Megan’s mother, was deprived of due process. Under the law, a hearing on the forfeiture can’t be held until the DWI case is solved. It took 18 months before Megan Olson pleaded guilty, which lower courts said was too long.
“Certainly, the State’s interest in keeping drunk drivers off the road remains present in the context of Helen’s constitutional challenge,” Justice Paul Thissen said, writing for the majority. “After all, even though Helen was not the person driving while impaired, the Legislature has recognized that Helen’s possible failure to prevent Megan from driving under the influence matters. “Nonetheless, the fact that the vehicle was not seized because Helen was driving it while impaired means that the government interest in keeping repeat DWI offenders off the road weighs less with regard to her,” Thissen wrote.
Read the entire article here at: mprnews.org
(3/13/19 -- Myrtle Beach Online)
South Carolina looks to change forfeiture laws
The South Carolina Legislature is asking for an impact study on how law changes would affect local departments if they lost the revenue from forfeiture programs. The proposed law change — currently in the House of Representatives — would overhaul forfeiture regulations in South Carolina and has plenty of bi-partisan support. The change would not ban forfeiture outright, but aims to create more guidelines and protections for how the state can use those funds.
Lt. Jamie DeBari with the criminal investigations division said depending on what the South Carolina House of Representatives does, the departments could be greatly affected in terms of funding. During the current legislative session, which lasts until May, the South Carolina House will be reevaluating how the money from forfeitures can be used, following an investigation into the practice by The Greenville News. “Those funds would disappear and go directly to the state. So it would be up to the county to fund that portion,” DeBari said.
The state law changes would require a criminal conviction before the forfeitures could be used. Under the current law, property can be seized before a conviction is made.
Read the entire article here at: myrtlebeachonline.com
(3/12/19 -- Bridge)
For cash-strapped police in Michigan, asset forfeiture bills could be a blow
As the opioid epidemic ramps up, police across Michigan are staring down the probability of losing some of the financial resources they use to fight drug criminals. That’s the viewpoint, at least, of many in law enforcement who oppose major legislation that they say could cost them a portion of a $13 million revenue stream and which both Republicans and Democrats are eager to sign off on: civil asset forfeiture reform.
Nearly identical state legislative packages — one sponsored by Sen. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, in the Senate, and a second in the House by Rep. Jason Wentworth, R-Clare, and Rep. David LaGrand, D-Grand Rapids — would require a criminal conviction before police can keep someone’s assets (such as cars, cash, or homes) seized in connection with a suspected crime.
Even when people are not convicted or charged following an arrest, many still must go to court to get their property back, sometimes accruing hefty legal fees. And because police departments often keep what they take and add it to their budgets, proponents of the legislation say the current law incentivizes law enforcement to abuse the system. “This is going to provide a lot of justice for a lot of our citizens, particularly some of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens,” LaGrand said of his bill on the House floor in late February.
Standing squarely on the other side are cops, who say the pending laws would bind their hands and unleash drug dealers upon Michigan’s cities, armed with the cash they’d now be allowed to keep. “It is going to have a negative effect upon narcotics enforcement at a time when we’re in an epidemic fight with the opioid problem,” lied Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, who said the bills would leave many police departments without the resources to fund narcotics teams,followed by the equally bogus, “Now we’re going to eliminate people that are fighting that fight.”
Read the entire article here at: bridgemi.com
(3/11/19 -- ABC 27)
Pennsylvania House panel passes update to pension forfeiture law
Legislation that would strip public employees of their taxpayer-funded pensions when they commit any job-related felony is closer to passage. The House Judiciary Committee unanimously passed Senate Bill 113 on Tuesday. The bill would require pension forfeiture if a public employee or official is found guilty, pleads guilty, or pleads no contest to any felony offense related to their employment. Under current law, only about a dozen crimes automatically trigger pension forfeiture.
State Sen. John DiSanto (R-Dauphin/Perry) said his proposal would close a loophole that allows public officials to keep their pensions by pleading guilty to non-forfeiture crimes. The bill passed the state Senate last month and is awaiting consideration in the full House.
Read the entire article here at: abc27.com
(3/11/19 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Nevada law enforcement agencies profit from forfeiture cases
After 28-year-old Anthony Garcia died in July in a rollover crash near Primm, Las Vegas police found about $26,000 in a duffel bag near his body, along with two Mason jars containing 64 pounds of THC hash oil. That money was seized by police and is currently held up in a pending civil asset forfeiture lawsuit, according to court records, but Garcia’s family is named as a possible claimant in the case.
The Metropolitan Police Department seized about $2.3 million in property, including cash, during the fiscal year that ended in July and took in about $2.2 million in civil asset forfeitures, according to the Nevada attorney general’s annual forfeiture report. On top of that, local law enforcement agencies that aid federal agencies in seizures can get a cut under the Federal Equitable Sharing Program. Metro received about $64,000 in forfeiture money from the U.S. government last fiscal year.
A 2017 study by the Nevada Policy Research Institute found that seizures and forfeitures “disproportionately target neighborhoods with relatively high levels of minorities and low-income residents.” According to the report, 66 percent of forfeitures in 2016 occurred in 12 of Las Vegas’ 48 zip codes. The average poverty level in those zip codes was 27 percent, compared with the 12 percent rate in the others. In those most-targeted zip codes, the average non-white population was 42 percent. The non-white populations of the other zip codes was 36 percent. “Because a majority of forfeitures concern less than $1,000, there is often no practical recourse for the alleged lawbreakers,” the report states.
Read the entire article here at: reviewjournal.com
(3/11/19 -- Florida Daily News)
Racetrack Bingo operators to forfeit millions
Larry and Dixie Masino, the former owner/operators of Race Track Bingo have been ordered to forfeit $5,813,584 to the federal government. In a news release issued Monday, the U.S. District Court did not say how much or if any of the forfeited funds would be used to reimburse the several nonprofit organizations the Masinos were convicted of stealing from. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 25 in Pensacola.
“Rather than returning all proceeds from bingo games to players in the form of prizes, as required by law, the Masinos concocted a scheme in which charities sponsored games and paid Racetrack Bingo extremely high ‘lease’ payments to conduct the games at its location,” the release said. “Although Racetrack Bingo made it appear that the charities were conducting the games themselves, the Masinos were actually illegally conducting bingo and keeping a substantial amount of the bingo proceeds for themselves.”
er $20 million was brought in from the illegal bingo games conducted at Racetrack Bingo, of which $5,813,584 was personally retained by the Masinos and their children as illegal profit, the release said.
Read the entire article here at: nwfdailynews.com
(3/10/19 -- Lehigh Valley Live)
Finally, a move toward fairness in civil asset forfeiture
New Jersey’s asset forfeiture law has criticized for running roughshod over individual rights. The Legislature is just getting around to changing it.
As reported by nj.com, the Institute for Justice has ranked New Jersey among the worst states for its low threshold for forfeiture (no conviction needed) and lack of safeguards for uninvolved property owners. It found that prosecutors in 21 counties seized $72.6 million in assets between 2009 and 2013, 79 percent of it cash. That figure doesn’t include assets taken on a municipal or state level.
It’s time to balance the equation. The Supreme Court ruling is a pivotal step in that direction. States, counties and municipalities must be held accountable for what they confiscate, and how much, in the name of crime fighting.
Read the entire article here at: lehighvalleylive.com
(3/8/19 -- Alabama Political Reporter)
Alabama advocates hope to reintroduce legislation reforming civil asset forfeiture
Under Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture policies, police are able to seize personal property from citizens without a criminal charge or conviction if they find probable cause to believe the property could be connected to a crime. In order to regain their property, owners not convicted of crimes must go through a court process to prove the property was not connected to a crime. Even then, it may take months or years to receive their property, if they ever get it back. Because of this, Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws have been rated among the worst in the nation by the Institute for Justice.
According to Executive Director of Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice Carla Crowder, this practice harms low-income Alabamians who may not have the necessary funds to hire a lawyer. For these people, having money or cars taken away can be extremely detrimental. “What we found is that a lot of people, even though their money or their property is taken, and they are not convicted of a crime, don’t have the resources to hire an attorney so they don’t go to court to challenge that forfeiture,” Crowder said. “So, they end up losing a lot of property or their money.’
Last year, legislation calling for a criminal conviction to be required in order to seize property, protection of property owners and transparency of the process was introduced by state Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, and state Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Birmingham. This legislative session, advocates are planning to introduce another similar bill.
Read the entire article here at: alreporter.com
(3/8/19 -- Bismarck Tribune)
Civil forfeiture bill still needed after court ruling
The North Dakota House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 1286, which would reform the state’s civil asset forfeiture law. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
The Timbs decision is an important development in civil forfeiture reform efforts, and North Dakota legislators obviously must take note when the highest court rules on an issue that is the subject of pending legislation. A review of the court’s opinion should lead legislators to two conclusions. First, HB1286 is consistent with the court’s decision. Second, the narrow scope of the decision illustrates why HB1286 is needed to address the many other problems with North Dakota’s civil forfeiture law. Consistent with the Timbs decision, the bill would allow an owner to petition the court to determine whether a forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive. That inquiry would now fall squarely under the Eighth Amendment.
HB1286 includes other provisions not covered by the court’s decision. The standard of proof for civil forfeiture in North Dakota is very low — a mere preponderance of the evidence. The bill would increase the standard of proof to “clear and convincing evidence.” The law currently allows for civil forfeiture when property was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. HB1286 would require the government to show the property was validly seized in the first place.
Finally, HB1286 would fix the biggest problem with our state’s civil forfeiture law. Currently, if a person is suspected of committing a crime, the government has the power to seize their property — even if the person is never charged or is eventually acquitted. The new law would allow civil forfeiture only when the owner has been convicted or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense (subject to certain exceptions, including if the defendant flees the state).
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(3/7/19 -- The Heartland Institute)
Michigan Considers Partial Reform of Civil Asset Forfeiture
Recently, many states have limited law enforcement agencies’ ability to seize property from criminal suspects without conclusive evidence of a crime, a process known as civil asset forfeiture. Currently, Michigan implements some of the nation’s most egregious civil asset forfeiture laws. In fact, Institute for Justice (IJ) analysts gave Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws a D-, one of the lowest grades in the country.
In January, a bill was introduced in the Michigan legislature that would limit the potential for civil asset forfeiture abuse. Senate Bill 2 would prohibit the seizure of property associated with a substance-related crime unless there is a conviction or plea agreement. The bill would be limited to seizures of property valued at $50,000 or less. The bill would also allow individuals to voluntarily give up their property or file a written objection regarding property seized without a warrant.
Despite some reforms in recent years, Michigan’s current civil asset forfeiture laws create a substantial incentive for state and local law enforcement agencies to seize assets. Unfortunately, this perverse incentive allows these agencies to retain up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds for use in their departments. According to IJ, from 2001 to 2013, Michigan law enforcement agencies reported “more than $244 million in gross forfeiture proceeds, averaging almost $19 million per calendar year.”
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(3/7/19 -- Penn Live)
District attorney defends $21K SUV leased with drug forfeiture money
In the wake of a news report that Lancaster County’s district attorney improperly spent drug-forfeiture money on an SUV lease, the district attorney Thursday fired back in a letter, mainly aimed at the county commissioners, defending his actions.
Drug-forfeiture money is designated by state law for use in fighting drug crimes, but LancasterOnline said Stedman used the SUV for business such as attending legislative hearings and law conferences that were not directly related to drug-law enforcement.
Stedman’s office defended the lease, saying he is always on call and that most crimes he prosecutes are drug-related in some way, making the use of the money for a vehicle permissible.
Read the entire article here at: pennlive.com
(3/7/19 -- Greenville News)
Civil forfeiture reform: Lawmakers amend bill that police chief said would endanger public
Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller on Thursday defended his department’s use of civil asset forfeiture and blasted a bill that proposes to abolish civil forfeiture in the state as too sweeping in scope. Miller ludicrously claimed the bill as originally proposed would empower criminals and harm public safety.
A House Judiciary subcommittee spinelessly added an amendment to address concerns of Miller and others in law enforcement. The subcommittee then gave the bill a 5-0 favorable review. It is set to be debated by the full House Judiciary committee next week.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(3/6/19 -- The Gaffney Ledger)
Lawmakers mull changing what happens to cash, assets seized by law enforcement
South Carolina legislators are debating a fundamental change in the way law enforcement has been trying to take a bite out of crime. On the heels of a highly critical investigation by The Greenville News and Anderson Independent Mail into police use of civil forfeitures to take cash, vehicles and even homes seized during the investigation of drug crimes, a growing number of state lawmakers are proposing a major overhaul of the state’s forfeiture laws.
Among those proposed changes, a criminal conviction would be required before any monies or property could be taken and the state would get the money, not local police departments or agencies. The newspaper investigation that prompted legislators to take a closer look found that police agencies in South Carolina had seized approximately $17 million between 2014 and 2016 with little transparency while nearly 20 percent of the more than 4,000 people involved in those seizures were never charged with a crime. The investigation also found that civil asset forfeitures disproportionately impacted African-American men compared to the rest of the state’s population.
Read the entire article here at: gaffneyledger.com
(3/5/19 -- TechDirt)
Missouri Law Enforcement Is Dodging State Forfeiture Laws To Screw Schools And Keep Drugs Flowing Into The State
The journalists at St. Louis Public Radio are the latest to dig into their state's asset forfeiture programs. Despite the state receiving a decent grade from the Institute of Justice for the controls it places on state-level forfeitures, the station found plenty of abuse thanks to the federal loophole, which allows law enforcement to bypass all the built-in protections legislators have enacted. Prosecutors like Tim Lohmar in St. Charles County make the decision whether to handle potential asset-forfeiture cases with state charges, or at the federal level. The vast majority of the time, Lohmar chooses the federal process.
This has resulted in a windfall of over $1 million for local law enforcement agencies. Thanks to federal adoption, the money train never stops, no matter what state laws require. If the forfeiture is tied to criminal charges, the money goes to local schools. Cops aren't fond of sharing, so only three of the 36 forfeiture cases processed by Lohmar last year included criminal charges for the person the cash was taken from. The preference to grab cash, rather than drugs, has led to some completely nonsensical defenses of civil asset forfeiture.
And we know cops don't actually care about stopping the drug flow. They allow the drugs to make their way into St. Louis and camp out on the roads leading away from the city to seize cash they believe resulted from the drug sales they can't be bothered to stop. Law enforcement agencies like cash and the federal loophole that allows them to keep 80% of what they seize. What they don't like is the work that comes with actually dismantling drug cartels which, at some point, has to involve drug seizures and arrests, rather than pocketing cash and sending drivers on their way.
Legislators enacted reforms almost two decades ago. Law enforcement immediately found a way to circumvent these restrictions. For a brief moment a few years ago, the federal government closed the escape hatch. That has been reopened and it certainly won't be closing again while Trump is in office. Fortunately, state legislators are aware of what's happening and are attempting to close this loophole.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(3/5/19 -- Fox 43)
Report: Lancaster County DA spent $21,000 in drug forfeiture funds to lease SUV for work
Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman spent more than $21,000 in drug forfeiture proceeds, the largest source of revenue for the Lancaster County Drug Task Force, to lease and maintain a sport utility vehicle to travel for district attorney business, according to a LNP report. Stedman began leasing the vehicle, a Toyota Highlander, in January 2016, the LNP report says. LNP obtained the information by reviewing Stedman's expense reports from the Lancaster County controller's office, parking records from the Harrisburg Parking Authority, and vehicle information from Carfax.
The LNP reports says from January 2016 to November 2018, Stedman spent $21,373.32 in drug forfeiture proceeds on the lease, security deposit, registration and inspection of the vehicle, including a $10,000 initial payment, a $1,950 security deposit, and monthly payments of $300. Since the spring of 2017, LNP reports, Stedman drove the SUV to Harrisburg at least 16 times. His expense reports indicate he used the vehicle while attending legislative hearings, meetings with the governor's staff, and participating in law conferences and training. These activities were not directly related to drug-law enforcement, LNP says.
LNP noted in its report that Stedman’s use of drug forfeiture money to pay for a car lease is rare, but not unique, among district attorneys in Pennsylvania. The Berks County District Attorney does the same thing, LNP's report says. The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners told LNP it had been unaware of Stedman's lease, and called it "improper."
Read the entire article here at: fox43.com
(3/4/19 -- WFPL)
Drones, Guns And Light Bills: How Kentucky Police Spend Seized Cash
The Jeffersontown Police say they probably wouldn’t be able to have a 12-officer Special Operations Group without the money they seize from suspected drug traffickers. They use asset forfeiture money to reimburse the police department for overtime when the special-operations team is called out to a scene. The seizures paid for body armor, medical supplies and a retirement plaque for an outgoing officer. The suspected drug money also bought the department a sports car, a submachine gun, and a drone.
“We go into this looking at the interest of, how are we going to keep our community safe?” said Maj. Brittney Garrett, who oversees the agency’s budget. “We want to do that with the right personnel and the right equipment.” Kentucky law dictates that agencies seizing money and assets from suspected drug traffickers use it for direct law enforcement purposes. A KyCIR review of $3.7 million in spending records from 17 law-enforcement agencies in Kentucky shows that officials take varied interpretations of that rule, buying a sniper rifle with a silencer, a vacuum, gym equipment or a lunch at Hooters with seized funds.
Read the entire article here at: wfpl.org
(3/4/19 -- Fast Company)
The government’s strange, decade-long quest to seize a logo
Logos are an important part of any organization, whether it’s a company, a nonprofit, or an allegedly criminal motorcycle gang. And for the last 10 or so years, the government has been trying to limit the reach of a 1,000-member-strong Los Angeles-based biker gang called the Mongols by seizing the trademark of the group’s logo. But in the latest decision in a long line of court cases and appeals, an L.A.-area judge ruled that the Mongols could not be stripped of their logo, arguing that a jury’s January decision to do so violated the organization’s first amendment rights of freedom of expression and eighth amendment rights banning excessive punishment. That means that the Mongols’ symbol–a Genghis Khan-like figure with sunglasses riding on a motorcycle–isn’t going anywhere. In essence, logos qualify as free speech, and the ruling confirms that. “The District Court Judge was right to review the jury verdict with an eye to the constitutional issues it raised,” says Christine Farley, a law professor at American University. “And he was right that the forfeiture in this case would have operated to deny the members their protected speech rights.”
In the original case, the government tried to argue that it should seize the Mongols’ trademark like it’s a “good” because Mongol members used the mark to intimidate others, much like a gang member might use a gun to coerce and intimidate. The Mongols organization has been convicted of racketeering, conspiracy, and shared responsibility for individual members’ convictions of murder, attempted murder, and drug crimes.
Read the entire article here at: fastcompany.com
(3/4/19 -- Roll Call)
Obscure asset seizure fund in limelight as border battle rages
Pity the poor Treasury Forfeiture Fund, which has been shredded by congressional appropriators using it as a piggy bank for so long that the program’s managers have been crying uncle. Now, along comes President Donald Trump with his creative use of statutory authorities to top up the nearly $1.4 billion Congress appropriated in fiscal 2019 for his southern border wall project, including an extra $601 million in Treasury asset seizure revenues.
Never mind that Homeland Security appropriators already in the fiscal 2019 law grabbed $200 million from the same pot of money to offset other priorities within the agency, including the wall. Treasury would have lost another $175 million in the Financial Services title of a measure proposed by House Democrats, though that rescission was dropped in the final omnibus bargaining.
Such is life for the obscure Treasury forfeiture account, which collects assets seized in criminal investigations by federal agencies, including DHS, auctions them for cash and shares the proceeds with federal, state and local law enforcement bureaus. Forfeiture funds are also spent on payments to crime victims, investigation and litigation expenses. Typically, the program has gotten by spending between $500 million and $600 million each year — despite profligate poaching of the fund by Congress.
Read the entire article here at: rollcall.com
(3/4/19 -- Yakima Herald)
Local prosecutors claim Supreme Court asset-forfeiture ruling affirm's Washington's rules
Prosecutors in Yakima and Yakima County are not anticipating any major changes in how they seize assets associated with crimes following a recent Supreme Court ruling. The prosecutors say Washington state already restricts asset forfeitures to ensure that they are in proportion to the crime, and that the assets seized are genuinely connected to criminal activity. Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the principle that our Supreme Court already applies,” said Bronson Faul, assistant Yakima City Attorney. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Clark, who handles asset forfeiture for Yakima County, agreed, saying the county also weighs the risks of such lawsuits, including having to pay the other party’s attorney fees if they lose. “Contrary to what some claimants and defense counsel say, we don’t come in and seize all your property,” Clark lied.
Read the entire article here at: yakimaherald.com
(3/3/19 -- Standard-Examiner)
House panel kills Senate bill that would have tightened police property seizure rules in Utah
A bill to tighten police property seizure rules breezed through the Utah Senate recently, but a House committee quickly killed it Friday after relentless criticism by law enforcement. Sen. Todd Weiler’s Senate Bill 109 would eliminate a loophole he said was a “vestige of pay to play” incentives under current law that could allow police to skirt protections against improper civil asset forfeiture of cash or other property. But Ogden Police Chief Randy Watt, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Utah Agent-in-Charge Brian Besser and commanders of the narcotics task forces in Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah counties uniformly blasted the bill'
“Pay for play is a myth,” Watt flagrantly lied to the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, according to an audio recording of the hearing. “It does not exist.”
Weiler said his bill does only two things:
• Require police to take asset seizure cases to the state courts first and not make an end-around to the federal courts, where asset forfeiture controls are lighter.
• Allow police agencies to apply for grants from the state’s asset forfeiture pool without having to seize assets to qualify.
He complained police were simply opposed to any action to add due-process protections to the seizure law.
“The attitude I have received is that ‘any bill run on asset forfeiture is picking on us,’” he said.
Read the entire article here at: standard.net
(3/4/19 -- The Salt Lake Tribune)
‘Highway robbery’ or a way to fight drug cartels? Utah police defend law that lets them take cash, even from suspects who are never arrested.
A Utah lawmaker set a goal to remove any incentive any Utah police officer could have to unnecessarily take money from someone. State law allows officers to seize property — even from people who are never charged, let alone convicted of a crime — under a process called civil asset forfeiture. Concerned about the potential for abuse, Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, had hoped SB109 would put more safeguards in place.
But even the insinuation that an officer would improperly seize cash or items from a suspect brought a big backlash from Utah’s police agencies, where leaders argue the tool, used largely against drug dealers, is not abused. At the end of the day, Utah’s laws aren’t going to change — at least not this year. Yet, the public policy debate isn’t going away.
Police in Utah have taken millions of dollars in recent years under a law that allows officers to seize property and cash if they believe it is connected to criminal activity. In 2016, police seized $1.6 million in cash and property. In 2017, the last full year of data, police seized $2.5 million. And officers don’t need to get a conviction to keep it — though the most recent state data shows 87 percent of the time, prosecutors do at least file criminal charges.
Read the entire article here at: sltrib.com
(3/2/19 -- Winston-Salem Journal)
Our view: Asset forfeiture undermines justice
The case was so clear-cut that all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed: The Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose financial penalties and seize property. Tyson Timbs of Marion, Ind., was arrested in 2015 for selling a couple hundred dollars’ worth of heroin. The maximum monetary penalty for Timbs’ crime was $10,000, but that didn’t stop local authorities from seizing his $42,000 Land Rover. The Indiana Supreme Court justified the deed by claiming that the Constitution’s excessive-fines clause didn’t apply to the states.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the court’s main opinion. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. ... Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
Read the entire article here at: journalnow.com
(3/1/19 -- Palestine Herald-Press)
Texas following Supreme Court ruling, officials say
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, imposing Constitutional limits on how much private property local law enforcement may seize through civil forfeiture, won't change how the law operates in Texas, local officials said. “Nothing changes here,” Anderson County District Attorney Allyson Mitchell told the Herald-Press. “Texas already has safeguards against excessive fines.” In Texas, Mitchell said, the court already determines the proportionality of property value to the crime.
Local businessman Don Reddell, however, said Texas police abuse civil forfeiture laws and “police for profit.”
“The Supreme Court decision isn't going to change anything,” he said. “The police are going to do whatever they want to do, anyway.” Last year, Palestine police officers raided Reddell's game room. He said police seized more than $5,000 in cash, as well as property, including computers and surveillance cameras, worth at least $25,000.
The High Court decision does not change forfeiture practices regarding property associated with the commission of a crime. Such property, irrespective of value, remains subject to civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: palestineherald.com
(3/1/19 -- The Chicago Reader)
SCOTUS civil asset forfeiture decision won’t end profit-driven policing
Last week the Supreme Court issued a landmark unanimous decision that the Eighth Amendment's protections against excessive fines apply to the states, not just to the federal government. The decision was hailed by many as a major blow to the practice of civil asset forfeiture—when law enforcement agencies permanently seize property or money tied to criminal activity. However, despite the importance of the decision, experts familiar with civil asset forfeiture in Illinois caution that it won't necessarily change much about the unfairness of the practice.
In 2016 a Reader investigation created a first-ever record of how the Chicago Police Department uses funds derived from civil asset forfeiture. With the help of FOIA'd records we found that between 2009 and 2016 CPD forfeited more than $70 million. About 65 percent of this was retained by the department and the rest divvied up between the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and the Illinois State Police. While this may not seem like a lot of money given the CPD's more than $1.5 billion annual budget, the funds essentially created a substantial "shadow budget" for one unit within the police force—the Bureau of Organized Crime. This money was often spent on controversial surveillance equipment (like Stingray cell phone data capture technology), undercover officers' car rental and cell
phone bills, and office supplies.
The fact that a division of CPD has a source of money not subject to the city's budgeting process or regular public disclosure is also troubling because civil asset forfeiture often impacts people who aren't themselves accused of a crime. For example, if a relative borrows someone's car and is arrested after driving the vehicle to conduct an alleged drug deal, the owner of the car can have it taken away even if they have no knowledge of what the vehicle was used for and there's been no conviction in the criminal case.
Read the entire article here at: chicagoreader.com
(3/1/19 -- Alabama Political Reporter)
Alabama takes step to create civil asset forfeiture database
The Alabama District Attorneys Association is taking steps to create a reporting system to keep track of the use of civil asset forfeiture in Alabama. The ADAA, Rep. Arnold Mooney, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and other public policy groups announced the creation of the Alabama Forfeiture Accountability System. The new database system will track and compile civil asset forfeiture cases in Alabama. Reports will be submitted to state lawmakers and state officials,
and the ADAA said useful information on forfeitures will be available to the public.
“This has been a work in progress since last spring, when legislation to create a data collection and reporting system for civil asset forfeiture system died when time ran out on the legislative session,” said Barry Matson, executive director of the Alabama District Attorneys Association and the state Office of Prosecution Services. “But we continued to work with many groups – from law enforcement and state agencies to policy groups with an interest in asset forfeiture – to voluntarily put the system in place.”
Read the entire article here at: alreporter.com
(2/28/19 -- NBC Los Angeles)
Federal Judge Denies Forfeiture of Mongol Nation Logos
A federal judge in Santa Ana ruled Thursday the government cannot seize the logos of the Mongol Nation motorcycle club, but can move to seize ammunition and weapons found while pursuing a racketeering conviction it won in December. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter cited the First and Eighth Amendments in his ruling on the forfeiture requests following the racketeering convictions of the motorcycle club.
Carter rejected a motion for a new trial and acquittal of the convictions. Both sides said an appeal is certain. "We are ecstatic that the Mongol motorcycle club defended the First Amendment," said Mongol Nation attorney Stephen Stubbs. "The government clearly overreached. They tried to ban symbolic speech. Judge Carter gave a wonderful ruling."
Read the entire article here at: nbclosangeles.com
(2/28/19 -- Michigan Advance)
House moves civil forfeiture bills forward
Michigan’s House of Representatives on Thursday advanced high-priority legislation aimed at reforming the state’s criminal justice system.
Taken together, House Bills 4001 and 4002, sponsored by state Reps. Jason Wentworth (R-Clare) and David LaGrand (D-Grand Rapids), respectively, allow law enforcement to seize property based on probable cause. However, criminal convictions are required before the property can be sold or used. Supporters of the legislation say this ensures that people found not guilty of a crime can get their property back.
Both bills passed 107-3, with state Reps. John Chirkun (D-Roseville), Aaron Miller (R-Sturgis) and Nate Shannon (D-Sterling Heights) voting against the legislation. “I’m proud to see the House stand together in a bipartisan fashion, as we did today, and really support and protect, and safeguard our citizens [right to due process],” Wentworth told reporters following the vote. “And, you know, it still allows law enforcement do their job, but it was it was awesome to see the House stand together.”
LaGrand, who’s an attorney, said the legislation would be especially beneficial for “our poorest and most vulnerable citizens” who often don’t have the resources to fight to get their property back if its seized due to the suspicion of a crime.
Read the entire article here at: michiganadvance.com
(2/28/19 -- Lagniappe Weekly)
Law enforcement leaders announce voluntary civil forfeiture database
As calls to reform Alabama’s civil forfeiture practices continue, law enforcement leaders have agreed to voluntarily create a database of all the property police seize through the state court system and report that information to the public in a more easily-accessible way.
The United States Department of Justice annually reports to Congress all of the revenue that asset forfeitures generate for federal agencies and state agencies that bring civil forfeiture cases to federal court. However, in a number of states, including Alabama, police and prosecutors have not been required to report information about property seized in state court. While there’s still no law requiring agencies and prosecutors to report that information, they are taking the initiative to do so in a move that would likely prevent the kind of civil forfeiture reform bills that have been introduced in Alabama’s legislature for the last three years.
On Thursday, associations representing district attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs and other law groups announced the creation of the Alabama Forfeiture Accountability System (AFAS). Barry Matson, executive director of the Alabama District Attorneys Association, described AFAS as a “breakthrough reporting system that will shed more light on the use of civil asset forfeitures in Alabama” — a practice that’s recently been criticized by civic groups on the right and left.
Read the entire article here at: lagniappemobile.com
(2/28/19 -- Greenville News)
Civil forfeiture abolishment draws concerns from South Carolina law enforcement officials
A pair of bills introduced in the state House of Representatives in the wake of The Greenville News' TAKEN investigation received initial public hearings Thursday in front of a House Judiciary subcommittee. One of the bills, which calls for creation of a statewide database to track money and property that is seized by law enforcement, received a 5-0 favorable recommendation from the subcommittee.
Rep. Weston Newton, R-Bluffton, the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee chairman, said transparency is needed when police seize cash or property. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant," Newton said.
The second bill, a comprehensive reform bill that would abolish civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture based on a felony conviction, was discussed, but the time-limited subcommittee adjourned and will resume discussion to hear from more stakeholders likely next week. In all, 102 of 123 House members have signed as co-sponsors of that legislation. To pass the House and advance to the state Senate, legislation requires 63 votes.
Thursday's hearing provided an opportunity for law enforcement officials to voice concerns they have with the bills, which would strip a stream of funds from their operations and send any forfeiture revenue to the state’s general fund, not to the law enforcement agency which made the seizure. “We recognize that both with what’s been said today and what’s been printed in The Greenville News that there’s room for perfection; there’s room for refinement in this process,” said Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(2/27/19 -- The Detroit News)
Michigan firm picked for forensic audit of Macomb prosecutor accounts
Macomb County will conduct an audit of forfeiture accounts following questions raised by the county prosecutor's use of the funds earmarked for crime fighting. The Macomb County Board of Commissioners approved a Kalamazoo-based accounting firm Wednesday for a forensic audit of asset forfeiture accounts. The board also questioned expenditures by the county Prosecutor's Office. The decision follows concerns raised by residents and County Executive Mark Hackel about Prosecutor Eric Smith's use of $1.8 million in expenditures since 2012.
Forfeiture funds, which are supposed to be designated for law enforcement agencies for crime-fighting purposes, have been spent on Smith's own office purchases and for non-profit organizations.
The Michigan-based firm of Yeo & Yeo, which has eight offices across Michigan and experience in municipal audits, was among four firms considered. Thomas O’Sullivan and Jamie Rivette, two principals in the company, appeared before the board and answered questions about how they would proceed with a forensic audit. The board last week approved an examination of expenditures of money taken by the Prosecutor’s Office from drug users, drunk drivers and bad check writers, which become part of the county forfeiture funds.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(2/27/19 -- WBKW)
Niagara County Legislature wants "Red Flag" seizure law repealed
The Niagara County Legislature voted unanimously on Wednesday to request Governor Andrew Cuomo to repeal the "Red Flag" Gun Seizure Law. The "Red Flag" Gun Seizure Law, which was voted into law on Monday, permits police, family members, teachers, doctors, or any other concerned party to petition a state court to order temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge will make the determination to issue the order based on the statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. According to the Niagara County Legislature, they say this directly violates the Second Amendment, with the new law only harming law abiding citizens.
"It's the law abiding citizens that follow the rules that will be punished by them" Niagara County Legislature Majority Leader Randy Bradt (R) said, "Where the criminals that don't have registered guns, they're not going to follow the rules. It's more to hinder us." The Niagara County Legislature says that this is not a partisan issue as both Democrats and Republicans voted for the repeal.
Read the entire article here at: wkbw.com
(2/27/19 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
7th Circuit remands Indiana civil forfeiture case
In another dispute in an Indiana civil forfeiture case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied issuing an opinion on a district court ruling that found parts of the state statute unconstitutional, finding the lower court was not given a chance to address the state’s effort to fix the problem. The case began in 2016 when Leroy Washington was pulled over and arrested on several felony charges, which also led the towing and forfeiture of his vehicle under Indiana Code 34- 24-1-1(a)(1) and 2(a)(1). Washington asserted his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated on behalf of himself and others like him in a federal class action complaint.
An August 2016 ruling by Southern District Court Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson found Washington’s assertion to be correct, and that Indiana Code section 34-24-1-1(a)(1), when read in conjunction with statutory provisions of the same chapter, was unconstitutional. Specifically, Magnus-Stinson found it was unconstitutional for law enforcement to hold a seized vehicle without a “post-seizure, pre-forfeiture hearing.” The Marion County Prosecutor’s office returned Washington’s vehicle and moved to dismiss the case as moot, but the district court certified a class and granted Washington summary judgment in August 2017. While the prosecutor’s subsequent appeal was pending, Indiana amended its forfeiture statutes, partly in an attempt to address Magnus-Stinson’s constitutionality concerns.
Read the entire article here at: theindianalawyer.com
(2/26/19 -- Reason)
Michigan May Stop Police From Seizing Property Without Getting a Conviction First
In 2017, Michigan police seized property from nearly 1,000 people who were never convicted of a crime. Some of them were never even arrested. Those numbers—the result of new reporting requirements passed by the state in 2015—have spurred a bipartisan push among Michigan lawmakers to further restrict the practice of civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize cash and property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is never convicted, or sometimes never charged, with a crime.
The Michigan Senate passed a civil asset forfeiture reform bill last week that would require police to obtain a criminal conviction to seize assets valued under $50,000, or consent from the owner to relinquish the property. The bill is now being considered by the state house. Jarrett Skorup, a researcher at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank, used a public records request to get the underlying data the state used to prepare its annual reports. Skorup's data showed that in 2017, the latest year for which information is available, Michigan police seized $13 million in cash and property—everything ranging from guns to TVs to Playstation 4s to grow lights for marijuana. Bowling balls, jumper cables, power tools, and Beats headphones also made the list.
Those spreadsheets also showed that police, particularly in Wayne County, Michigan, seized thousands of cars in 2017 under the auspices of marijuana enforcement. Of the more than 2,500 vehicles seized, 473 were not accompanied by a criminal conviction, and in 438 of those cases, no one was even charged with a crime, according to Skorup's data. In 10 cases, the cars were seized under suspicion of a drug violation, even though the records say police didn't find any drugs. "The vehicles are worth very little, typically around $1,000 or $2,000," Skorup says. "These are very likely low-income people, people that can't afford to sit around without a vehicle for three weeks or afford an attorney to go challenge it."
Wayne County prosecutors typically offer to settle such forfeiture cases and return the owner's car for a $900 payment. The alternative is paying out-of-pocket to hire an attorney and fight the forfeiture case, which in many cases would likely exceed the estimated worth of the car.
As Reason reported, Wayne County's asset forfeiture program is now the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by a woman whose car was seized after Wayne County Sheriff's deputies found $10 worth of marijuana in it. The suit claims the seizure and settlement fee were a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protections against excessive fines and fees. (The Supreme Court unanimously ruled earlier this week, in the case of Indiana man challenging the forfeiture of his Land Rover, that the Eighth Amendment applies to states.)
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(2/26/19 -- Legal NewsLine)
Honda takes on Massachusetts city in court over seizure of its alleged property
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent unanimous ruling limiting civil asset forfeiture may have bearing on Honda's similar civil rights lawsuit filed earlier this month against the city of Revere, Massachusetts. American Honda Finance Corp., based in California, alleged in its lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that its constitutional rights were violated when a Honda Civic was seized in 2016 by Revere's police department. "Plaintiff brings this action to remedy a deprivation of its long-settled and fundamental rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and to due process of law under the United States Constitution," American Honda Finance Corp. said in its 13-page complaint.
"It is beyond debate that the government cannot deprive plaintiff (or anyone) of property by unreasonable seizure and/or without first providing for notice and a hearing. "Yet, that is exactly what occurred here, and exactly what is sanctioned by an outdated, facially unconstitutional Massachusetts State statute, which does not recognize that duly perfected security interest and lien in a vehicle is a constitutionally protected property right." American Honda is suing Revere over the December 2016 seizure of a 2016 Honda Civic in which the finance company held a "recorded lien and security interest," the complaint said. It alleges the seizure violated state law and was unconstitutional.
Read the entire article here at: legalnewsline.com
(2/25/19 -- Fox 17)
Civil asset forfeiture in Tennessee criticized, some warn of policing for profit
When police in Tennessee make a traffic stop, they have the right to seize your property. The most commonly seized items: a car and cash. And when they take those, whether the owner is arrested or convicted of anything, the department now owns the property, and it is very hard to get it back. Mount Juliet police showed up at a Nashville home in 2017 to arrest a man named Lance Cain. While his father Lewis Cain slept, police drove off in Lewis’ BWM because they suspected his son of dealing drugs.
A Tennessee inspector general's report on seizing property says this practice has gone off the rails. Memphis Police face a lawsuit for an illegal seizure, and Cain is suing Mt. Juliet police. It took him months to get his car back – only thanks to a technicality. Police departments get to keep what they seize which some say gives them incentive to seize valuable items.
At that public hearing, District Attorney Glenn Funk said he is concerned about the incentive that civil asset forfeiture gives police to seize more property like Cain's BMW that did not even belong to the accused criminal. “I don't think that we give anybody a gun and a badge and say go and improve your own life,” Funk said in the course of detailing how no allegations of wrong doing point to Nashville police – rather others across the state. “You're there to protect and to serve.”
Complicating matters further -- the inspector general's report says Tennessee's department of safety misused more than $100,000 brought in over the last several years, buying food, banquets and other things that do nothing to keep the community safer.
Read the entire article here at: fox17.com
(2/25/19 -- American Civil Liberties Union)
The Supreme Court Rightly Cited the Black Codes in Ruling Against Excessive Fines, Fees, and Forfeitures
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, holding for the first time that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments — not just federal authorities. The fact that this landmark decision is unanimous is itself remarkable. But it bears noting that in separate opinions, both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledge the historical context for the modern-day protection against excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures: southern states’ abuse of fines to enforce white supremacy in the years following the Civil War.
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas both conclude that the protection from excessive fines extends to state and local conduct because this right is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Both justices trace the roots of the Excessive Fines Clause to the Magna Carta’s prohibition on monetary penalties that are disproportionate to the offense and so large that they deprive individuals of their livelihood.
Significantly, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas’s opinions both detail how, after the 14th Amendment was enacted, states across the South used excessive fines to pull recently freed Black people back into involuntary servitude
This sordid history is crucial context. Even today, fines and fees perpetuate injustice and drive racial inequality. Our amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Timbs details how the overreliance on fines and fees for government revenue creates powerful incentives to impose excessive financial penalties, with disastrous consequences on people who cannot pay. The impact is especially harsh for people of color due to longstanding racial disparities in wealth and poverty, perpetuating cycles of debt, instability, and criminal legal system involvement that hurts families and the public at large.
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(2/25/19 -- Fox 2)
Macomb Co Exec wants prosecutor investigated for $1.8M in forfeiture spending
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith is defending his office after allegations of questionable spending of forfeiture funds. "These are public funds," said Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel. "They do not belong to prosecutor; these belong to the public." Hackel has asked for a forensic audit into how Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith has been using money from a forfeiture fund, also wanting the attorney general to launch a criminal investigation. In turn, Eric Smith is now asking for Hackle’s offices to be audited as well.
Hackel along with county Treasurer Larry Rocca, says Smith has been violating the uniform budgeting act and state law by writing checks from a fund from drunken drivers and drug forfeitures for trips, parties and charities. "I found out there wasn't one account, there were four accounts," Hackel said. Hackel and Rocca showed a $600 check to Care House Monday that Smith signed back in August of 2017 - that he says was for a golf outing. "This is one of $1.8 million in checks that were written," Hackel said.
Read the entire article here at: fox2detroit.com
(2/25/19 -- Hawaii Public Radio)
Movement to Restrict Police Seizures of Private Property Gets Boost from Supreme Court
Around the country, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies seize millions of dollars’ worth of property every year. That property is then sold and used to expand the budgets of those police agencies. A recent Supreme Court decision may signal a change in how the process can be applied.
It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture and is completely legal. Often times the owners of the property are never convicted, or even charged, with a crime. It occurs when police suspect private property, including cash, has been involved in the commission of a crime. Law enforcement can then seize the property in the interest of public welfare. The agency involved will then typically sell the property at auction and use the proceeds to expand that agency's budget. The seized property does not need to be returned to the owner, even if the owner is never convicted of a crime.
Property owners have little recourse according to Mandy Fernandes, Policy Director for the ACLU of Hawaii. As the name implies, civil asset forfeiture happens in civil court, so owners are not entitled to a public defender. In Hawaii, if the property fights the seizure and loses they are required to reimburse the state's legal expenses. The state is not required to do the same if the owner wins in court. According to Fernandes, the potential expenses of recouping the seized property often exceed its value.
In a rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the use of civil asset forfeiture in the case of an Indiana man to have violated the 8th Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Read the entire article here at: hawaiipublicradio.org
(2/24/19 -- The Sun Chronicle)
Area law enforcement expect legal challenges to seizures after U.S. Supreme Court ruling
In the wake of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution's ban on excessive fines, some law enforcement authorities expect to see more legal challenges when they seize cash and other assets from defendants.
One local police chief agreed with the logic of the ruling by the Supreme Court, which he noted is not known for its unanimous decisions. “You can’t seize a $42,000 vehicle over $400 worth of stuff,” Mansfield Police Chief Ron Sellon said.
Sellon says he expects defense lawyers to challenge more seizures in light of the Supreme Court ruling, and that lowers courts will be determining whether they are proportionate to the crime. “These issues are going to be litigated in the courts going forward,” Sellon said. David Traub, a spokesman for the Norfolk County District Attorney's office, agreed. "It will be litigated and tested in the courts," Traub said. "It's not a forgone conclusion that what happened in Indiana will have the same disruptive impact in Massachusetts."
Law enforcement authorities have dramatically increased their use of civil forfeiture in recent decades.
Read the entire article here at: thesunchronicle.com
(2/23/19 -- Washington Examiner)
One Supreme Court victory hasn't solved the civil asset forfeiture fight
In a unanimous decision in the recent case Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court took a major step toward ending legalized theft. In a sensible move that prohibits state and local governments from imposing excessive fines, the court took a step toward protecting property rights. This ruling is uniquely important because it also restricts state and local governments from excessive government property seizure using civil asset forfeiture, a practice which allows law enforcement to take an individual’s property if it’s at all related to a suspected crime. Now, if the court determines the property value is too high, state and local governments can’t take the property through forfeiture.
Yet, even after the Timbs v. Indiana ruling, the problem of civil asset forfeiture needs fixing. This process is still highly subject to abuse, and should be restricted to cases with a successful conviction, if not completely abolished.
Read the entire article here at: washingtonexaminer.com
(2/22/19 -- National Law Review)
An Ancient Right Jeopardized: U.S. Supreme Court Limits State Forfeiture Actions With Unanimous Decision In Indiana Case
In recent years, state and local governments strapped for cash have looked to civil in rem forfeitures as a funding mechanism. The theory is that property used in connection with the commission of a crime can be seized and forfeited as an instrumentality of the crime through a civil forfeiture proceeding. On Feb. 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that may limit this practice. In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court held that protection against excess fines set forth in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to state and local governments and that civil in rem forfeitures can be considered excessive fines under that amendment. This case is significant because it may jeopardize asset-forfeiture programs that help fund local law enforcement across the country.
The facts of the case are straightforward and typical of civil forfeiture cases – though the opinion does provide an interesting history lesson on the origins of one of our fundamental constitutional rights. Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state trial court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. The state trial court sentenced him to one year of home detention and five years of probation, including a court-supervised addiction-treatment program. Timbs was also required to pay fees and costs totaling $1,203. The maximum fine for Timbs’ drug conviction was $10,000.
Read the entire article here at: natlawreview.com
(2/21/19 -- Hannibal Courier-Post)
Auditor Galloway releases compilation of Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act (CAFA) seizure reports for 2018
Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway released onThursday a compilation of property seizures made under Missouri’s Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act (CAFA) in 2018. The Auditor’s report shows law enforcement officials seized an estimated $9.1 million worth of property in 699 seizures. Those were increases from 2017, when law enforcement officials seized approximately $7 million worth of property in 658 seizures. Under the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, law enforcement officials may take possession of property or cash believed to be involved in or related to a crime. State law requires prosecuting attorneys and the Attorney General to file information about reported seizures each year with the State Auditor’s Office.
Approximately 63 percent of the total seized in 2018 was transferred to federal agencies. The remainder was either returned (six percent), transferred to the state (one percent) or still pending a final decision (23 percent). Approximately six percent of reported seizures did not include the disposition of the seized property. Additional information is available in the compilation report, which is available online at https://app.auditor.mo.gov/Repository/Press/2019012118326.pdf.
This report covers forfeitures under Missouri’s CAFA. A report on activities under federal forfeiture laws will be released later this year.
(2/21/19 -- St. Louis Post Dispatch)
Asset forfeiture without a conviction would be banned under one Missouri lawmaker's proposal
A proposal that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to confiscate property from suspects won approval on Thursday from a Missouri House committee — the same week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution's ban on excessive fees applied to states. The legislation by Rep. Shamed Dogan, R-Ballwin, bans confiscating assets from someone unless the person is convicted of a crime. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to transfer property from those suspected of a crime before they are found guilty or not.
“If someone really is operating a billion-dollar cartel, shut them down by all means, but don’t say that I’m some sort of trafficker or drug dealer if you never charge me with a crime,” he said. Dogan says the act will help move the state away from “policing for profit.”
Read the entire article here at: stltoday.com
(2/20/19 -- WHYY)
The end of civil asset forfeiture? U.S. Supreme Court ruling has advocates hopeful
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday placed limits on the ability of local law enforcement to seize homes, cars and cash from people suspected of being involved in crime. Writing for all nine justices in a unanimous decision, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to state and local government and should limit the ability of law enforcement to seize assets that are grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the suspected crime. The case centered around an Indiana man suspected of selling $400 worth of heroin whose $42,000 Land Rover was taken by authorities.
The ruling is not expected to have a direct impact on Pennsylvania, where the state’s high court delivered a decision in recent years that went beyond Wednesday’s news. Pennsylvania law has long allowed authorities to use civil asset forfeiture programs that operate based only on the suspicion of criminal activity. Often these cases involve suspected drug traffickers and aim to deprive them of their working capital and profits.
In May 2017, the Pennsylvania high court ruled that in order seize someone’s property through a civil forfeiture proceeding, the person whose property is being taken must have “actual knowledge” of the alleged illegal activity and the person must have agreed to allow the activity to happen.
Read the entire article here at: whyy.org
(2/20/19 -- Grand Forks Herald)
ND House passes forfeiture reform amid U.S. Supreme Court opinion
Civil asset forfeiture reform passed out of the North Dakota House on Wednesday, Feb. 20, but a U.S. Supreme Court opinion has added a layer to its Senate path. House members approved House Bill 1286 in a 57-33 vote. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, introduced the bill to the House Judiciary Committee in January to eliminate the "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit." Forfeiture proceedings apply to property suspected of criminal involvement.
The bill reforms several aspects of current law. It requires a conviction and annual reporting of seized and forfeited property. The bill also raises the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence and provides for interjurisdictional prosecution. The bill includes exceptions as justification for forfeiture, including death, deportation or disappearance. A three-member subcommittee worked on the bill with input from prosecutors and law enforcement, who oppose a conviction requirement due to certain defendants who abscond and difficulty in prosecuting multijurisdictional crimes.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(2/20/19 -- The Washington Post)
Supreme Court limits power of states and localities to impose fines, seize property
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, limiting their abilities to impose financial penalties and seize property. The decision delighted critics of civil asset forfeiture, who welcomed the ruling as a new weapon in their war against what has been labeled “policing for profit” — the practice of seizing cash, cars and other property from those convicted, or even suspected, of committing a crime.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on her second day back on the bench after undergoing cancer surgery in December, announced the court’s decision, saying the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines clause protects against government retribution at all levels. “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”
Groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the Supreme Court of abuses, with the chamber touting a national study that found “60 percent of the 1,400 municipal and county agencies surveyed across the country relied on forfeiture profits as a ‘necessary’ part of their budget.”
Read the entire article here at: washingtonpost.com
(2/19/19 -- Index-Journal)
Greenwood House members split on civil asset forfeiture bill
Last week, a cadre of South Carolina legislators introduced a plan to ban the long-held practice of civil asset forfeiture by state law enforcement agencies, arguing the practice violated constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable search and seizures. With nearly 100 sponsors signed on to H. 3968, all that stands between it moving to the Senate is House Judiciary Committee approval.
A member of that panel, John McCravy, R-Greenwood, told the Index-Journal on Tuesday he’s not ready to support the “Asset Forfeiture and Private Property Protection Act,” citing lies from police about such restrictions limiting their ability to break up drug rings and other criminal enterprises. “With the problem that we have with drugs of all kinds coming into our county, I don’t want to take away any of the tools of investigation our law enforcement have,” McCravy, an attorney, said.
Read the entire article here at: indexjournal.com
(2/19/19 -- The Detroit News)
Law enforcement pushes back on Michigan civil asset forfeiture reforms
Bipartisan legislation that would reform the state’s controversial civil asset forfeiture laws received pushback Tuesday from Michigan law enforcement. The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police voiced opposition in a state House committee to proposals that would require a conviction before police permanently forfeit up to $50,000 in property believed to be connected to a crime.
The association’s executive director, Robert Stevenson, said, by requiring a conviction, the legislation affords a higher level of protection for alleged drug dealers than others subject to civil proceedings or lawsuits. “The federal government can seize your money for tax evasion without a criminal conviction,” Stevenson pouted. “Geoffrey Fieger has made a very good living seizing people’s money without any type of conviction. The state of Michigan can seize your property without a conviction. Any of you can go to small claims court today and get an order to seize somebody’s else’s property without a conviction.”
The bipartisan civil asset forfeiture reform plan would require a conviction before police could permanently seize or sell confiscated property worth less than $50,000. The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the House-initiated legislation Tuesday as well as a similar package of bills that was passed last week by the Senate. The bills received the unique dual support of the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the free-market-oriented Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(2/19/19 -- Daily Report)
Legislative Package Takes Another Stab at Rewriting State's Civil Forfeiture Laws
A Georgia lawmaker, who previously pushed legislation reining in what he describes as abuses of the state’s civil forfeiture statutes, is once again waded into the fray with a multibill package aimed at the process. Five pieces of legislation sponsored by state Rep. Scot Turner, R-Holly Springs, take aim at various aspects of civil forfeiture that allows prosecutors to seize money and property deemed to be the spoils of criminal activity, even though criminal charges do not result in convictions, or may not be pursued.
The bills would raise the burden of proof required before prosecutors can move to seize property and money, restrict the ability of local and state agencies to share in forfeiture proceeds seized by federal law enforcement and mandate annual disclosure of how much forfeiture proceeds come from cases with no convictions. “I started out on my forfeiture adventure by trying to make it so the state has to secure a conviction before it can to take someone’s property,” Turner said. “The most offensive thing to me is that the state can move to take your property before a conviction, and the only burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence,” he said. Requiring a conviction and raising the burden of proof “goes a long way to re-establishing innocent until proven guilty,” he said.
Read the entire article here at: law.com
(2/19/19 -- Macomb Daily)
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith's obscure fund raises questions, likely to receive scrutiny
Some $160,000 for building security, over $100,000 each paid to dozens of nonprofit organizations and credit card companies, and thousands of dollars in Christmas parties are some expenditures by Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith that could be examined in a forensic audit.
The county Board of Commissioners on Wednesday is expected to approve seeking a forensic audit of an obscure fund controlled by Smith for several years due to questionable expenditures and lack of supporting documentation. The board Finance/Audit/Budget Committee, which is comprised of the entire 13-member board, is likely to seek a review because of questions raised over hundreds of checks written on four accounts mostly funded by drunken driving vehicle forfeitures.
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(2/18/19 -- KBIA)
No Drugs, No Crime And Just Pennies For School: How Police Use Civil Asset Forfeiture
In the past two decades, the federal government took in $36.5 billion in assets police seized from people on America’s roads and in its poorer neighborhoods, many of whom never were charged with a crime or shown to have drugs. Most of the money seized by this civil asset-forfeiture process returns to the law-enforcement agencies that seized it, providing funds for a variety of law-enforcement needs and desires, including exercise equipment, squad cars, jails, military equipment and even a margarita maker.
Many of the seizures occur along corridors that carry drugs east to big cities and cash back west. The Interstate-44 corridor through southern Missouri, Interstate 70 through St. Charles County and the network of interstates that connect in Illinois across from the Gateway Arch are prime locations for asset forfeiture and drug traffic.
Read the entire article here at: kbia.org
(2/18/19 -- West Dakota FOX)
Civil asset forfeiture bill heads to an appropriations committee
A bill requiring law enforcement to report civil asset forfeitures to the state is headed to an appropriations committee. House bill 1286 would require agencies to report seizures and forfeitures. The bill delves into forfeiture proceeding, contested forfeiture hearings, legal interests in forfeited property, disposition of statutory fees, fine forfeitures and the attorney general assets forfeiture fund.
The bill would require an annual report to the Attorney General’s Office that would include the types of property and dollar amount of forfeited property, the jurisdiction that received the property, total number of seizures of currency and the amount the court had ordered to be paid toward the costs and expenses of the forfeiture proceedings. Funds made through civil asset forfeiture will be required to go into the attorney general assets forfeiture fund. The fiscal note says the bill increases the fund cap on deposits from $200,000 to $500,000 per biennium for this.
(2/18/19 -- St. Louis Public Radio)
St. Charles County Law Enforcement Reaps Benefits Of I-70 Cash Seizures
Law-enforcement agencies in St. Charles County got a budget windfall of more than $1 million in 2017. The unplanned money wasn’t the result of higher taxes or donations, but instead came from a court process known as civil asset forfeiture. Supporters say the practice gives police and prosecutors an important tool to shut down drug-trafficking operations and other illegal activity while being compensated for their efforts. Opponents call it an unconstitutional money grab.
The practice isn’t unique to St. Charles County or Missouri. A multi-state reporting project by St. Louis Public Radio and three other outlets, backed by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, found hundreds of departments together taking in millions of dollars a year.
Read the entire article here at: stlpublicradio.org
(2/16/19 -- The Morning Telegraph)
Rep. Matt Schaefer, TX, drafting bills
H.B. 1615, which Schaefer introduced Tuesday, would make it harder for the state to seize property from private citizens accused of crimes. The process, known as civil asset forfeiture, led to Texas law enforcement agencies making $50 million in 2017, including from people not convicted of a crime, according to The Texas Tribune.
Under current law, the property owner has a burden of proof to stop the property from being seized, such as by proving that the property was stolen before being used to commit a crime. Schaefer’s bill would shift the burden of proof to the state.
Schaefer sits on the House Higher Education Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, and has been appointed to a subcommittee that considers public education spending.
(2/16/19 -- Sun Daily)
Legal challenges to Trump emergency declaration face uphill battle
Democratic lawmakers, states and others mulling legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration to obtain funds to build a US-Mexico border wall face an uphill and probably losing battle in a showdown likely to be decided by the conservative-majority Supreme Court, legal experts said.
After being rebuffed by the US Congress in his request for US$5.7 billion (RM23.2 billion) to help build the wall that was a signature 2016 campaign promise, Trump yesterday invoked emergency powers given to the president under a 1976 law. The move, according to the White House, enables Trump to bypass lawmakers and redirect money already appropriated by Congress for other purposes and use it for wall construction.
Peter Shane, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, said challenges to the emergency declaration could end up as a replay of the legal battle against Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority nations. The Supreme Court last year upheld the travel ban after lower courts had ruled against Trump, with the justices giving the president deference on immigration and national security issues.
Read the entire article here at: thesundaily.my
(2/15/19 -- WMBF)
SC lawmakers push to reform civil forfeiture
Around 80 South Carolina state representatives signed a bill to reform civil forfeiture. The bill was filed Tuesday, it would allow law enforcement to only seize property with a criminal conviction. "Civil forfeiture has to do with the forfeiture of property, property owned by an individual when that property has been involved in criminal activity,” said Rep. Alan Wilson.
The Institute for Justice came out with a study saying South Carolina is abusing civil forfeiture for money, calculating that $22 million was seized from 2009 to 2013. However, Richardson said he doesn’t believe any abuse is going on in this area. “There’s due process and the law is pretty tight. You’ve got to basically have the drugs sitting on top of the money to do it correctly and I do think we do it correctly here. I can’t attest for everyone else in the state.”
Read the entire article here at: wmbfnews.com
(2/15/19 -- U.S.News)
Trump Taps Civil Asset Forfeiture to Fund Border Wall
By declaring a national emergency Friday to build new sections of border wall, President Donald Trump hopes to unlock billions of dollars from a range of sources under the control of the executive branch. One major money pot he plans to rely on: proceeds from the controversial practice of civil asset forfeiture.
Of the $6.7 billion Trump hopes to pull from military construction projects and the Department of Defense, roughly 8 percent – some $600 million – will come from the Treasury Department's Forfeiture Fund, made up of proceeds from cash, cars and other property forfeited during investigations carried out by the Treasury Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Secret Service, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol and the Coast Guard.
Harnessing civil asset forfeiture wouldn't exactly amount to getting Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán Loera to pay for the wall, as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed Thursday in an op-ed in The Washington Post. Though the former head of the Sinaloa cartel – convicted earlier this week in Brooklyn federal court – is believed to have made some $14 billion, the money, if ever recovered, would be seized through criminal, not civil, forfeiture, which comes with more stringent spending restrictions.
Read the entire article here at: usnews.com
(2/14/19 -- Grand Forks Herald)
Concerns over conviction requirement debated in North Dakota civil asset forfeiture reform
Negotiating a conviction requirement may be one of the tougher parts of North Dakota lawmakers' reform of civil asset forfeiture. The House Judiciary Committee gave an 11-3 "do-pass" recommendation Wednesday night, Feb. 13, to House Bill 1286 after 80 minutes of discussion. The bill brought by Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, seeks to eliminate the "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit." Property involved in criminal activity is subject to forfeiture.
After three meetings of a subcommittee on the bill chaired by Rep. Terry Jones, R-New Town, the House Judiciary Committee rejected the subcommittee's version of amendments that excluded a conviction requirement to forfeit property, but later adopted an amended bill that includes the conviction requirement. "Let's make this bill what America was supposed to be," Rep. Luke Simons, R-Dickinson, said in committee work.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(2/13/19 -- Michigan Live)
Senate-passed bill requires criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture in most cases
Legislation requiring a criminal conviction prior to permanent police seizures for property valued under $50,000 was passed by the state Senate in a 36-2 vote Wednesday.
Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Sen. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Twp., would prevent law enforcement agencies who have seized property valued at less than $50,000 as part of an investigation from selling, destroying or keeping the property absent a criminal conviction or plea. The bill also includes provisions for people to file a written claim for objecting to forfeiture.
More than $13.1 million in cash and property was forfeited to law enforcement agencies across Michigan in 2017, according to the latest Asset Forfeiture Report compiled by the Michigan State Police.
Read the entire article here at: mlive.com
(2/13/19 -- Right On Crime)
Kansas Should Embrace Asset Forfeiture Reform
In 2018, Kansas was able to take a first step toward having better controls over asset forfeiture by passing a law that mandates greater transparency over assets seized by law enforcement officers. This year,focus should continue on achieving better asset forfeiture controls and best practices.
Civil asset forfeiture first came into play in the 1980s, during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. The assets of suspects that were linked to certain criminal activities could be seized and then forfeited to the government. This was viewed as a significant part of fighting the crack cocaine wars. But in our successes, we got greedy and state legislatures saw an opportunity to supplant law enforcement budgets with these seized assets. And over the years, the burden of proof for these seizures has been lowered significantly to the point where criminal charges are no longer even needed.
At present, asset forfeiture reform has support from both sides of the political spectrum. Rep. Gail Finney, (D) Wichita, championed the transparency law that will be used to track seizures. “It’s exposing asset forfeiture to daylight,” she said. “Citizens are aware of seizures and they know it’s not correct. And they know there’s no due process.”
Read the entire article here at: rightoncrime.com
(2/13/19 -- Greenville News)
5 states that reformed civil forfeiture laws – and one that didn't
We looked at some of the states that have restricted civil forfeiture in recent years and some that haven’t. At least 29 states have reformed forfeiture laws in the past decade.
Standard of proof: The hurdle the government must clear to forfeit property under civil forfeiture ranges from:
Probable cause: A reason to believe something is probably true. This is the lowest standard and is currently used in two U.S. states – Massachusetts and North Dakota.
A preponderance of the evidence: 51 percent or more of the evidence must be in the government’s favor. This is the standard of proof for civil forfeiture in South Carolina.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: The standard required for criminal conviction. The government must have clear and convincing evidence that something is true.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(2/13/19 -- National Review)
Asset Forfeiture: Lessons from Mississippi
A national movement to reform “civil forfeiture” is underway. In many states, current policy allows the government to confiscate property on the grounds that it is connected to a crime — without ever convicting anyone of the crime. In court, a lower burden of proof applies in these civil cases than in criminal cases, even when valuable property such as a vehicle is at stake.
Twenty-nine states have reformed their civil-forfeiture laws since 2014. Fifteen states now require a criminal conviction for most or all forfeiture cases. And the recent skirmish over forfeiture laws here in Mississippi — a “law and order” state by any measure — illustrated that the voting public does not believe there is a contradiction between upholding due process and enforcing the law.
In 2018, the Mississippi legislature allowed the law authorizing one especially troubling type of civil forfeiture, known as “administrative forfeiture,” to sunset. With administrative forfeiture, law-enforcement agencies in Mississippi could take and keep property worth $20,000 or less, so long as they believed it was connected to drug crime, simply by obtaining a warrant and providing a notice to the owner. If the owner did not file suit within 30 days, the property was automatically forfeited to the agency. And given that almost half of all administrative-forfeiture cases involved property worth less than $1,000, it was unrealistic and outrageous to expect property owners to incur court costs and attorney’s fees to bring those cases to court on their own.
In 2019 there was a concerted campaign to bring back the old regime — but it met with pushback led by liberty-minded conservative legislators and my colleagues at the Mississippi Justice Institute, the legal arm of the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Read the entire article here at: nationalreview.com
(2/12/19 -- Lancaster Online)
District attorney's office appeals open records ruling for LNP on civil forfeiture
The Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office has appealed a decision by the state Office of Open Records ordering the release of information on goods seized during drug investigations. In an appeal filed Feb. 6 by Assistant District Attorney Caitlin Blazier, the district attorney’s office states the open records office’s decision “clearly constitutes an error of law” and should be reversed by a Lancaster County judge. The district attorney’s office states the decision “ignores the plain meaning” of the Forfeiture Act, which governs methods in which law enforcement confiscate items during drug investigations. Those items include drugs, phones, vehicles, money and firearms. The open records office ruled in favor of LNP reporter Carter Walker last month following his Right-to-Know Law request in September.
He filed the request with district attorneys’ offices in Lancaster, York, Dauphin, Lebanon, Berks and Chester counties seeking records of items seized during narcotics trafficking investigations. Walker also sought records of how the valuables were processed once confiscated and, if sold, how funds were allocated or spent. The Lancaster County District Attorney’s office denied the request in October, claiming a statute in the Forfeiture Act prohibits the release of information used in confidential audits and investigatory matters. In the request, Walker specifically stated he was not seeking audits. Rather, he sought the underlying information used to create them. On Jan. 7, the Office of Open Records arrived at a similar conclusion of distinguishing between the two.
Read the entire article here at: lancasteronline.com
(2/10/19 -- Greenville News)
Police can seize cash in the mail. An innocent man found out the hard way.
Ryan Hamer once sat in a Greenville parking lot, broke and hungry, and a friend offered him money to buy food and pay his cell phone bill. He'd just moved back to town and needed a hand up. His friend came through for him. Then that same friend found himself in need. He was down on his luck, out of a job, living with his mother in Washington state and in need of money quickly to pay child support, Hamer said. Hamer agreed to loan the man $6,000.
Hamer didn’t want to send cash through the mail, so he went to the post office and asked the best way to mail money. They told him he could buy six $1,000 money orders, so he did. It was a Friday about noon in March 2016, and the U.S. Postal Service couldn’t guarantee it would arrive Saturday, so he went to the FedEx distribution center on Mauldin Road. Once inside, Hamer dropped the money orders into a FedEx cardboard envelope, and an employee sealed it with tape. He paid a premium, $64.25, to ship the envelope overnight, his receipt shows. Hamer took his receipt and left.
The next day, his friend told him he hadn’t received the delivery, which required a signature to accept. Hamer called FedEx. The FedEx employee told him he needed to contact the Greenville Police Department. Officers had seized his package in a legal process known as civil asset forfeiture. The police believed Hamer’s package was related to illegal drug trade, according to court records.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(2/10/19 -- The State)
South Carolina town seized $135 for each resident during traffic stops
One small South Carolina town along a popular route to the beach seized the equivalent of $135 for each of its residents in traffic stops over two years, an investigation by two newspapers found. Police in Nichols took a total of $50,000 from people in 50 different traffic stops in 2014 and 2015, according to The Greenville News and Anderson Independent Mail. Court records show only three of them were ever convicted of a crime, the newspapers reported in an installment of their "Taken" series , which is reviewing civil asset forfeiture cases in South Carolina.
The newspapers gathered court records on civil forfeiture from all 46 counties in South Carolina for the series and called every law enforcement agency in the state to see what they collected and how they spent seized assets. The series has led several lawmakers to back changing the law so money cannot be seized without a criminal conviction.
Read the entire article here at: thestate.com
(2/10/19 -- WHYY)
N.J. lawmakers press for rule changes on civil asset forfeiture
New Jersey lawmakers are looking to overhaul how the state’s law enforcement agencies seize property they suspect is linked to crimes. The process — known as civil asset forfeiture — has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and advocates for its disparate use across New Jersey and for the lack of data available on property seizures. Akil Roper, chief counsel for Legal Services of New Jersey, said civil asset forfeiture is toughest on the poor and minorities.
“Low-income people are among the hardest hit as they are more likely to carry cash and have limited means to challenge unjust forfeitures,” Roper said. “Loss of a vehicle can disrupt employment, health care, and other family obligations and personal freedoms. Disproportionate impact on racial minorities is likely, given the higher rates of arrest for persons of color and its frequent employ in urban areas” he added.
Lawmakers on the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee approved a package of bills Thursday that would limit what property can be seized; require county prosecutors to regularly report data on asset forfeiture; require that the state determine if court fees are too high; and study the lack of legal representation in forfeiture challenges.
Read the entire article here at: whyy.org
(2/8/19 -- Eugene Weekly)
Sen. Ron Wyden Proposes Some Dank Legislation
Maybe we should start calling him Sen. Ron “Weeden” because Wyden just introduced a bill, S. 420, which would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana at the federal level. “The federal prohibition of marijuana is wrong, plain and simple. Too many lives have been wasted, and too many economic opportunities have been missed,” Wyden said in a statement. “It’s time Congress make the changes Oregonians and Americans across the country are demanding.”
Furthermore, the proposed bill would reduce federal barriers that affect marijuana businesses. This includes banking, declaring bankruptcy, research and advertising. Marijuana consumers would be able to access federal affordable housing or federal financial aid for higher education. Of course, there’s a downside to de-scheduling: taxes. The legislation would impose a federal tax on weed products similar to what is placed on tobacco and alcohol.
The package also includes a bill that reduces the gap between federal and state law by removing federal criminal penalties and civil asset forfeiture for individuals and businesses following state law. The ACLU says police departments use forfeiture to increase cash revenue, which encourages seizures motivated by cash rather than preserving public safety.
Read the entire article here at: eugeneweekly.com
(2/8/19 -- Liberty Nation)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Is a Naked Cash Grab
As everyone knows, this country is seriously divided on far too many issues. The most disappointing consequence of this bitter split is the inability of people on the left, right, and anywhere in between to come together when abundant common ground can be found on crucial matters that affect us all. The outrageous abuse that is civil asset forfeiture by out-of-control police departments is one such example.
The Greenville News in South Carolina has conducted an extensive investigation into the practice in the Palmetto State, and what it has discovered should shock Americans of any political stripe who care about civil liberties. Unfortunately, the newspaper decided to drape its otherwise excellent reporting in the usual tired racial packaging that paints civil asset forfeiture as having a disproportionate impact on black Americans. It’s a shame The News chose not to merely report the facts without all the social justice accouterment, as the findings pack enough of a wallop to spark much-needed widespread outrage.
Read the entire article here at: libertynation.com
(2/8/19 -- Mackinac Center For Public Policy)
Asset Forfeiture Reform
The first substantive roll call vote of the 100th Michigan legislature was held this week not on a bill, but on a resolution disapproving an Executive Order signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Just one bill has been advanced from committee for consideration by the full House or Senate. It's Senate Bill 2, which would reform the process of "civil asset forfeiture." This is a legal procedure that lets police take permanent ownership of property seized in connection with a possible crime even if there has been no conviction or even an arrest. The bill has bipartisan support (as shown by an unanimous committee vote) so a final passage vote by the full Senate may appear in a future roll call report.
Read the entire article here at: mackinac.org
(2/7/19 -- TechDirt)
Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination loaded with perverse incentives for law enforcement. Investigations and convictions are too much work. Seizing cash from random motorists or residents is so much easier than legitimate police work. The laws barely governing this practice allow the agency performing the seizure to keep all or most of what's seized, which has led directly to the widespread abuse we see around us today. The practice always has its defenders. Most of those defenders come from the same agencies that are directly profiting from asset forfeiture. They say the expected stuff about fighting the good Drug War -- that taking $500 from a random motorist somehow creates a ripple effect felt all the way at the top of the drug distribution chain. Everyone knows they're full of shit, but there are enough true believers in most state legislatures that the practice remains largely unaltered across the United States.
But there are some outliers. Some people see the perverse incentives asset forfeiture creates and say perverted cops are the best cops.
Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn't pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now. If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?"
I don't know... how about IT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. This is a law enforcement professional who actually thinks cops won't do cop work unless they can periodically seize cash from people they interact with. Hey, Mr. Bruder, if cops can't solicit bribes or extort protection money from local businesses, why should they be bothered to patrol neighborhoods or respond to robbery calls?
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(2/7/19 -- Insider New Jersey)
New Jersey Committee Approves Package of Bills to Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
Today, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee voted to approve a package of bills (A4970, A3442, A4969 and AR222) that will reform New Jersey’s civil asset forfeiture laws. Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize cash, cars, real estate or other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, regardless of whether the person is convicted, or in some cases, even if charges are never filed against the property owner.
Read the entire article here at: insidernj.com
(2/7/19 -- Greenville News)
South Carolina legislators seek to reform civil forfeiture
A bipartisan group of legislators, including several from Greenville, plans to sponsor a bill that would drastically reform South Carolina's civil asset forfeiture law. Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Horry, said he plans to file a bill within the next week that would essentially require a criminal conviction before the state can seek forfeiture of a person's cash or property.
The renewed effort to reform the state's forfeiture law comes in response to the TAKEN investigation by The Greenville News and Anderson Independent Mail that has shed light on the ability of police to seize cash from people regardless of whether criminal charges have been filed or a conviction has been obtained, Clemmons said. The TAKEN team spent two years documenting every civil asset forfeiture case in the state from 2014-2016 — more than 3,200 cases involving more than 4,000 people — to show police had seized more than $17 million from people. Most of that cash ends up back in the hands of police, which reform advocates say creates an incentive for police to seek profit from forfeiture, the investigation found.
A large contingent of legislators from across the state signed on Wednesday to co-sponsor a companion bill that Clemmons had already pre-filed this session that would require law enforcement to report forfeiture cases to a statewide tracking system and searchable website maintained by the State Law Enforcement Division. Together, the two bills, if passed, would give South Carolina one of the strongest civil asset forfeiture laws in the country in terms of private property rights, he said.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(2/6/19 -- Hawaii Tribune-Hearld)
Asset forfeiture bill clears committee hurdle
The state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday passed unanimously, with amendments, a bill that would make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to seize private property in civil forfeiture cases. Senate Bill 1485 now goes to Ways and Means, the senate’s money committee.
The measure introduced by Judiciary Chairman Karl Rhoads, an Oahu Democrat, would raise the standard of proof the state must meet in order for property to be forfeited from a “preponderance of the evidence” to “beyond a reasonable doubt” if passed into law. It also would direct proceeds from a civil forfeiture to the general fund for public education purposes. According to the bill, at least three states — Nebraska, North Carolina and New Mexico — abolished civil forfeiture, and 15 states now require a criminal conviction for most or all forfeiture cases.
Read the entire article here at: hawaiitribune-herald.com
(2/5/19 -- U.S. News)
Mississippi Won't Reinstate Law Allowing No-Judge Seizures
Mississippi lawmakers have rejected plans to allow police to resume seizing cash, guns and vehicles without going before a judge, agreeing with civil liberties advocates that the practice was unjust. House Judiciary A Committee Chairman Mark Baker said his committee won't consider House Bill 1104 , which would have reinstated a previous law. That means it dies at a Tuesday deadline for legislation to advance out of committee. The Brandon Republican, who's running for attorney general, said House leaders decided not to move forward with the proposal.
Under a law that was in effect until June 30, police agencies could file for administrative forfeiture of property worth less than $20,000 that was associated with illegal drugs. If an owner didn't contest the forfeiture within 30 days in court, the property was seized by the agency. Police agencies kept 80 percent, with 20 percent going to a district attorney or the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. Lawmakers allowed that law to lapse last year, although many police agencies didn't notice. An Associated Press review found more than 60 forfeitures of property, valued at nearly $200,000, in a period that lasted more than two months after the law ended but before police recognized the change. A number of agencies had to offer seized property back to its owners.
Police and Gov. Phil Bryant had supported restoring the law, lying it was a valuable way to fight drug crime.
Read the entire article here at: usnews.com
(2/4/19 -- Bismarck Tribune)
North Dakota legislators, law enforcement look for compromise in civil asset forfeiture reform
Legislators and law enforcement are closer to a compromise on reforming North Dakota's civil asset forfeiture laws. The House Judiciary Committee wrapped up testimony Monday morning on House Bill 1286, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck. Becker has sought reform for what he calls a "perverse incentive" for "policing for profit," with no reporting requirements and standards of proof criticized as too low for seizure and forfeiture of items allegedly involved in crimes.
Committee members spent about an hour questioning Bismarck Police Sgt. Mike Bolme, who gave opposing testimony. The hearing generally found agreement in transparency or annual reporting of seizures and forfeitures, which current law doesn't require but some departments track internally. "I like the idea of having some sun, some daylight shining on this process so we have numbers and an idea," said Rep. Terry Jones, R-New Town.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(2/3/19 -- Greenville News)
SC cops defend keeping cash they seize: 'What's the incentive' otherwise?
Even the staunchest advocate for preserving South Carolina’s civil asset forfeiture powers admits that cops have an incentive to seize people’s property for their own department’s benefit. Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn’t pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now. If police don’t get to keep the money from forfeiture, “what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?” Bruder disingenuously asked. “What is the incentive for interdiction?”
Bruder’s comments came after being presented the research from our TAKEN investigation, which found that law enforcement agencies seized more than $17 million using state laws that allow police to seize money and property without requiring a criminal conviction or even an arrest. Most of the money and property that officers seize ends up enriching the police departments’ bank accounts.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(2/1/19 -- Tampa Bay Times)
Police find nearly $400,000 in a murder victim's hotel room. Temple Terrace wants to keep it.
Police found a scene straight out of a movie when they opened the door to Room 407. On the morning of Jan. 9, a worker at the WoodSpring Suites on Morris Bridge Road learned that a man staying there had been murdered. When the employee went to the room, she found pounds of pot and stacks of cash — a grand total of $388,190. Now, the Temple Terrace Police Department wants to keep it all.
That morning, a woman who said she was a relative approached the hotel employee to report that the guest in Room 407 — 27-year-old Omid Abdul Khaled — had been murdered, according to an affidavit filed with the petition. The woman also said another family member staying with Khaled at the hotel might not have heard the news. The employee went to the room and saw cash and plastic packages of pot scattered about. No one else was there. She closed the door and called police.
Seizing cash, cars and other goods through civil forfeiture can help boost the budgets of police departments large and small. In this case, the amount of cash found in the hotel room is a sum equal to about 4.5 percent of the Temple Terrace Police Department's entire annual $8.7 million budget.
Read the entire article here at: tampabay.com
(1/31/19 -- Clarion Ledger)
Should it be this easy for Mississippi police to take property?
Dozens of police chiefs and sheriffs lined a corridor of the state Capitol Monday afternoon, shaking hands and chatting up representatives as they walked from the elevator to the House chamber. They want their administrative asset forfeiture back. Only the Legislature can give it to them.
Supporters say civil asset forfeiture (when police seize property connected to criminal activity) is a powerful tool in fighting and stopping the drug trade. Opponents say it's an easy way for officers to take someone's property without having to prove much.
For decades in Mississippi, there's been two types of civil asset forfeiture — judicial and administrative. In rough terms, judicial asset forfeiture requires legal action before a judge to keep the goods. Administrative asset forfeiture requires law enforcement to notify property owners about the seizure. Supporters of administrative asset forfeiture say property owners have 30 days to contest any seizure in court. Opponents say many people cannot afford to hire an attorney to get their property back.
Read the entire article here at: clarionledger.com
(1/31/19 -- TechDirt)
South Carolina Cops Love Asset Forfeiture So Much They Take Cash From Crime Victims
Cash is king in South Carolina. Law enforcement loves taking it. Under the pretense of dismantling drug syndicates, law enforcement officers are taking money from waitresses, businessmen, and crime victims. Cash motivates law enforcement efforts -- dubious drug-focused shakedowns that are often given far too much credibility by local journalists.
This is state where county sheriffs run week-long events with cool names like "Rolling Thunder" and claim they're disrupting the flow of drugs. The reality is there's no disruption. People are separated from their cash and other property, but arrests and convictions are almost impossible to find, despite the discovery of a few hundred pounds of illegal substances. In 2017, the Spartansburg County Sheriff's Department pulled over more than 1,100 vehicles during an operation, searched 158 of them, recovered enough drugs to fill a table for a press conference, but only ended up with eight felony convictions. It did end up with $139,000 in cash, which was the actual focus of the "drug interdiction" activity.
The cases gathered from elsewhere in the state tell the same story: cash-hungry law enforcement agencies taking money from people and calling it a victory in the War on Drugs. African-Americans make up only 13 percent of the state's population, but 65 percent of asset forfeiture cases target African Americans. If you're white, you're not only targeted less frequently but you're twice as likely to get your property returned to you. Since the state's laws allow 95 percent of everything seized to go to the law enforcement agency performing the seizure, officers are far more focused on cash than securing convictions.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(1/30/19 -- Grand Forks Herald)
Working group appointed for bill to reform North Dakota law allowing cops to seize property without a conviction
Legislation to reform civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota drew a stream of strong and, at times, animated testimony on Wednesday, Jan. 30, in a lengthy hearing. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, introduced House Bill 1286 to reform the state's civil asset forfeiture. His bill would require convictions for suspects' property to be forfeited as well as reporting from law enforcement on seizures and forfeitures. In addition, the proceeds from the sale of forfeitures would be deposited to the state's common schools trust fund.
Becker and the Institute for Justice have criticized North Dakota's forfeiture law for its low thresholds for seizure and forfeiture, as well as the burden of proof on defendants to prove their property wasn't involved in a crime. North Dakota also has no mechanism requiring law enforcement to report seizures or forfeitures, leading to a "perverse incentive" of "policing for profit," according to Becker, who brought similar, unsuccessful legislation in 2017. "It's simply a bad law," said Becker, facing the committee and a gallery of North Dakota sheriffs and police chiefs, including those for Burleigh, Cass and Hettinger counties and Bismarck, Mandan and Fargo.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(1/29/19 -- CForbes)
Mississippi Bill Would Let Cops Forfeit Cash And Cars - Without The Owner Going To Court
Mississippi, along with 46 other states, allows law enforcement to use civil forfeiture to take possession and ownership of property, even if they never convict the owner or file criminal charges. Thanks to its powers of confiscation, law enforcement in the Magnolia State has seized over $2.3 million worth of property over the past 18 months, including 54 vehicles, dozens of firearms, and several iPhones. But a bill introduced last week would revive “administrative” forfeiture in Mississippi, a form of civil forfeiture that has even fewer safeguards for innocent property owners. If enacted, property seized under the state’s Uniform Controlled Substances Law and valued at under $20,000 could be permanently confiscated without Mississippians ever getting their day in court.
Under the bill (HB 1104), after law enforcement has seized someone’s property and obtained a seizure warrant, they would have to notify the owner that they intend to forfeit it administratively. Once an owner is notified, the owner would have 30 days to contest the forfeiture and claim an interest in the property. If an owner fails to file within that time frame, then the government automatically wins and forfeits the property—no judge or jury required. But many owners simply don’t have the means to hire an attorney and fight for their property. That’s especially true when a lawyer can cost more than what the property is actually worth. According to the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, nearly half of all administrative forfeitures were valued at under $1,000. Yet the filing fees alone can cost anywhere between $250 to $1,500, while a protracted court battle can easily rack up hefty legal bills. And unlike criminal cases, there is no right to counsel for civil forfeiture proceedings. So innocent owners are all too often forced to walk away.
Read the entire article here at: forbes.com
(1/28/19 -- Detroit News)
Judge: No data release on prosecutor spending
A Macomb County, MI, judge denied an attorney's request Monday for background data related to forfeiture fund expenditures by county Prosecutor Eric Smith. Jared Maynard, former chairman of the Macomb County Republican Party, sued the county under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act to obtain records for "secret bank accounts" Smith's office had set up to process tens of thousands of dollars in funds from forfeiture and bad check cases.
The Michigan Court of Appeals and Macomb County Circuit Judge Edward Servitto had ruled Maynard was entitled to the bank records. But Maynard's attorney, Frank Cusumano Jr., also wanted backup data that might explain the reasons behind expenditures for services, credit card payment, and purchases from what Cusumano has referred to as Smith's "slush fund." "You are asking for an accounting ... an audit," Servitto told Cusumano. "That was not part of my order and I'm not approving it."
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(1/27/19 -- Greenville News)
65% of cash seized by SC police comes from black men. Experts blame racism.
Black residents have their money and property taken by police in South Carolina nearly three times more often than whites, for deep and unfair systemic reasons that go beyond the design of a civil forfeiture law, experts say. This is a state where black people have faced racist constraints on their ownership of property for most of the decades between the end of slavery and now, whether by Jim Crow laws, redlining, the War on Drugs or unequal access to bank loans.
It’s not surprising, to police or lawyers or activists or even residents, that black people here are disproportionately punished by civil forfeiture, as The Greenville News TAKEN investigation uncovered. But just how wide that disparity is can be surprising. Seven out of 10 people who have property taken are black, and 65 percent of all money police seize is from black males.
“Shut up!” said state Rep. Todd Rutherford, a Columbia defense attorney, when told of the main findings from TAKEN.
Read the entire article here at: greenvilleonline.com
(1/24/19 -- Macomb Daily
As scrutiny mounts, Michigan Prosecutor Smith defends use of funds
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith on Thursday defended his use of tens of thousands of dollars from asset forfeiture funds as two other top county officials called for a forensic audit into the accounts. The requests for a forensic audit comes one day after The Macomb Daily reported the prosecutor has used the money from the so-called "off-the-books" funds to pay for unspecified credit card purchases, cellphone bills, satellite TV service and other items called "questionable" by critics. "Make no mistake, there's nothing 'off the books' nor 'secret' about these accounts," Smith said in a Facebook video posted Thursday. "My office has filed yearly accounting reports with state Office of Management and Budget as required by law."
Meanwhile, county Commissioner Veronica Klinefelt of Eastpointe, who serves as chair of the Finance, Audit and Budget Committee, has received a joint letter from County Executive Mark Hackel and County Treasurer Larry Rocca requesting a forensic audit of the forfeiture funds. "There are some questions that need to be answered, and unfortunately, I think Eric (Smith) is going to have to answer those," Hackel said on Frank Beckmann's show on WJR-AM (760). "I agree those should have been on the books."
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(1/24/19 -- WKAR)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill Moves Out Of Michigan Senate Committee
A state Senate committee approved Senate Bill 2 Thursday, which changes the state’s civil asset forfeiture law. The bill would still allow law enforcement to take property possibly involved in a crime, but they wouldn’t be allowed to permanently keep it until there’s a criminal conviction or the person gives up their ownership. This applies if the value of the property or money is less than 50-thousand dollars.
Senator Pete Lucido (R-Shelby Township) is a bill sponsor passed a similar bill while he was a Representative in the state House last session, but it never made it out of the Senate. He said this bill is a compromise that is good for police and citizens.
“This prevents nothing that the police can’t do already,” Lucido said. “What it does do though it ensures the public, whose property rights that they have, will never be violated.” But some law enforcement members are not on board with proposed changes to the state civil asset forfeiture law.
Robert Stevenson, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police said criminals will find a way around the 50-thousand-dollar limit. “When you set a dollar amount, all you’re doing is telling the drug dealers, you need to transport your money in less than 50-thousand dollars.”
Read the entire article here at: wkar.org
(1/24/19 -- The Heartland Institute)
Texas Considers Ending Civil Asset Forfeiture
In recent years, states have taken steps to limit civil asset forfeiture: the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize property from criminal suspects without a prosecution or conclusive evidence a crime was committed. Civil asset forfeiture has even been used with no criminal charges filed against those whose assets have been seized. The standard of proof permitting seizure differs from state to state. Since 2014, 29 states have comprehensively reformed their forfeiture laws, and 15 states now require a criminal conviction before assets are seized. Unfortunately, several states continue to pursue civil asset forfeiture in a draconian manner. However, as the issue gains more attention, more states are finally considering reforms to their civil asset forfeiture laws.
One of the more recent examples of this is taking place in Texas. Analysts at the nonpartisan Institute for Justice (IJ) have given the Lone Star State’s civil asset forfeiture laws a grade of D+, one of the lowest rankings in the nation. Under existing law, Texas law enforcement officials only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that property is associated with criminal activity to seize it. Along with this low proof threshold for law enforcement, property owners must prove that they had no involvement with the criminal activity associated with their property when they seek to recover their property.
A new bill pre-filed in the Texas House would directly address many of these problems, end civil asset forfeiture, and transition the state to a criminal forfeiture process. Under the new bill, HB 404, the state would not be able to seize property without a criminal conviction in virtually all cases. The bill also addresses the incentive for law enforcement to seize as much property as possible by requiring all proceeds from seizures to be deposited in the general fund of the county where the agency is located. Currently Texas law enforcement agencies can keep up to 70 percent of forfeiture proceeds.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(1/23/19 -- WJAC)
DA hands over some forfeiture fund documents, but it's not enough for activist
After a judge ruled more documents must be released by the Cambria County District Attorney regarding how her office spent money collected through drug forfeitures, Kelly Callihan's office says they have obliged with the right-to-know request of a local activist. But John DeBartola said something fishy is still going on after Callihan revealed some of the complaints he had been fighting years for were found to have no supporting documents.
DeBartola's four suits were in an effort to try and get additional financial records showing what the DA's office did with accounts totaling more than six figures from money seized in forfeiture cases. The funds totaling more than six figures are from money seized in forfeiture cases and are intended to be used for drug and other law enforcement initiatives. But a December 2017 6 News investigation found that more than $10,000 was used for such things as a staff dinner at Ebensburg Country Club, flowers for employees, and laptop cases for staff.
Read the entire article here at: wjactv.com
(1/21/19 -- San Diego Union-Tribune)
'Large-scale' illegal marijuana case that began with dramatic early morning raid ends with a deal
A high-profile and politically charged case that former District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed against pot entrepreneur James Slatic, his employees and his attorney has ended with a handful of misdemeanor convictions and an infraction. The last criminal complaint was settled in a deal between current District Attorney Summer Stephan and marijuana lawyer Jessica McElfresh, who represented Slatic and his company, Med-West Distribution. If all requirements for the deal are met, the case will end this July with no jail time for what was a city code infraction.
Under the plea deal, called a deferred-prosecution agreement, McElfresh admitted that she violated a provision of San Diego’s Municipal Code. McElfresh acknowledged in court records that “on April 28, 2015, the defendant knowingly facilitated the use of a premises without a required permit … to wit an unpermitted marijuana manufacturing and distribution operation.”
McElfresh was one of six criminal defendants in what began as a civil asset-forfeiture case but which later included felony charges. McElfresh saw her law practice thrown into a lurch after Dumanis took the unusual step of charging her with seven different felonies.
Read the entire article here at: sandiegouniontribune.com
(1/21/19 -- Crossville Chronicle)
Panel OKs funds from property seizure in drug conviction case
The Cumberland County’s budget committee approved a budget amendment earlier this month to authorize and accept proceeds from forfeited property sale due to a husband and wife’s conviction on multiple drug offenses. The proceeds will bring a little more than $25,000 into the county’s drug fund.
Cumberland County Sheriff Casey Cox said the proceeds come from a case in which Carl Thomas Duer Jr. and his wife, Vickie Roseann Duer, pleaded guilty to charges contained in a 17-count indictment that included charges of conspiring to sell more than 300 grams of meth during a five-month joint drug investigation by the sheriff’s office and the 13th Judicial District drug task force in 2016.
Read the entire article here at: crossville-chronicle.com
(1/22/19 -- Mississippi Center For Public Policy)
Conservative organizations oppose renewal of administrative forfeiture
Numerous conservative organizations sent a letter to Gov. Phil Bryant, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, and Speaker Philip Gunn yesterday asking leadership to oppose reinstatement of administrative forfeiture in Mississippi.
Last year, the process known as administrative forfeiture was not renewed in the legislature. Administrative forfeiture allows the state can take property valued under $20,000 and forfeit it by merely providing the individual with a notice.
Read the full letter here at: mspolicy.org
(1/21/19 -- Statesman)
Texans should push for asset forfeiture reform now
Of all the government encroachments into our private lives, perhaps none is more egregious, arbitrary and subject to corruption than that of civil asset forfeiture. Yet, for the most part it exists under the common radar.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving civil asset forfeiture, a controversial practice that has drawn opponents from both ends of the political spectrum. Civil asset forfeiture is the seizure of property by local or state law enforcement if it is suspected that the property was used in committing a crime — for instance, a vehicle or boat used to transport illegal drugs. Even small amounts of cash on a person do not escape scrutiny. The property owner need not be charged with a crime; nonetheless, the practice has resulted in costly litigation, ruined livelihoods and spurred accusations of law enforcement agencies “policing for profit.”
In a land where due process and presumption of innocence are the foundations of our legal system, civil asset forfeiture reeks of the opposite. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction, states have various burdens of proof in civil asset forfeiture cases, ranging from probable cause to clear and convincing evidence. The majority, including Texas, use a preponderance of evidence standard. Simply put, if there is a 51 percent chance that your property was used in doing something illegal, you could be caught in the crosshairs of asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: statesman.com
(1/20/19 -- Michigan Radio NPR)
Proposed changes to Michigan's civil asset forfeiture law go to Senate committee this week
This week, a state Senate committee will take up legislation to put limits on police seizures of private property. Under current law, police agencies in Michigan can take property from criminal suspects, even if they are never convicted of a crime.
There’s legislation in both the Michigan House and Senate that would require a conviction to seize property, including cars and other valuables worth less than $50,000.
Thursday, the state senate Judiciary and Public Safety committee will take up a bill by its own chairman. Sen. Peter Lucido (R-Shelby Township) championed similar legislation when he was a House member, only to see it stall in the upper chamber. The push to curb civil asset forfeiture also has the support of House Speaker Lee Chatfield and Attorney General Dana Nessel.
(1/20/19 -- Dallas News)
They were acquitted of drug trafficking, but Uncle Sam wants to keep their property anyway
Jerry Shults and his daughter, Amy Herrig, were recently acquitted of drug trafficking charges, but the government is not done with them yet: It wants to take much of their money and property using controversial federal forfeiture laws. The father and daughter team behind a vast retail network of synthetic marijuana products called spice is scheduled to go on trial for a second time in Dallas in March. This go around, they will be trying to stop the government from taking their considerable fortune, including an exotic fishing camp, airplanes and bank accounts worth millions.
The government wasted no time in pushing forward with its separate civil forfeiture lawsuit against Shults and Herrig following the duo's October acquittal on the more serious drug trafficking charges. The two are awaiting sentencing after being convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for misbranding synthetic marijuana sold in their stores as potpourri, incense and bath salts. The Gas Pipe defendants tried unsuccessfully to obtain the release of their property following the criminal case. The allegations in the 88-page forfeiture complaint are similar to what the couple was accused of in the criminal indictment.
"Despite the government's attempts to downplay or ignore them, the acquittals on all of the forfeiture-related charges in the criminal case ... provide a compelling basis for granting the requested relief," the Gas Pipe attorneys said in a Nov. 7 court filing.
George R. Milner III, an attorney for the Gas Pipe, told The Dallas Morning News on Friday that while the law allows the government to "pursue a civil forfeiture predicated upon the precise conduct previously acquitted in a criminal trial, it is not only offensive, but abusive."
Read the entire article here at: dallasnews.com
(1/18/19 -- NJ.Com)
State lawmakers hear from advocates, law enforcement about asset seizure in New Jersey
Advocates and law enforcement debated the merits of seizing money from alleged criminals Thursday, a month after a report showed police took $5.5 million in five months through the little-known practice.
Four advocates suggested multiple reforms to how civil forfeiture is practiced, including more transparency, legal representation and a higher standard for seizing property from residents.
Five representatives testified on behalf of law enforcement, denying that the items seized have ever been misused and said officers had good reason to take the property they seize.
The ACLU contends that under current law, law enforcement is not required to return the items seized if the case does not result in a conviction. “I think what’s revealing is these representatives can’t point to any reason why building in basic due process protection would harm their interest. The implication is, they’re doing things now to take people’s money that they couldn’t do if those people had the constitutional protections that they’re owed,” Weisberg said.
Read the entire article here at: nj.com
(1/17/19 -- Metro News)
Conservative advocacy group supports criminal justice reform efforts
Americans for Prosperity, a long-time supporter of conservative and libertarian causes, is expressing optimism about the prospects for reform of West Virginia’s criminal justice system.
West Virginia State Director Jason Huffman said the Legislature should address civil asset forfeiture laws, in which local police departments can keep all or a portion of possessions seized during a criminal investigation regardless if a conviction is made.
Americans for Prosperity regularly has decried such laws, which Huffman said create a perverse incentive for law enforcement to abuse the process. “It’s a basic property rights issue,” he said. “What we want to see is to take that system of civil asset forfeiture and essentially end it by requiring a conviction, before the government can retain your property permanently.”
Read the entire article here at: wvmetronews.com
(1/17/19 -- Drug Policy Alliance)
New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee Holds Informational Hearing on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Today, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee held an informational hearing on civil asset forfeiture laws in New Jersey. Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize cash, cars, real estate or other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, regardless of whether the person is convicted, or in some cases, even if charges are never filed against the property owner.
Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, issued the following statement after today’s hearing: “Today’s hearing is an important step toward reforming civil asset forfeiture laws – also known as “policing for profit” – that have long been in need of reform. These laws create perverse incentives that can cause law enforcement to over-enforce crimes that carry the possibility of forfeiture, most predominantly drug offenses, to the neglect of other public safety objectives. The harms caused by these laws disproportionately impact low-income individuals, who often choose not to challenge the seizure of their property because it is too onerous and expensive to do so. We look forward to continuing to work with the New Jersey Assembly to ensure that New Jersey reforms its unjust civil asset forfeiture laws.”
Read the entire article here at: drugpolicy.org
(1/17/19 -- EIN Newsdesk)
Can the Trump Administration Use Asset Forfeiture Funds to Build the Border Wall?
Hawaiian vacation. Margarita machine. Sparkles the Clown. Are we going to add Trump’s border wall to the list of “ridiculous things” that civil asset forfeiture funds have been spent on? It seems so if left up to this administration.
On Friday, two congressional Republicans told the Associated Press that the administration had been looking at civil asset forfeiture funds to finance the border wall’s construction. And it’s easy to see why. The federal government’s forfeiture fund currently has $3.7 billion in cash, but over $7.6 billion in assets. For the Trump administration, what could be more tempting than liquidating this slush fund to build the wall it wants a new influx of $5.7 billion for?
This scheme exemplifies all that is wrong with civil asset forfeiture, which occurs when law enforcement takes property away from someone based on the mere suspicion it is connected to a crime. To be clear — because people can’t believe this is a thing — you do not have to be arrested or convicted of a crime to have your property seized and taken under civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: einnews.com
(1/16/19 -- Mississippi Center For Public Policy)
Mississippi’s civil asset forfeiture database gives citizens a window into the world of forfeiture.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is performing an analysis of the data for the first 18 months the database law has been in effect and the biggest takeaways from it are the myriad unknowns.
First, here is what can be confirmed using only the database. The value of the 315 seizures added up to $2,314,648.24 or $7,490 per seizure.
Of the 315 forfeitures listed in the database up to December 31, only 137 listed the drug that led to the forfeiture. On the boilerplate notice of intent for forfeit used by many agencies such as the MBN, there is a blank line for listing what drug was involved. Most of the time, it was left blank.
Read the entire article here at: mspolicy.org
(1/16/19 -- Alabaster Reporter)
Prosecutors seek civil asset forfeiture in student’s arrest
Prosecutors are asking a judge to order property and money used to allegedly further illegal drug activity by an 18-year-old Alabaster student be forfeited to the Shelby County Drug Enforcement Task Force, according to documents recently filed in Shelby County Civil Court.
The Shelby County District Attorney’s Office is asking Circuit Court Judge Corey Moore to order $1,782 in cash, a Remington Model 700 .270 Caliber rifle, a H&R 12-gauge shotgun and assorted magazines and ammunition be forfeited to the Task Force after it was confiscated during the Jan. 7 arrest of Kamau Diandi Greene Jr.
Read the entire article here at: shelbycountyreporter.com
(1/17/19 -- The Salt Lake tribune)
Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee leaves Russia probe to others, focuses on civil asset forfeiture in questioning attorney general nominee
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, made no mention of President Donald Trump or the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Tuesday during questioning of William Barr, Trump’s nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general. While other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Barr on his willingness to protect Mueller’s investigation and his deference to presidential authority, Lee used his time seeking assurances on civil asset forfeiture, antitrust protections, criminal justice reform and prosecutorial discretion and illegal immigration.
Lee, a frequent critic of asset forfeiture, in which money or property is seized from individuals suspected of committing a crime, compared it to a “speed trap” used to fund law enforcement activity.
“Too often, law enforcement agencies have too strong an incentive to use civil asset forfeiture in a way that lines their own coffers,” Lee said to Barr. “Do you think that the speed-trap mentality is a problem and, if so, is that something you’ll work to address?”
Barr responded that he is concerned about the incentives behind asset forfeiture, saying “constant vigilance is necessary.” But he added that the seizure of goods and money can be a valuable tool in law enforcement.
Read the entire article here at: sltrib.com
(1/15/19 -- National Review)
Twenty Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Kamala Harris
3. Harris has been a strong advocate of civil asset forfeiture. She supported a bill in California that would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power now available only at the federal level — if there were a “substantial probability” they would eventually initiate such proceedings. Besides cases involving violent crimes, the legislation allowed seizures in cases involving such crimes as bribery, gambling, and trafficking endangered species. Harris endorsed the bill after then-attorney general Eric Holder sharply limited civil asset forfeiture among federal prosecutors. She argued that the practice gave local and state law-enforcement officials “more tools to target the illicit profits [of transnational criminal groups] and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”
Read the entire article here at: nationalreview.com
(1/14/19 -- Washington Post)
No, asset forfeiture will not pay for the wall
In recent days, the White House and several Republican lawmakers have floated the idea of using asset forfeiture money held by the Justice Department to cover the initial cost of Donald Trump’s proposed border wall. The proposal has drawn harsh criticism from civil libertarians, including some in the president’s own party.
In fiscal year 2018, the DOJ’s asset forfeiture fund had a net balance of about $1.5 billion, roughly triple the balance that was in there in 2001. The Treasury Department maintains a separate asset forfeiture fund with a balance of $2.2 billion as of fiscal year 2017 (more recent data from the Treasury is not yet available).
While the federal government does not release detailed breakdowns on the source of those funds, previous research by the Institute for Justice found that 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings advanced on a civil basis, rather than a criminal one. That means that large amounts of that money were taken from individuals never convicted of any crime. Taking money seized from these individuals and putting it toward an unpopular presidential policy priority would probably be highly controversial.
Under federal law, money from the DOJ’s forfeiture fund can only be put toward certain specified uses, including maintaining the fund itself, paying overtime and salaries of law enforcement officers, paying informants and upgrading law enforcement vehicles. Similar rules govern the money in the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund. Absent congressional action, authorities wishing to appropriate money for a wall from either fund would have to justify that use under existing statutes, and it’s unclear whether they’d be able to. ABC News’s Tara Palmieri has reported that Justice Department officials are “fiercely against” using DOJ forfeiture money in this fashion.
Read the entire article here at: washingtonpost.com
(1/12/19 -- Waco Tribune-Herald)
Supreme Court case, legislation take aim at ‘shady’ asset forfeiture practices
The 18-year-old was driving his flashy new Dodge Charger through a Waco suburban community when he saw the unmistakable lights of a police car behind him. He was nervous as he pulled over because he had a little weed on him. The officer was aggressive, and the man’s small marijuana stash quickly was discovered. The officer asked him about his shiny ride. More specifically, the officer asked if the Charger was paid for, a clear sign to the young man’s lawyer that the officer was searching for a way to bump what otherwise would have been a minor infraction up to a felony.
After learning the car indeed was paid for, the officer charged the man with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone, despite the fact that he had far less than an ounce of marijuana for his personal use. Waco attorney Cody Cleveland has had at least five clients who went through that or similar scenarios in at least two Waco suburbs in the past five years. He declined to identify the cities.
“Cops are very aware of the civil asset forfeiture law,” Cleveland said. “It’s not that common, but there are a few officers in my experience who would do everything he could to get his hands on your car or motorcycle, especially if they knew it was paid off. They want assets that are free and clear so they can turn around and auction them off, but they can’t do that unless it’s a felony. “I have had what I consider some pretty damn shady experiences with local law enforcement in that regard,” Cleveland said. “I’m like most people. I don’t want to see an abuse of the law. I don’t want a law enforcement officer to just make a criminal case so they can line their pockets, so to speak, for financial gain.”
Read the entire article here at: wacotrib.com
(1/11/19 -- Washington Examiner)
This might be the worst idea yet to fund Trump's wall
With little prospect of reaching an agreement on border security that would pave the way to reopen the government, lawmakers casting about for novel solutions to fund Trump's border wall landed on yet another truly bad idea: tapping funds generated by civil asset forfeiture.
If that sounds like textbook abuse of government power, that’s because it is. Government seizure of property never to be returned is exactly the opposite of the liberty enshrined in the Constitution. So naturally, that’s exactly what the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., is advocating.
Read the entire article here at: washingtonexaminer.com
(1/11/19 -- Midland Daily News)
Wentworth backs plan to change civil asset seizure law
State Rep. Jason Wentworth of Clare on Wednesday introduced a plan reforming Michigan's civil asset forfeiture process to protect the due process rights of residents. Wentworth, whose district includes Gladwin County, said the current civil asset forfeiture process violates the civil liberties of Michigan residents by giving law enforcement agencies the authority to keep the property of individuals who haven't even been charged with a crime.
"Our local law enforcement officers should be commended. They're doing a great job," Wentworth said in a prepared statement. "But we must also take precautions to ensure innocent people aren't treated like criminals when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. Requiring a conviction will protect the due process rights of Michigan citizens." Wentworth introduced the bipartisan solution alongside Rep. David LaGrand, D-Grand Rapids. The plan laid out in House Bills 4001-02 would require a criminal conviction before law enforcement agencies can take ownership of personal property using the civil asset forfeiture process.
Read the entire article here at: ourmidland.com
(1/11/19 -- Forbes)
Congressman Slams Civil Forfeiture As 'A Series Of Government Shakedowns'
Speaking at a panel on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sharply criticized the federal government’s use of civil forfeiture, which lets law enforcement confiscate property and pocket the proceeds for themselves, all without filing criminal charges. “In this great country, the presumption of innocence has to be first and foremost,” Congressman Walberg said. “But with civil asset forfeiture, that’s not the case.”
“What we’re looking at is a series of government shakedowns across the country,” Rep. Raskin said. “If you don’t think the government makes mistakes in cases like this, you’re too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself.”
Hosted by the Institute for Justice, the congressional event featured two Americans who had their property wrongfully taken by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Neither was ever charged with a crime.
Read the entire article here at: forbes.com
(1/11/19 -- Reason)
Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows Supports Asset Forfeiture, National Emergency Declaration to Fund Wall
Rep. Mark Meadows (R–N.C.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Friday morning that President Trump should "use asset forfeiture money or other discretionary fees to start construction" on the wall, and declare a national emergency if Democrats won't negotiate. Because nothing screams freedom like the president using ill-gotten gains to pay for a public works project the legislature has refused to authorize.
In an interview with POLITICO, Meadows sounded a bit more concerned about setting a bad precedent that would empower future executive branches to sidestep Congress and act unilaterally, but noted Trump "would find broad support if it's determined that ultimately he has to do it."
That's a fairly damning statement. According to its bio, the House Freedom Caucus purportedly supports "open, accountable & limited government, the Constitution & the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety & prosperity of all Americans." One might expect more of its members to recongize that Trump's proposed course of action violates many of these principles and weakens them in the long term.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(1/11/19 -- Lancaster Online)
Decision by state office is a win for public, transparency
The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ruled Monday in favor of LNP’s Right-to-Know request for information from the Lancaster County Drug Task Force, which is operated by the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office. Material sought by LNP includes records of items seized in narcotics trafficking investigations, the manner in which those items were processed and, if sold, where the funds were subsequently kept or spent. The open records office ruled that the relevant statute “does not prohibit the release of the requested records.” The district attorney’s office was given 30 days to provide the records or appeal to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
The Lancaster County Drug Task Force was formed in 1988 and works under the district attorney’s office. According to its website, it is composed of “Lancaster County Detectives and municipal police officers assigned by their respective police departments to temporary duty with the Drug Task Force.” It focuses mainly on mid-level to upper-level drug dealers and coordinates at times with Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. Funding sources for the task force include voluntary contributions from county municipalities ($1 per capita is the standing request), an annual allotment from Lancaster County, and some funding from the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
We believe the public should have a better understanding of the civil forfeitures that make up the bulk of the task force’s funding, given that county and municipal tax dollars also contribute to the operation.
Read the entire article here at: lancasteronline.com
(1/10/19 -- Detroit News)
Can the bipartisan honeymoon last?
It’s hard to picture two people more politically opposed than new Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield and Attorney General Dana Nessel. Despite their differences, Chatfield, a conservative Republican from northern Michigan, and Nessel, a liberal Democrat from southeast Michigan, stood next to each other Wednesday to back legislative reforms to civil asset forfeiture.
This was a positive way to kick off the new legislative session, with bipartisan buy-in for changes that would go a long way to protecting citizens from police overreach -- which is a win for due process and civil liberty. Now that Michigan has a split government, with Republicans in control of the Legislature, and Democrats heading the top three statewide posts, political leaders need to find agreement where they can.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(1/10/19 -- Mississippi Center For Public Policy)
Progress on asset forfeiture, but significant problems remain
Last year, the Mississippi legislature allowed the expiration of the law that authorized administrative forfeiture — which allowed law enforcement agencies to seize property valued at less than $20,000 with only a notice to the property owner.
But even after the law was repealed, agencies continue to seize property under administrative forfeiture. In September, the Mississippi Justice Institute, the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, sent a letter to MBN advising the agency of the change in the law after it became apparent that the property seizures continued. Later that month, MBN sent notices allowing retrieval of improperly seized property.
Read the entire article here at: mspolicy.org
(1/10/19 -- Detroit Free Press)
Here's one reform that GOP, Democrats can agree on in 2019
In 2019, Michigan will have a divided government — a Republican-majority Legislature with a Democratic governor, attorney general and secretary of state — for the first time in eight years. The time is right for bipartisan cooperation, and civil asset forfeiture reform is a perfect issue to start with. In 2017, the latest year we have data, law enforcement agencies across the state took more than $13 million in cash or property from Michigan residents suspected of a crime through a process known as civil asset forfeiture. For the majority of the more than 6,000 forfeiture cases, assets were taken from people who were never convicted of a crime. And in about 1,000 of those cases, 736 people were never charged, and 220 were found not guilty. Given these findings, which are part of a Michigan State Police report that includes all 2017 forfeiture cases from every law enforcement agency across the state, it’s clear that civil asset forfeiture laws must be changed.
Read the entire article here at: freep.com
(1/10/19 -- WJSM)
NFIB Joins ACLU And Mackinac Center Supporting Change In Civil Forfeiture Law
Groups across Michigan’s political spectrum are united in support of a bi-partisan effort to change civil forfeiture laws. Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s administration is working with Republican Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield to change the law by requiring criminal convictions in most cases before forfeiture can occur. Charlie Owens is Michigan Director for the National Federation of Independent Business. He says one NFIB member was the victim of a bad tip that caused a police raid and seizure of his auto parts inventory. The man was not guilty of any crime but still suffered under civil forfeiture laws.
Owens is optimistic that the bipartisan effort to change Michigan civil forfeiture laws will succeed.
(1/9/19 -- Detroit Free Press)
New bills would change how Michigan cops seize property
The new session of the Republican-controlled Legislature began on a bipartisan footing Wednesday with the Democratic attorney general and lawmakers from both parties uniting behind a package of bills to reform civil asset forfeiture. The fact that police can sometimes seize property without charging — let alone a judge registering a conviction against — the person whose property is seized has long been a controversial issue in Michigan.
The first bills introduced in the session that began Wednesday, House Bills 4001 and 4002, would require a criminal conviction before property with a value of less than $50,000 can be permanently seized through civil forfeiture. Laws would also be tightened for forfeiture of more valuable property. “Civil asset forfeiture reform will be our first bill because it is a strong, bipartisan reform that safeguards the rights of every single Michigan resident,” said newly elected House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering.
Read the entire article here at: freep.com
(1/8/19 -- Grand Forks Herald)
North Dakota lawmaker brings bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
Aaron Dorn has a new car. He recently bought a 1995 Toyota Avalon. But it's not what he previously had as a traveling antique vendor based out of upstate New York. "Without a truck, I can't really do anything," Dorn said. Dorn forfeited his 2003 Chevrolet Silverado last summer, when a judge ruled his truck was used to commit a crime during a protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 in Mandan. "That really set me back quite a bit," Dorn said.
Dorn was criminally charged from the protest and later acquitted, while his truck was essentially convicted in the separate civil case. And now a Bismarck lawmaker is aiming to reform civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota.
Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, is introducing House Bill 1286 on the state's civil asset forfeiture law, which has been ranked by the Institute for Justice as one of the worst in the nation.
Becker said his bill would subject only convicted defendants to forfeiture proceedings. HB 1286 also would require reporting from law enforcement on seized and forfeited property and would send proceeds from forfeitures into the state schools trust. "If you were eventually not even charged, or if you were acquitted or if you were not found guilty, then it should just be an automatic 'I get my stuff back,'" Becker said. His previous reform effort failed in 2017 after passing the House but garnered zero votes in the Senate and drew opposing testimony from North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem.
Becker said his 2017 legislation "had a few glitches" but considered its House passage a feat, especially for such an apparently little-known topic. Becker said even he wasn't aware of the law a year or two ago. Bismarck Republican Sen. Diane Larson, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, carried Becker's previous bill to the Senate floor, where it failed. Forfeiture is "a complicated issue," she said, adding she'll assess HB 1286 after it leaves the House.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(1/7/19 -- OCCRP)
Ex-Mexican AG Pleads Guilty to Drug Trafficking Conspiracy
A former state attorney general from Mexico is facing life in prison for using his position as a top law enforcement official to facilitate drug trafficking into the United States in exchange for bribes, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York announced last week.
Edgar Veytia, the former attorney general for the state of Nayarit, pleaded guilty on Friday to an international conspiracy to manufacture and import heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana from Mexico into the US. According to court documents, the scheme dated from the beginning of Veytia’s tenure as Nayarit’s top law enforcement officer in January 2013 to the time of his arrest in February 2017.
Veytia faces at least ten years in prison at his sentencing later this year, but could receive a life term if the judge follows the guidelines calculated by prosecutors. Under forfeiture laws, the US government could also seize some US$250 million.
Read the entire article here at: occrp.org
(1/6/19 -- Law 360)
4 Access To Justice Cases To Watch In 2019
A Drug Dealer's Seized SUV Awaits Supreme Court Ruling
Civil forfeiture, the practice of seizing property believed to be part of a crime, burst into the legal spotlight in 2018 after a convicted drug dealer took a dispute with Indiana over his seized Land Rover to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, all eyes are on the court for its opinion in the case, which could have far-reaching consequences for states as well as the federal government, which took in about $1.6 billion in 2017 gross forfeiture revenue.
The petitioner Tyson Timbs pled guilty in 2015 to drug and theft-related charges after being arrested for selling $400 worth of heroin out of his car. The court sentenced him to one year of home detention plus five years of probation and also ordered him to pay more than $1,200 in costs and fees. But because the Land Rover was used in the crime, the state of Indiana also sought to seize the $42,000 vehicle via civil forfeiture. Though a trial judge denied the bid on the grounds that it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed that decision, saying the U.S. Supreme Court had not expressly applied the excessive fines clause to the states. Timbs turned to the high court, which agreed in June to hear the case. At oral arguments in November, Justice Neil Gorsuch interrupted the Indiana solicitor general’s opening argument to "get one thing off the table."
"We all agree that the excessive fines clause is incorporated against the states," he said, answering the official question presented in the case.
From there, the questions turned to how much is too much. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether seizing a $42,000 Land Rover would be considered excessive if the vehicle's owner was a multimillionaire; Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether it mattered if the car was a Ferrari or a clunker. Lisa Foster, co-founder of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, told Law360 after the hearing that she thought the high court would "no doubt" incorporate the excessive fines clause against the states. When contacted last week, she added that she isn't expecting an expansive opinion. "At most, we may get some hints about which monetary sanctions may be encompassed within the clause and perhaps a suggestion of how some of the justices might assess what's excessive," she said. "What I can say with confidence is that over time, those issues will be resolved because there are advocates ready to bring excessive fines cases as soon as the Timbs decision is handed down."
Read the entire article here at: law360.com
(1/5/19 -- Daily Courier)
Yavapai County drug enforcement funding faces reductions
Recent changes in law and criminal activity have threatened funding for Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking (PANT), a multi-agency task force charged with drug enforcement in Yavapai County. PANT is partially funded by seized money obtained through a state program called civil asset forfeiture. Commonly referred to as RICO — short for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — the program is designed to undercut the profits of wrongdoers by seizing assets believed to be tied to criminal activity, such as drugs, cash, vehicles and weapons. Those assets are returned only if either the state chooses not to proceed with legal action against the alleged wrongdoer or if owners of the property prove their innocence. Otherwise, the property is liquefied and used for law enforcement supplies and training in their efforts to specifically fight criminal organizations and/or aid victims. In Yavapai County, those forfeited funds are pooled into a single account, which Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk manages.
A substantial chunk of that RICO funding support for PANT was being used to cover the salary of the task force’s forfeiture investigator. As of July, however, a new federal law was enacted that prevents the use of RICO funds to cover replacement salaries for officers who are specifically assigned to asset forfeiture duties, therefore eliminating Yavapai County’s ability to cover the PANT investigator’s salary with RICO funds any longer. On top of this, there’s been a significant decline in asset forfeitures throughout the country.
Read the entire article here at: dcourier.com
(1/4/19 -- Just Security)
Ruminations on RICO and Asset Forfeiture in the Trump Business Empire
Garrett Graff provided an excellent summary in Wired of the seventeen Trump-related investigations currently open. The settlement of fraud allegations against Trump University could also provide fodder for an eighteenth. A number of those investigative threads could ultimately combine into one federal racketeering investigation that could cast his business and charitable entities as elements of a criminal organization that Donald Trump oversaw as kingpin.
As Trump ascended to the presidency, more and more allegations have surfaced suggesting that the Trump family businesses have been permeated with fraud. The New York Times traces a history of tax fraud associated with Fred Trump, in transferring his wealth, tax free to his children with Donald J. Trump’s overt assistance. Exhibit 1 was the concoction of the sham corporation entitled All County Building Supply & Maintenance Corp., and the use of false padded invoices to conceal the transfer of wealth from Fred Trump to his children tax-free. Central to the various alleged fraud schemes attributed to the Trump family businesses over the decades is the use of shell companies, fraudulent misrepresentations, and false invoice schemes. If true, instances of fraudulent conduct — if they constitute mail, wire, bank, and tax frauds — could make up a “pattern of racketeering activity” for purposes of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. Allegations leveled against the Trump Organization, the Trump Foundation, Trump University, and their insiders suggest that such practices were designed to enrich, elect, and insulate Trump, who has already been described in Michael Cohen’s criminal docket “Individual-1.”
At present, Department of Justice policy and constitutional views would bar criminal prosecution of a sitting president. But, provided there is evidence of crime, there is no constitutional or policy impediment to prosecution of Trump-related entities or other insiders, including Trump family members. Further, a racketeering prosecution could trigger the powerful asset forfeiture provisions of RICO against the Trump Organization and any other Trump assets used in connection with crimes.
Read the entire article here at: justsecurity.org
(1/2/19 -- Wheatherford Democrat)
Civil asset forfeiture not a major topic in 2019 legislative session
Texas’ legislative session begins on Jan. 8, and civil asset forfeiture could be a significant topic of discussion among lawmakers. Per their 2018 platform, the Texas Republican Party asked the legislature to abolish civil asset forfeiture, but Parker County representatives don’t expect the topic to be the main focus during the session. According to Texas Legislature Online, five bills have been filed regarding asset forfeiture as of Wednesday afternoon. During the previous regular session in 2017, 40 bills were filed relating to asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: weatherforddemocrat.com
(1/2/19 -- Alabama Today)
While the Supreme Court deliberates, Alabama should shine the light on asset forfeiture
The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled that it’s ready to limit the government’s power to confiscate things like cars, houses, and cash that prosecutors have proven, or maybe just reasonably suspect, were involved in crimes. The court heard oral arguments related to Indiana’s use of the power, known as asset forfeiture, to confiscate a $42,000 vehicle — a value nearly four times the maximum fine for the underlying crime. Specifically, the court is looking at whether the state is subject to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on imposing excessive fines. But because the justices seemed so skeptical of asset forfeiture overall, some court watchers predict that while the impending ruling may not abolish the practice completely, it could have deep and wide-ranging impacts.
Including here in Alabama. Our state’s asset forfeiture law has become increasingly controversial because it allows something called civil asset forfeiture, a maneuver in which law enforcement agencies legally seize assets based upon the mere suspicion of a crime. Yes, you read that right. Under state law, you don’t have to be charged or even convicted of a crime to have your property seized. Originally intended to cut off the cash flow of drug cartels, civil asset forfeiture is a practice that is independent of personal guilt or innocence. Instead, police charge or suspect your assets of being involved in a crime, and then take them.
Civil asset forfeiture flips the innocent-until-proven-guilty mantra of the American judicial system because defendants must prove their innocence to get their property back. In the case that defendants decide to hire an attorney, the legal costs can rival the worth of the assets, making such attempts both prohibitively expensive and, at times, pointless. A coalition including the Alabama Policy Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for Justice supported efforts to reform the law during the last legislative session. But as negotiations in Montgomery waded into the details and potential unintended consequences arose, time ran out and the bill failed.
Read the entire article here at: altoday.com
(1/2/19 -- Dallas News)
Police groups wary of Texas lawmakers' plans to decriminalize pot, stop officers from seizing assets
At the start of the 2017 legislative session, Texas law enforcement groups were reeling from years of high-profile use-of-force incidents involving black victims, as well as the deaths of five Dallas officers in a downtown shooting. The message from state lawmakers was simple: We back the blue. They passed laws funding $25 million worth of rifle-resistant bulletproof vests for police departments and property tax relief for the surviving spouses of police officers killed on duty, and they gutted police accountability legislation pushed by advocates.
With a new session starting in January, state law enforcement groups say their profession has mostly avoided headline-grabbing incidents, such as the controversial arrest and subsequent jail death of Sandra Bland in 2015. Instead, they hope to focus on bread-and-butter issues like creating a minimum wage for police officers across the state, ensuring pension systems are functioning properly and getting the state to help recruit people into law enforcement careers.
But lawmakers have other priorities that won’t make it an easy session for law enforcement officers. They have proposed restricting asset forfeiture policies and decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Law enforcement groups will also have to monitor conversations around protecting schools against shootings. And their leaders expect questions to be raised about police interactions with civilians, especially following the shooting of Botham Jean in his home by former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger.
Read the entire article here at: dallasnews.com
(12/28/18 -- Minnesota Lawyer)
2018’s top stories at the State Capitol
Forfeiture bill stalls. Any bill that lists both Rep. Ilhan Omar, DFL-Minneapolis, and her most vociferous critic, Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, is an eye-popper. Both signed onto a civil forfeiture reform bill by Rep. Jim Knoblach, R-St. Cloud.
The legislation would have put an official legislative “disfavored” stamp on law enforcement’s practice of seizing and selling property after lawful arrests and searches. But it ran into a buzz saw—the law enforcement community—which complained that the bill would have depleted already scarce financial resources. It eventually stalled.
Judiciary Chair Lesch, a plaintiff’s attorney, said forfeiture legislation is one of his top priorities for 2019. David Schultz, the Hamline University political science professor and lawyer, thinks it still faces a bumpy road. “It’s something that has a lot of ideological support,” he said. “But it doesn’t have what I’ll call interest group support among the two most important and powerful constituencies here—county attorneys and the police.”
Read the entire article here at: minnlawyer.com
(12/28/18 -- WREG 3)
New Tennessee Forfeiture Law Goes Into Effect January 1
Law enforcement will now be required to provide formal notices within five days of property seizures of a forfeiture-warrant hearing to the property owners — regardless of whether the person was present at the time the property was taken. Wrongfully seized property must be returned within five days. Meanwhile, cash by is not in and of itself a crime. And for those charged at the scene where assets are seized, those individuals will have a more defined process to get back their items if that property wasn’t involved in a crime.
Read the entire article here at: wreg.com
(12/21/18 -- Above The Law)
ICE Seizes Over 1 Million Websites With No Due Process; Apparently Unaware That Copyright & Trademark Are Different
Over the years, we’ve written an awful lot about asset forfeiture and how it is basically the government stealing shit they want with almost no due process. But the reason we started writing about asset forfeiture was when ICE used that process to seize a bunch of websites based entirely on the claims of the RIAA and MPAA that those websites were distributing copyright-infringing material. It turned out those claims were totally bullshit, leading to ICE eventually agreeing to return a blog over a year after it had been seized, and two others after holding them for over five years.
I’m still perplexed that this story was almost entirely ignored by the media. This was outright censorship by the US government — the equivalent of seizing a printing press from a publication and holding it based on nothing other than some private party’s complaints about the content of their publication. Incredibly, an ICE official, soon after the initial seizures, made the following bold claim: “People told us that we will fail if we seize these domain names, and that we’ll look foolish,” said Erik Barnett, assistant deputy director of the US government’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) team, which began conducting Operation In Our Sites last year.
He also stated that none of the seized sites had challenged the seizure, which was literally false. Barnett, in case you’re wondering, has moved on to the private sector and is apparently now the Regional Head of Europe for Financial Crime Threat Mitigation for HSBC.
Read the entire article here at: abovethelaw.com
(12/20/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
Albuquerque police suspend vehicle seizures
Albuquerque city officials told the Journal on Thursday that, in light of a recent state Court of Appeals ruling, police temporarily suspended the seizure of vehicles from certain suspected drunken drivers and others at the beginning of the week.
Police Chief Michael Geier’s order on Monday brought a halt to a yearslong practice in Albuquerque of officers taking cars from people arrested on suspicion of their second or subsequent drunken-driving offense, driving on a revoked license, vice-related crimes, certain gun charges or drag racing.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(12/20/18 -- Human Rights Watch)
Criminal Justice Coalition Submits Comments on Policing
On November 7, 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a policy that sets unprecedented barriers for DOJ attorneys to negotiate settlement agreements and consent decrees. Consent decrees are court orders jointly agreed on by the federal government and a state or local government actor accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations. Consent decrees can remedy these violations at a systemic level, with implementation overseen by a court-appointed monitor until the agency has successfully carried out the required reforms. Sessions’ action now makes it very difficult for the federal government to hold state and local law enforcement agencies accountable for systemic unconstitutional and unlawful policing that is found after a Section 14141 pattern or practice investigation.
Sessions’ aversion to consent decrees – and perhaps a preview of his forthcoming memo – was reflected in DOJ’s October 2018 formal opposition to the consent decree concerning the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Even though Sessions had abandoned DOJ’s earlier investigation and findings of policing failures at CPD, and the CPD consent decree was between the state of Illinois and Chicago as a result of this abandonment, Sessions still weighed in. In filing the statement of opposition, Jeff Sessions declared that “[t]here must never be another consent decree that continues the folly of the ACLU settlement,” with Sessions referencing a 2015 settlement between the ACLU and CPD to end the department’s unconstitutional stop and frisk practices.
Sessions could not completely avoid consent decrees, having inherited a few from the previous administrations. At the close of the Obama administration, DOJ had initiated consent decrees in cities like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, responding to high profile police caused fatalities that were instigated by entrenched unconstitutional police practices, including biased policing and excessive force. But while the Ferguson, Baltimore, and other consent decrees that were finalized before Sessions’ tenure continue, it is unlikely that other cities plagued by unconstitutional policing will benefit from DOJ’s civil rights enforcement unless Sessions’ memo is rescinded. This includes cities like Elkhart, Indiana, where 28 of the 34 supervising officers have been disciplined for reasons that “range from carelessness to incompetence to serious, even criminal, misconduct.”
Read the entire report here at: hrw.org
(12/20/18 -- High Plains Reader)
Policing for Profit in North Dakota
Rep. Rick Becker (R) of Bismarck has formulated a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture. Becker’s bill would pass the ND House in 2017, but garnish zero votes in the Senate. He plans on proposing a bill again in 2019.
“I think the biggest issues of civil asset forfeiture being considered ‘constitutional’ are proportionality. Essentially, the government taking property that’s way in excess of value compared to maximum statutory limit of a fine. Secondly, burden of proof in due process issues, in criminal cases the prosecution has to prove the case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ In civil cases to seize property they typically just need to prove ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ The problem in North Dakota is there is a burden shifting scheme, that has lowered the ‘preponderance of the evidence,’” said Mark Friese, attorney at Vogel Law Firm and co-author of Rep. Becker’s bill.
“With asset forfeitures it’s policing for profit, they divide it up, the prosecutors get a part of it, the investigating agencies get part of it, the task forces kinda split it up. It’s to the victors go the spoils type of analysis,” added Friese. The Institute of Justice in a 2015 Survey, Policing for Profit, among all 50 states gave North Dakota an “F,” considering issues with civil asset forfeiture, Massachusetts was the only other state to receive an “F,” Minnesota by comparison received a “D+.”
Read the entire article here at: hpr1.com
(12/19/18 -- Tallahassee Democrat)
Recent seizures, confusing legal landscape plague fledgling local hemp business
The seizures of hemp from Tallahassee’s Natural Life shop have become the high cost of doing business. In the past seven months, $500,000 in products have been seized, the company said.
In late November, Tallahassee Police again intercepted a package with what the owners of the shop say is hemp and police say is illegal. On the Wednesday after Thanksgiving, TPD investigators showed up at a Tharpe Street storage unit with a federal warrant. They were interested in a package mailed from Oregon addressed to a manager of Natural Life. The West Pensacola Street shop sells hemp and other products. Federal court documents stated TPD seized 10 pounds of "marijuana."
For operators of Natural Life, the seizure marked the third time in two months that investigators targeted the fledgling business acting on a tip from the U.S Postal Inspector. The recent seizures of hemp delivery to the Tallahassee business reflect the federal and municipal legal minefield for entrepreneurs willing to invest in the industry, which is trying to establish its brand separate from medical and legalized marijuana.
Read the entire article here at: tallahassee.com
(12/19/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
APD seizing cars despite ruling by appeals court
Court documents show Albuquerque police are still taking cars from certain drunken driving suspects under a city ordinance that the Court of Appeals recently ruled “completely contradicts” a state law. City officials are meeting this week to determine what changes will be made to the city’s vehicle seizure program after the court’s ruling, a spokeswoman for Mayor Tim Keller said.
Santa Fe, on the other hand, quickly suspended its seizure program after the Dec. 5 ruling, which said vehicle seizure programs such as the one in Albuquerque don’t comply with the New Mexico Forfeiture Act. But as recently as Saturday evening, a criminal complaint filed in Metropolitan Court showed Albuquerque police were still taking vehicles to their seizure lot.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(12/19/18 -- Heartland Institute)
Research & Commentary: Texas Tackles Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
In recent years, states have taken steps to limit civil asset forfeiture: the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize property from criminal suspects without a prosecution or conclusive evidence a crime was committed. Civil asset forfeiture has even been used with no criminal charges filed against those whose assets have been seized. The standard of proof permitting seizure differs from state to state. Since 2014, 24 states have comprehensively reformed their forfeiture laws, and 14 states now require a criminal conviction before assets are seized. Three states have even banned the practice altogether. Unfortunately, several states continue to pursue civil asset forfeiture in a draconian manner. However, as the issue gains increasingly more attention, additional states are finally considering reforms to their civil asset forfeiture laws.
One of the more recent examples of this is taking place in Texas. Analysts at the nonpartisan Institute for Justice (IJ) have given the Lone Star State’s civil asset forfeiture laws a grade of D+, one of the lowest rankings in the nation. Under existing law, Texas law enforcement officials only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that property is associated with criminal activity to seize it. Along with this low proof threshold for law enforcement, property owners must prove that they had no involvement with the criminal activity associated with their property when they seek to recover their own property.
Another major flaw of the Lone Star State’s forfeiture laws is that they incentivize law enforcement agencies to gratuitously seize property. According to IJ, in cases where a default judgment is entered (which is common among forfeiture cases), law enforcement agencies retain up to 70 percent of forfeiture proceeds. In contested cases where property owners challenge the basis for the seizure, agencies retain up to 100 percent of proceeds. Unfortunately, this encourages Texas law enforcement agencies to seize as much property as possible—as much of the funds seized can be used to benefit their departments.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(12/19/18 -- Tech Dirt)
Investigation Finds Philly PD Officers Bought Forfeited Houses Seized During Drug Arrests
Philadelphia's asset forfeiture programs have subjected the city's residents to all sorts of abuse. Cops have taken cars away from their owners because a child, relative, or friend was arrested while driving the vehicle. Law enforcement has tried to take entire homes away from grandmothers because their kid sold $140-worth of marijuana to an undercover cop. A recent court settlement is reforming the program -- something the city's legislators have had zero success doing. Cash under the amount of $250 can no longer be forfeited. Seizures under $1000 need to be accompanied by an arrest and charges. The city's law enforcement has been flexing its creativity, using the new arrest requirement to seize vehicles as "evidence" and hoping the wheels of justice grind slowly enough it would be cheaper to relinquish ownership than pay to get the car out of the impound lot.
We know cops directly profit from asset forfeiture, but when we say that we generally mean their agencies get new toys, vehicles, and other niceties by converting other people's property into discretionary spending. But there's an actual personal profit angle to forfeiture that hasn't been discussed. An investigation by PlanPhilly shows police officers have personally and directly benefited from property seizures tied to drug enforcement efforts.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(12/19/18 -- Splinter)
ICE, CBP Seize Billions In Assets Including Human Remains
Over the last four years, two federal agencies tasked with protecting the borders of the United States have generated billions of dollars in revenue through extensive seizure of assets including human remains, bombs, airplanes, yachts, and cryptocurrencies.
Since 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have seized $4,159,696,970 worth of property that was allegedly used in crimes, according to documents obtained by Splinter. (The ones linked here have been slightly altered for legibility, but researchers or reporters interested in obtaining the raw files can email the authors.) The records include every seizure that was entered into DHS’ massive asset forfeiture database, the Seized Asset and Case Tracking System, or SEACATS, from 2014 through early 2018. In one operation in 2016, DHS seized a helicopter valued at $5,800,000 and a single jet valued at $2,500,000. In 2018, another seized jet was valued at $5,000,000, and an “inflatable boat/raft” at $500,000.
But perhaps one of the most startling line items in the SEACATS database is the seizure of human remains. In 2016 and 2017, the seizure of several human remains was valued at $0. But in 2018, a single seized “human remain” was valued at $3,500, and another in 2015 at $10,000.
In September 2015, Kentucky resident Gerardo Serrano took some photographs while waiting in his pickup truck to cross the border into Mexico. Objecting to his taking pictures, two CBP agents stopped, detained him, and ordered him to unlock his cellphone. After he refused, CBP agents began searching his truck. “We got him,” a CBP agent reportedly said while conducting the search. The agent had found five low-caliber bullets in the center console, which Serrano said he’d forgotten were even there. CBP seized his truck through asset forfeiture, claiming that it had been used to transport “munitions of war,” and Serrano spent the next two years of his life fighting to recover his truck.
Asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize and then sell property that it alleges was used in a crime. While criminal forfeiture can only occur after the property’s owner has been convicted of a crime, this is not the case for civil forfeiture. Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who represented Serrano in his fight for his truck, confirmed that her client had faced no charges in connection with this case. “That’s exactly the problem with civil forfeiture. There is no requirement for charges, let alone a criminal conviction,” she said.
Read the entire article here at: splinternews.com
(12/17/18 -- Daily Journal)
"More difficult" to seize assets
Kankakee County’s top prosecutor ludicrously claimed local law enforcement is careful how it exercises its power to seize assets in drug cases. At a Kankakee County Board oversight committee meeting earlier this month, State’s Attorney Jim Rowe said a new state law has further restricted the use of civil asset forfeiture. “It’s more difficult to seize assets. The burden of proof is higher,” Rowe told the committee. He then confusingly stated, “We’re not out there to take grandma’s car. If she is letting her grandson take the car and sell drugs out of it, we’re taking it.”
One of the biggest changes in the law was the shifting of the burden of proof from the property owner to the government. Before, the owner had to prove that cash was not illegally gained. Now, the government must show it is entitled to the money. However, law enforcement still can seize assets when no one is convicted. Two-thirds of the money in forfeiture cases goes to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the seizures. The rest goes to other agencies, including 12.5 percent for the state’s attorney in the county where the money was seized.
Read the entire article here at: daily-journal.com
(12/16/18 -- Law 360)
Forfeiture Grabs In NJ Widespread But Face Little Resistance
You haven’t been convicted of a crime — haven’t even been arrested — but police officers confiscate your car anyway, saying they believe it was used in criminal activity and that you must go to court to get it back. For many, the cost of doing so means that property is gone for good. A new report from the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sheds some light on what can be a murky proceeding in the state and found that during a five-month period in 2016, more than 1,800 civil forfeiture actions were initiated by county prosecutors — and that only 50 were contested.
“It becomes clear that when [police] make a lot of seizures in relatively low amounts, they can guarantee that it will be a losing proposition for the person to try to go to court to challenge that seizure, because it’s probably more expensive just to walk through the courthouse door [than to accept the loss],” said Liza Weisberg, a fellow with the ACLU of New Jersey who works on civil asset forfeiture.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case challenging its constitutional bounds, Timbs v. Indiana, but has yet to rule. And in the absence of national rules, states are left to regulate the process themselves. The New Jersey report, which was published Tuesday and looked only at forfeiture on the state — not the federal — level, noted that state and local governments in New Jersey are not transparent about civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at: law360.com
(12/13/18 -- Reason)
The Twilight of Asset Forfeiture?
2018 was a bad year for civil asset forfeiture, the infamous practice by which police can seize property even if the owner is not charged with a crime.
In late summer, Philadelphia settled a federal class-action lawsuit over its aggressive asset forfeiture program. (How aggressive? One 78-year-old pensioner had $2,000 seized after police found her possessing a small amount of marijuana, which her retired husband used to alleviate his arthritis.) The city agreed to drastically curtail when and how it seizes property from residents and to set up a $3 million fund for victims of its sticky-fingered cops. Asset forfeiture will continue in Philadelphia, albeit in a limited form. But the salad days when police and prosecutors could seize 300 to 500 homes a year, according to the lawsuit, are now over.
The U.S. Supreme Court, which previously seemed reluctant to interfere in such cases, has agreed to consider an asset forfeiture challenge out of Indiana. Arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas also sharply criticized the practice in a 2017 dissent in a different case. "These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings," he wrote. The increased willingness of federal judges to consider the perverse profit incentives created by asset forfeiture, together with the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, raises a real question: Are we seeing the twilight of such programs in the United States?
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(12/13/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
Appeals Court rules against ABQ seizure law
The New Mexico Court of Appeals last week ruled that the city of Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure ordinance “completely contradicts” the intent of the New Mexico Forfeiture Act, and that state law completely pre-empts it. The opinion reverses District Court Judge Valerie Huling’s order in Wilfredo Espinoza’s 2016 lawsuit against the city.
Albuquerque is not the only city affected. As a result of the ruling, Santa Fe city government announced Thursday that it was imposing a moratorium on its own ordinance that provides for seizure of vehicles in DWI cases, which is similar to Albuquerque’s.
The Court of Appeals determined that NMFA is a “general law” that applies statewide and that it denies municipalities the authority to enforce civil asset forfeiture programs because the Legislature intended to eliminate civil forfeiture with the law.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(12/12/18 -- ACLU)
The Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture in New Jersey Is Broken
I’ve spent the last year representing people in civil asset forfeiture cases across New Jersey. It looks nothing like justice. The ACLU of New Jersey recently issued a report on the use of civil asset forfeiture in our state, and the findings are alarming. The forfeiture system is failing all New Jerseyans — especially those in low-income communities and communities of color. In most cases I’ve seen this year, claimants won their money or property back. But they are the exceptions — not for having winning cases but for coming forward to make the government prove its claims.
Claimants challenge forfeitures in just 3 percent of cases in New Jersey. Prosecutors count on winning default judgments. Between January and June of 2016, claimants went to court in only 50 of the over 1,860 cases initiated by county prosecutors in the state. Those 1,860 cases involved more than $5.5 million in seized cash, 234 cars, and even a home.
It’s no accident so few people fight back. Most seizures take place in heavily policed, low-income communities. Of the 10 cities with the highest frequency of seizures in New Jersey, eight are among the poorest in the state, falling within the bottom quartile in median income rankings. Often, just the court filing fees are prohibitive, let alone the cost of hiring a private attorney. Public defenders in New Jersey are generally barred from representing their clients in civil matters, and most legal services providers don’t offer free assistance in forfeiture cases. The combined costs of litigation frequently exceed the value of the seized property, so mounting a challenge is a losing proposition from the start.
A claimant who can overcome these financial barriers, however, quickly faces an uphill legal battle. The government only needs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence — “more likely than not” — that assets are linked to criminal activity in order to permanently seize them, delivering a windfall to the initiating law enforcement agency. This standard applies even if claimants are never criminally charged or criminal charges against them are dismissed.
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(12/11/18 -- Insider NJ)
ACLU-NJ Report Reveals Abuse and Overuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture in New Jersey
A new deep-dive report issued by the ACLU-NJ on civil asset forfeiture showed disturbing racial disparities and other alarming trends in local law enforcement’s use of the practice throughout the Garden State. Every county in New Jersey relies on these forfeitures, and they disproportionately harm people of color.
The ACLU-NJ combed through data obtained via the Open Public Records Act covering January through May 2016 regarding use of civil asset forfeiture, breaking down the information by county and municipality.
“The civil asset forfeiture system has proved prone to widespread abuse, but it’s also ripe for sweeping reform,” said ACLU-NJ Catalyst Fellow Liza Weisberg, who contributed to the report as part of a two-year fellowship to combat civil asset forfeiture abuse through litigation and policy advocacy. “We see a path forward that can get us there.” The numbers demonstrate civil asset forfeiture’s disproportionate effect on Black and Latinx New Jerseyans, who are more likely to be stopped by police. Specifically, areas in New Jersey with greater populations of people of color tended to have higher numbers of seizures.
The largest volume of forfeiture actions within the five-month period occurred in Hudson County, where the ACLU-NJ has documented racial disparities in police stops. In Jersey City, Hudson County’s seat, Black people were arrested for low-level offenses at a rate 9.6 times higher than that of white people.
Read the entire article here at: insidernj.com
(12/11/18 -- Philadelphia Tribune)
DA sold seized homes to bidders, cops
The escalation of America’s drug war in the 1980s saw police ramp up the use of asset forfeiture here and on other blocks in the shadow of Kensington’s infamous Gurney Street drug market, near an abandoned rail line that long attracted encampments of opioid users. Abundant evidence of drug activity and a lack of legal representation for indigent clients made securing a forfeiture petition from a judge easy work. A forfeiture petition for one property lists one gram of marijuana, a half gram of cocaine and some over-the-counter pills as justification for taking. In one case recently settled in a $3 million class-action lawsuit, Norys Hernandez nearly lost the rowhouse she and her sister owned after police arrested her nephew on drug dealing charges and seized the house. Another family named in the suit fought to save their house from the grip of law enforcement after their son was arrested for selling $40 worth of drugs outside of it. Of the lawsuit’s four named plaintiffs, three had their houses targeted for seizure after police accused relatives dealing drugs on the property. None of the homeowners were themselves accused of committing a crime.
As families fought to keep homes targeted by the DA, the revenues from the forfeiture sales became a big moneymaker for local law enforcement — netting some $6 million annually in the best years. The proceeds turned into an unregulated budget split between the police and DA. The money made off of the seized homes went to buy wish list items ranging from new submachine guns to custom uniform embroidery. But officials long maintained that these sales weren’t about the cash; they were meant to empower the city to kick out dealers, seal houses and move properties out of the hands of alleged criminals.
There is also little clear evidence that the program achieved its goal of fighting crime. On drug-ridden blocks such as Waterloo Street, where the DA pursued nearly door-to-door confiscation of real estate, dealing is still rampant. In a few instances, the DA was forced to seize the same property multiple times, retaking homes caught in a loop of absenteeism, neglect and the eventual return of criminal activity. This investigation detected at least one property that ended up back in the hands of the same suspected criminal it was taken from, repurchased through a proxy buyer.
Finally, records showed that members of Philadelphia law enforcement directly benefited from these sales. This investigation detected at least 11 properties that were sold to Philadelphia police officers trying their hands at real estate investment.
Read the entire article here at: phillytrib.com
(12/9/18 -- HuffPost)
Rand Paul Calls Trump’s Nomination Of William Barr For Attorney General ‘Very Troubling’
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday bashed President Donald Trump’s nomination of William Barr to lead the Justice Department, calling the corporate attorney’s views on surveillance “very, very troubling.” The Republican lawmaker lambasted Barr, who previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush, for being in favor of expanding the government’s ability to spy on Americans.
“Uh-oh is right,” Paul told NBC’s “Meet The Press” when asked if he was concerned about Barr’s nomination. "I’m concerned that he’s been a big supporter of the Patriot Act, which lowered the standard for spying on Americans,” he continued. “And he even went so far as to say, ‘You know, the Patriot Act was pretty good, but we should go much further.’”
Paul said he’s also “disturbed” over Barr’s support of civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement officials to seize someone’s property if they allege it is involved in a crime. The person does not need to be arrested or convicted of wrongdoing. “I’m disturbed that he’s been a big fan of taking people’s property ― civil asset forfeiture ― without a conviction,” Paul told NBC. “Many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the government says, ‘Prove to us where you got the cash and then you can get it back.’ But the burden is on the individual.”
Read the entire article here at: huffingtonpost.com
(12/7/18 -- Tech Dirt)
30 Years Ago, Maine Changed Its Law To Curb Forfeiture Abuse. Records Show Nothing Has Changed.
The thing about asset forfeiture is it's stocked full of perverse incentives. With a minimum of civil paperwork, law enforcement agencies can directly benefit from the property they seize and all without the hassle of having to deal with the uncertainty of criminal proceedings. The property is seized and its former owners are free to go. Minimum expenditure, maximum profit, and it's all totally legal.
The best way to reform civil asset forfeiture is to attack these incentives. Some states, like Maine, have done this by forcing law enforcement agencies to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund. Highway robbery now enriches the entire state, which won't be much comfort to victims of forfeiture programs. But there should be fewer victims.
Should be. The solution looks good on paper. The execution, however, leaves something to be desired.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(12/7/18 -- The Texas Tribune)
Texas police made more than $50 million in 2017 from seizing people’s property. Not everyone was guilty of a crime.
In February 2016, prosecutors in Houston filed a lawsuit against a truck: State of Texas vs. One 2003 Chevrolet Silverado. Houston police had seized the vehicle after surveilling its driver, Macario Hernandez, and pulling him over after he left his house. They took the truck to court, hoping to keep it or sell it at auction to fund their operations, claiming the vehicle was known to be involved in the drug trade.
But the truck’s owner, Oralia Rodriguez, was never charged with a crime. She wasn’t at the scene when officers pulled over Hernandez, her son, and found 13.5 grams of marijuana in his pocket. In fact, Rodriguez said she had recently loaned him the car so he could drive his pregnant girlfriend to the doctor. The girlfriend was having difficulty with her pregnancy and was at risk of losing the baby, Rodriguez said. She was desperate not to lose her truck, which had recently had new tires installed among other repairs, which she was still working to pay off.
“My sole intention was to help out. … Now I am in this situation of losing what I have worked very hard for,” she wrote to local prosecutors. “I am begging you please allow me to have my truck back.” Seven weeks after police pulled over the truck, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office resolved the suit and agreed to release the vehicle back to Rodriguez, on the condition that she never loan it to Hernandez. But Rodriguez still had to pay $1,600 to get her truck back, plus any towing and storage fees it had accumulated over the course of the lawsuit. (Hernandez pleaded guilty to delivering drugs and spent several months in jail.)
Read the entire article here at: texastribune.org
(12/6/18 -- News Tribune)
Justice questions La Salle County claim to seized SAFE Team money
Is La Salle County a law enforcement agency? An appeals judge posed that question Wednesday as she mulled over who gets the disputed SAFE Team money. Justice Mary K. O’Brien is one of three justices who might settle whether nearly $574,000 in drug money stays with Spring Valley, La Salle and Ottawa or goes to La Salle County. O’Brien noted that the drug forfeiture laws only permit seized funds to go to police departments.
"Where does it say the county, as a body politic, has any claim to those monies?” O’Brien asked assistant La Salle County state’s attorney George Mueller. Mueller replied the county does have a claim, insofar as the county has been stuck with the bills. When the La Salle County State’s Attorney Felony Enforcement Team was disbanded, and later ruled illegal, angry motorists hit the county with claims and sought payouts.
“Fairness clearly weighs on the side of La Salle County,” Mueller said. “They (the three cities) want the benefits. They don’t want to share in the risks.” But lawyers for the three cities argued that O’Brien nailed it: La Salle County isn’t a law enforcement agency and therefore never had a claim to the drug money that Mueller’s boss, La Salle County state’s attorney Karen Donnelly, thinks belongs to the county.
Read the entire article here at: newstrib.com
(12/5/18 -- FOX2)
Woman sues Wayne County Sheriff after $10 of pot leads to car being impounded
The Green Leaf dispensary is closed now, but last summer it's where a 50-year-old woman bought a $10 bag of weed. She was pulled over around the corner and her car was seized. It cost her $1,200 to get it back. Her attorney filed a federal lawsuit, calling it a cash grab by police. "You couldn't even get a pinch in a fingertip," said Chrystal, who declined to give her last name.
And for that, Chrystal had her car was towed, costing more than a thousand dollars to get it out of impound. The seizure is known as a civil forfeiture.
"Just a lot of things have been spiraling out of control since then," she said. She made the buy without a medical marijuana card in July at the Green Leaf dispensary. In Detroit, marijuana is decriminalized. "The penalty needs to be proportionate to the crime," said attorney Barton Morris of Cannabis Legal Group. He and his client are now suing the office of Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon and the deputies that pulled Chrystal over.
"It's policing for profit. It is a law enforcement tactic that is not permissible," Morris said.
Read the entire article here at: fox2detroit.com
(12/4/18 -- Reason)
Neil Gorsuch, Civil Asset Forfeiture, and the Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment
When President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court back in January 2017, I observed that one of the biggest unanswered questions about Gorsuch's jurisprudence was where he stood on the crucial debate among conservative and libertarian legal thinkers over whether the Supreme Court should revive and enforce the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, thanks a major civil asset forfeiture case that SCOTUS heard last week, we may finally get an answer to that question.
The case is Timbs v. Indiana. At issue is that state's efforts to seize a $40,000 Land Rover LR2 via civil asset forfeiture from a man named Tyson Timbs. Timbs was arrested on drug charges and sentenced to one year home detention and five years probation. A few months after his arrest, the state also moved to seize his car. But a state trial court rejected that forfeiture proceeding on the grounds that it would be "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [Timbs'] offense" and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids the imposition of "excessive fines." But the state lucked out at the Indiana Supreme Court, which held that "the Excessive Fines Clause does not bar the State from forfeiting Defendant's vehicle because the United States Supreme Court has not held that the Clause applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." It was that question—does the Excessive Fines Clause apply against the states?—that the Supreme Court tackled last week. Justice Gorsuch wasted little time before jumping in.
"Here we are in 2018," an exasperated-sounding Gorsuch told Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, and we're "still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, General." Since the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has been applying—or incorporating—the various provisions contained in the Bill of Rights against the states via the 14th Amendment, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In other words, if the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment applies against the states (it does), then the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment deserves the same treatment.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(12/4/18 -- New York Real Estate Journal)
Advice for landlords and owners to consider when leasing to tenants in the cannabis industry
Recreational cannabis use is now legal in nine states, as well as the District of Columbia. Thirty-one states have legalized cannabis use for medical purposes. New York State legalized medical cannabis use in 2016, and a recent report from the New York State Department of Health, together with public comments from the governor’s office, make the legalization of cannabis for recreational use in New York State appear likely in the not too distant future. Despite these changes in state laws, and numerous polls that indicate most Americans believe cannabis use should be legalized across the U.S., Cannabis remains a Schedule 1 regulated substance under the Controlled Substances Act and, thus, illegal under federal law.
What does the state of cannabis regulation have to do with real estate? Quite a bit actually. Whether we consider sales or leasing, the intersection of real property and the cannabis industry presents many challenges for real estate professionals, property owners and managers, as well as the cannabis businesses themselves. Many of these issues stem from the fact that the manufacturing, possession and sale of cannabis remains a federal crime.
At present, it appears that most cannabis businesses are looking to lease rather than own the real property on which they will conduct operations. This means that landlords in New York, and the professionals that represent them, must sharpen their pencils and jump head first into a new learning curve.
Read the entire article here at: nyrej.com
(12/4/18 -- Tech Dirt)
Tennessee Legislators Can't Stand Up To Cops; Keep Federal Loophole Open For Nashville Law Enforcement
Earlier this year, the Tennessee legislature passed some very minimal asset forfeiture reforms. The bill, signed into law in May, does nothing more than require periodic reporting on use of forfeiture funds and the occasional audit.
What it doesn't do is require convictions. It also doesn't close the federal loophole, which allows Tennessee law enforcement to bypass state laws if they feel they're too restrictive. Given that state law doesn't really do anything to curb forfeiture abuse, the federal adoption lifeline isn't used quite as often in Tennessee as it is by law enforcement agencies in others states with laws that are actually worth a damn.
But local cops really really really want the federal loophole open. They've been applying pressure to Nashville legislators and it has had the expected effect.
The loophole Nashville law enforcement barely needs will remain open. And it will remain open because… well, budgets are tight and we can't keep asking state taxpayers to make up the difference.
So, instead of all taxpayers, Councilwoman Dowell wants to have just a few taxpayers pitch in to help cops -- taxpayers who happen to have property law enforcement thinks they didn't acquire legally. Or not even taxpayers! Why even trouble those who reside in the state to give law enforcement some extra cash. Why not just take money from people leaving the state? That's the way Tennessee's "drug interdiction" teams work. According to law enforcement, they want to stop the flow of drugs into the state. That doesn't really explain their actions.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(12/2/18 -- Law360)
Justices' Jokes In Seized SUV Row Have Advocates Grinning
During recent arguments over a seized Land Rover, multiple U.S. Supreme Court justices challenged, sometimes playfully, the idea that a constitutional protection against excessive fines doesn’t apply to states, giving advocates hope that the high court will limit the reach of civil forfeitures.
Read the entire article here at: law360.com
(12/2/18 -- Tribune Democrat)
Cambria, PA, judge orders DA's financial records concerning drug forfeiture accounts be made public
Four separate new rulings by Cambria County President Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III direct District Attorney Kelly Callihan to release financial records concerning drug forfeiture funds that are handled by her office. Callihan has predictably argued that some information, if released, could endanger law enforcement officers or undercover informants, or negatively affect active investigations – which she said are confidential under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act.
The district attorney has said these drug cases usually involve the use of forfeiture funds for purchases that, if known to the public, could jeopardize investigations – such as the purchase of undercover police vehicles of a certain make or model, the location of hotel lodging for witnesses under protection, and the type of surveillance equipment purchased for drug probes.
Krumenacker’s opinions – each about 40 pages – direct Callihan’s office to redact those types of investigative details from existing documents regarding the specific financial activity. “The records at issue here are financial records detailing transactions related to the drug forfeiture accounts,” one of Krumenacker’s opinions says.
“The questionable inclusion of investigatory information in what are clearly financial records does not convert them from financial to investigatory records,” Krumenacker wrote.
Read the entire article here at: tribdem.com
(12/1/18 -- Think)
How the Supreme Court could help stop police from seizing your property with no evidence of a crime
In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Indiana's solicitor general admitted under skeptical questioning from Justice Stephen Breyer that his defense of Indiana's civil forfeiture laws would allow his state — or any state — in need of revenue to start seizing the luxury cars of motorists caught speeding just five miles over the limit if they simply passed a law allowing themselves do so. Thankfully, that argument will not win at the court, but it aptly illustrates how broadly police and prosecutors view their prerogative to raise revenue and punish people via civil forfeiture, often in ways of which the average American is unaware.
Wednesday's case, Timbs v. Indiana, isn't atypical of how broadly civil forfeiture already plays out, with police seizing property in furtherance of the continued War on Drugs. Tyson Timbs, for instance, was convicted of selling a few grams of heroin worth a few hundred dollars to an undercover police officer.
As a result, he received a six-year suspended sentence (including a year of home confinement) and five years of probation. In addition to the sentence levied by the court, the state of Indiana seized his 2012 Land Rover, worth an estimated $42,000, in a separate action under the state’s civil forfeiture law. Timbs challenged the seizure as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines, as the value of his vehicle was about four times the amount of the maximum fine the trial court could have levied against him (but did not).
Although Timbs’ lawsuit prevailed in two lower state courts, the Indiana Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had never explicitly applied the constitution’s prohibition of excessive fines to the states and, therefore, he didn’t have a right to sue. Oral arguments made clear that Timbs will likely win — but only on the question of whether the law applies to the states, rather than on whether or not civil asset forfeiture violates the constitution.
It's telling that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch were openly critical during oral arguments of the evolution of forfeiture into a punitive method the government uses to extract money from individuals, suggesting that they may deem it worthy of further judicial and political remedy in the future. And, while Justice Clarence Thomas maintained his usual silence during oral arguments, but he has previously expressed his hostility to civil forfeiture as a practice.
Read the entire article here at: nbcnews.com
(11/30/18 -- Tech Dirt)
Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Apply The Eighth Amendment To Civil Asset Forfeiture
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments recently in a case that may result in some involuntary reforms to state civil asset forfeiture laws. The case involves Tyson Timbs, an Indiana resident who had his $42,000 Land Rover seized by law enforcement after selling $260 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Despite securing a conviction, law enforcement chose to forfeit Timbs' vehicle in civil court. This may have been to keep Timbs from challenging the seizure as excessive, given the crime he was charged with maxxed out at a $10,000 fine. This is how Timbs is challenging this forfeiture, however. That's how this case has ended up in the top court in the land.
A lower court in Indiana found in his favor, finding the seizure to be a violation of Timbs' Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines. The state's top court overturned this ruling, prompting the appeal to the US Supreme Court. The state argues the Eighth Amendment's protections do not apply to civil asset forfeiture. This is a curious position, because it's basically stating Indiana's government gets to pick and choose what guaranteed rights its residents have access to.
From the oral arguments [PDF], it sounds like the court is going to rule in Timbs' favor and find that these Eighth Amendment protections apply to state-level forfeitures -- civil or criminal. The state's Solicitor General, Thomas Fisher, failed to impress the court at almost every turn.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(11/30/18 -- Palestine Herald-Review)
EDITORIAL: Reform state civil forfeiture laws
The Institute of Justice, a national public interest law firm, has rated Texas as one of the worst offenders of forfeiture abuse. In the most egregious cases, people have been arrested and asked to sign over money as a condition of release.
Last year, Texas' civil forfeiture laws also drew the ire of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, after the state seized $200,000 in cash from motorist James Leonard. After stopping Leonard for a traffic violation north of Houston, a police officer opened a safe in the trunk that contained $200,000 and a bill of sale for a Pennsylvania home.
Citing suspicious circumstances – Leonard was driving in a drug corridor – the Texas Court of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling that the government had shown by a “preponderance of evidence” the money was connected to a drug sale. Leonard denied any wrongdoing and said the cash came from the sale of a family member's house.
Leonard's case, Thomas rightly argued, raised grave questions about the constitutionality of forfeiture actions.
Read the entire editorial here at:
(11/30/18 -- Reason)
Lawsuit Alleges California Cops Stole Weed and Cash During Traffic Stops
A Texas man is accusing several police officers in Northern California of stealing three pounds of legal marijuana from him during a traffic stop, according to a federal
civil rights lawsuit filed earlier this month. And he's not the only one who says he was essentially robbed by a group of rogue police officers.
Zeke Flatten alleges that three police officers from the town of Rohnert Park and Hopland Band of Pomo Indians pulled him over last December while he was driving through Mendocino County. The officers were not wearing name tags or badges, and they identified themselves as federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, rather than local police officers, the lawsuit says.
Flatten told the officers about the marijuana and offered to show them his paperwork for it, but they seized it and left without issuing him a ticket or running his name to check for outstanding warrants. Flatten is not the only alleged victim. The lawsuit, citing recent local news investigations, says police from the town and tribe have a pattern of using a lucrative civil asset forfeiture program to shake down motorists for marijuana and cash during traffic stops.
Rogue Rohnert Park police "conspired to expand the legitimate interdiction mission to one of personal financial gain, and over the years seized thousands of pounds of cannabis and hundreds of thousands of dollars of currency without issuing receipts for the seizures, without making arrests for any crimes, and without any official report of the forfeitures being made," the lawsuit says. And when arrests were made, "cash and cannabis seized was significantly underreported in furtherance of the conspiracy allowing the officers to skim off the top of even otherwise legal interdictions," the suit continues.
"It's the government agencies typically that have been enriched as a result of those seizures," Flatten's attorney Izaak Schwaiger says. "What's different in Mr. Flatten's case is that it's individuals who are getting enriched—individual officers who under the color of law are abusing their authority to conduct traffic stops without the requisite legal cause and then robbing people of their cash, or in this case their cannabis."
Rohnert Park Sgt. Jacy Tatum issued a press release and an incident report to try and justify the stop, but the report appeared to confuse Flatten's case with another large marijuana seizure, getting several key details, such as the car make and model, wrong. "As a result his press release defended the wrong illegal seizure, and instead of diffusing the scrutiny plaintiff's allegations had brought, it brought the allegations more clearly into focus," the lawsuit says.
KQED, working with several other newspapers, then published an investigation this June that uncovered similar complaints by nine other motorists who say they were essentially robbed by Rohnert Park police. For example, Huedell Freeman says Tatum and Rohnert Park police officer Joseph Huffaker, also named in Flatten's lawsuit, seized 47 pounds of marijuana from him, despite Freeman's having a permit to grow.
Tatum and another Rohnert Park officer were sued for seizing $120,000 from a man in 2016 who said he was on his way to a high-stakes poker game in Las Vegas.
The stories also detailed complaints by area defense attorneys who said Tatum had earned a spot on the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office "Brady list," an ignominious list of officers whose history of false testimony must be disclosed if they are called as witnesses.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(11/30/18 -- Tennessean)
Civil forfeiture approval shows Nashville is desperate for cash.
In its Nov. 20 meeting, the Metro Council again opened a little can of worms when it renewed an agreement with the federal government that many contend violates the due-process rights of potentially innocent people. The 25-5 vote to renew the so-called “equitable sharing program” with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration was not as close as a year ago, when the council approved the agreement by a single vote.
However, the debate the agreement sparked did lay open wounds hardly healed from this year’s budget battles, and promises that next year’s budget showdown will be no smoother. The “equitable sharing program" has to do with assets seized by governments that are deemed to have a part in a federal crime such as drug trafficking. The proceeds gained through the program are shared with local law enforcement; in Metro, officials told the council, about $150,000 worth.
This seizure is troublesome because it utilizes civil asset forfeiture rather than criminal asset forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture requires a person’s conviction. Civil forfeiture does not, meaning that a person may lose money or property for a crime they were not convicted of or possibly never even charged. The evidentiary bar in civil forfeiture is also much lower than the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard employed in criminal convictions. While there are legal remedies available, there are plenty of cases that prove the impossibility of reversing a government misdeed.
Read the entire article here at: tennessean.com
(11/29/18 -- Tech Dirt)
Philly Cops Skirting Forfeiture Restrictions By Seizing Cars As 'Evidence'
A couple of months ago, a consent decree drastically restructured Philadelphia's severely-abused asset forfeiture program. It didn't eliminate the program entirely, but it did eliminate the small-ball cash grabs favored by local law enforcement. The median seizure by Philly law enforcement is only $178, but it adds up to millions if you do it all the time. Small seizures like this now need to be tied to arrests or the property needs to be used as evidence in a criminal case.
Other restraints will hopefully eliminate local law enforcement's worst practices -- like seizing someone's house because their kid sold $40 of drugs to a police informant. It also should slow down seizures of whatever's in a person's pockets by forbidding forfeitures of under $250 entirely. The consent decree obviously won't solve everything, and part of the problem is the consent decree itself. It forbids seizures of less than $1,000 unless the property is evidence in an ongoing case. Guess what local law enforcement is doing.
In November 2017, Iyo Bishop of Philadelphia was arrested on assault charges after a boyfriend, who she said was abusive, accused her of striking him with an SUV. City police picked her up after spotting the vehicle parked on the street weeks later. Bishop maintained her innocence but was cuffed and thrown in a squad car. She then watched in disbelief as an officer hopped in her 2002 Jeep Liberty and drove off. Although the charges against Bishop were eventually dropped, she never saw her vehicle again. Police sold the Jeep at auction for $1,155 in storage fees they had assessed while the case made its way through the court system.
As this report by Ryan Briggs of The Appeal shows, the consent decree basically codifies this behavior. Cops seize vehicles when making arrests, ticking one of the requirement boxes. Then they claim the vehicle is evidence, ticking the other box. Older vehicles worth less than $1,000 simply sit in impound lots racking up fees while the accused's case languishes in the court system. The vehicle can't be returned until the criminal case is processed, so it doesn't take long for impound fees to outweigh the vehicle's value. All of this is completely beyond the control of the person's whose car has been seized. Even if charges are dismissed or the accused is cleared of wrongdoing, the car's owner still owes these fees. Every day they can't pay it, the total increases. Sooner or later, the vehicle will be auctioned. Now the innocent person has no vehicle and is still ultimately liable for uncollected fees. This allows cops to make money on seized vehicles even if the vehicle isn't seized from someone suspected of criminal activity. It can happen to crime victims as well.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(11/29/18 -- WFPL)
Seized: Few Kentucky Police Agencies Report What They Take Through Asset Forfeiture
A housekeeper at a St. Matthews hotel happened upon the stacks of cash, sealed in shrink-wrap and stashed in room 403. Alongside a money counter and a lock box, it seemed suspicious. Hotel management called St. Matthews Police, who examined the cash and suspected it was tied to drug trafficking. Court records show that St. Matthews seized the cash — all $193,049 of it.
That single bust brought in more cash than other agencies, like Paducah or Somerset police departments, did in five years of seizures. But while officials in Paducah and Somerset reported seizure details to the state every year since fiscal year 2013, St. Matthews never reported at all.
Kentucky law allows law enforcement agencies to take and keep cash or property when they suspect it’s related to drug trafficking. The practice is called asset forfeiture and, in fiscal years 2013-17, law enforcement agencies have reported seizing at least $36 million from people across Kentucky. But it’s unclear just how much was actually taken. Of 323 law enforcement agencies listed in statewide data, only 11 percent reported the details of their seizures each year, as required by law.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/29/18 -- New Hampshire Union Leader)
Supreme Court case could further curtail state forfeitures
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could restrict the controversial practice, known as civil forfeiture, even further. The 2016 New Hampshire law prohibited civil forfeiture in the majority of cases until the owner of the property was actually convicted of a crime. But lawyers in the Supreme Court case, Timbs v. Indiana, argued that even in cases where police have obtained a conviction, it may be unconstitutional to seize the person’s money and property. In certain cases, such seizures are equivalent to excessive additional fines on top of the criminal sentence and therefore violate the Eighth Amendment, said Sam Gedge, an attorney for the nonprofit Institute for Justice, which is representing Tyson Timbs in the case.
The court must decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to state governments as well as the federal government. It is one of the last areas of the Bill of Rights for which the court has not explicitly recognized an application to states. “It’s kind of a vital safety check on the most excessive forfeitures,” Gedge said. “Our position has never been that if you convict somebody criminally you can never forfeit their property ... our position is that it’s possible to excessively fine people by taking too much of their property.”
Civil forfeiture has been a rare area of bipartisan agreement in recent years, with both liberal and conservative groups arguing that the seizures violate due process rights and encourage police to take property — such as cars, homes, or cash — and ask questions later.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/28/18 -- Penn Live)
What’s driving the politics of civil asset forfeiture?
Most of you probably don’t know of Alexander Temple. I never heard of him before this year. But an alert reader sent me a topic to research, with a story about this man, and how Civil Asset Forfeiture policies vary from state-to-state. And my students found that politics, economic and social factors play a great role in whether states give more power to police or the suspect.
In October of 2016, Temple, a Maine resident, was pulled over on Interstate 95 in New Hampshire for a routine traffic stop. Police in that state seized $46,000 from Mr. Temple, claiming they felt it would be used for illegal activity. Even Though Temple was released without ever facing a single criminal charge, the police kept the cash. A man named Edward Phipps claimed the money was his, but after two years of legal wrangling, Phipps was able to only get $7,000 back in a court settlement. He still hasn’t been charged with anything.
My research methods students were intrigued by this story. And they began researching states for their standards for seizure of civil assets, how much do police have to report of assets taken, and what does law enforcement get to keep.
We found that in eight states, police need only a “reasonable suspicion” to seize one’s assets. Another 25 require just a preponderance of evidence to take the money or assets. A minority (18) require either a “clear and convincing” evidence standard, or one that is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, or require a criminal conviction before assets can be taken.
Of all the states, nearly three-quarters require the civil assets taken to be reported in detail. Nearly half of all states all the police to keep what they take, with 17 allowing law enforcement to keep some, with nine not allowing police to keep any of it.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/28/18 -- Dallas News)
To keep 'moral high ground,' Dallas City Council opts to not use confiscated funds on police study
Dallas City Council members expressed trepidation Wednesday over using money that could have been taken from people suspected of — but not always charged with — wrongdoing. But the council essentially sidestepped the question of whether it should use the proceeds from assets that authorities allege were involved in crimes.
The council had been set to vote Wednesday to use $250,000 from a federal confiscated-assets fund to help pay for a long-awaited $500,000 police staffing study, which police officials say is needed as they grapple with a shrinking department and rising response times.
But City Council member Philip Kingston pulled the contract from the consent agenda during Wednesday's meeting. He spoke out vehemently against the use of civil asset forfeiture, which has been under fire nationally from civil liberties groups, which call it government overreach. "People do get deprived of their property, they never get it back, and we spend it," Kingston said. "This stuff is really, really immoral."
The council approved the staffing study but opted to pay its share with emergency fund money instead of confiscated-asset funds. The other half of the money will come from the W.W. Caruth Jr. Foundation, which often supports public safety causes.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/29/18 -- New Hampshire Union Leader)11
Supreme Court case could further curtail state forfeitures
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could restrict the controversial practice, known as civil forfeiture, even further. The 2016 New Hampshire law prohibited civil forfeiture in the majority of cases until the owner of the property was actually convicted of a crime. But lawyers in the Supreme Court case, Timbs v. Indiana, argued that even in cases where police have obtained a conviction, it may be unconstitutional to seize the person’s money and property.
New Hampshire civil liberties advocates would welcome the changes that would mean for civil forfeiture. “Anything that further restricts the abuse of civil asset forfeiture is a good thing,” said state Rep. Michael Sylvia, R-Belmont. “I’d prefer to see the federal government scale back the program.”
Read the entire article here at:
(11/29/18 -- WFPL)
Seized: Few Kentucky Police Agencies Report What They Take Through Asset Forfeiture
A housekeeper at a St. Matthews hotel happened upon the stacks of cash, sealed in shrink-wrap and stashed in room 403. Alongside a money counter and a lock box, it seemed suspicious. Hotel management called St. Matthews Police, who examined the cash and suspected it was tied to drug trafficking. Court records show that St. Matthews seized the cash — all $193,049 of it.
That single bust brought in more cash than other agencies, like Paducah or Somerset police departments, did in five years of seizures. But while officials in Paducah and Somerset reported seizure details to the state every year since fiscal year 2013, St. Matthews never reported at all.
But it’s unclear just how much was actually taken. Of 323 law enforcement agencies listed in statewide data, only 11 percent reported the details of their seizures each year, as required by law. The lack of reporting stems from ignorance of the law, oversight and, sometimes, a breakdown in communication with state officials, according to interviews with officials at more than a dozen agencies across Kentucky.
Whatever the reason, the dearth of transparency troubles lawmakers, police proponents and civil liberty advocates.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/27/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
Mississippi Officials Return Property Seized After Forfeiture Law Sunset
Mississippi officials will return property improperly seized under the state’s now-defunct civil asset forfeiture law. The Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics grudgingly notified eight individuals in September they could retrieve their property, worth more than $100,000, because officials had seized the items after their authority to do so had expired.
Mississippi law previously allowed the state to take property suspected of being the proceeds of a crime if it was worth less than $20,000. In June 2018, lawmakers ended civil asset forfeiture through administrative action by allowing the law to sunset. Current law requires Mississippi officials to obtain a search warrant issued by a judge before seizing property, and all forfeitures are to be posted on a publicly accessible website.
The federal government has encouraged state and local officials to use civil asset forfeiture, says Adrian Moore, vice president of policy at the Reason Foundation, by sharing the proceeds of forfeitures in federal cases with local authorities. “The problem is the feds really sort of drive the train,” Moore said. “They incentivize local police departments to seize assets by sharing the gains with them, so it cuts across the whole country. Asset forfeiture is going on everywhere state legislatures haven’t rolled it back.”
Read the entire article here at:
(11/26/18 -- WJAC)
Judge: DA must hand over more financial documents on forfeiture funds
A judge has ruled more documents must be released by the Cambria County District Attorney regarding how her office spent money collected through drug forfeitures. The decision by a judge on what Kelly Callihan must release to Johnstown community activist John DeBartola in his right-to-know request is a mixed bag. DeBartola says he's happy he got at least partial victories in all four of his suits to try and get additional financial records showing what the DA's office did with accounts totaling more than six figures from money seized in forfeiture cases.
It's intended to be used for drug and other law enforcement initiatives. But a December, 2017, 6 News investigation found that more than $10,000 was used for such things as a staff dinner at Ebensburg Country Club, flowers for employees, and laptop cases for staff.
The judge's ruling says Callahan’s office must submit more financial documents within 60 days to satisfy the right-to-know request, with the judge ruling that those records are not protected. The DA does not have to give information about annual audit's and criminal investigations, as the judge ruled those are not a matter of public record.
Read the entire article here at:
(11/26/18 -- ACLU)
Jeff Sessions’ Legacy Is Full of Dangerous Successes
In his 636 days in office, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions secured a legacy that has been described as “unprecedented” and “dark.” But Sessions’ unwavering actions against criminal justice reform may also earn another descriptor for his time in office: successful. Whether it’s civil asset forfeiture, sentencing, or police accountability, Jeff Sessions has reversed or hamstrung Obama-era policies at the Justice Department that sought to reform the nation’s criminal justice system.
In July of 2017, Sessions restored the federal government’s full use of civil asset forfeiture, which allows state agents to seize property even if someone hasn’t been accused, much less convicted of a crime. Sessions revived the "federal adoption" loophole, reformed by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which allows local law enforcement agencies to circumvent more restrictive state forfeiture laws by partnering with the federal government.
In doing so, Sessions ignored the ways in which asset forfeiture has created a policing-for-profit paradox for police departments, which are always seeking more funding. In one of his speeches on the matter, Sessions insisted, “We need to send [a] clear message that crime does not pay.” But, as has been documented, poorly regulated asset forfeiture policies ensure that crime does pay — it pays law enforcement — which, as civil liberties organizations have proved, can be unconstitutional.
Sessions will also be remembered for instructing federal prosecutors to charge “the most serious readily provable offense.” By doing so, he rejected one of his predecessor’s major accomplishments, Holder’s advancement of sentencing reform that sought to focus on “individualized assessments” and shift “away from seeking mandatory minimums at record rates, while reserving stricter sentences for more serious offenders.”
Read the entire article here at:
(11/26/18 -- Inside Nova)
Civic Federation presses for civil-forfeiture reforms
The Arlington County Civic Federation wants state lawmakers to modernize rules on civil forfeiture. Federation delegates earlier this month voted 40-3, with five abstentions, on a five-point resolution calling on Virginia officials to update long-standing rules that currently allow for property to be seized by law enforcement and retained by authorities, even if the owner is never convicted of a crime.
“This really is not a partisan issue,” said Juliet Hiznay, co-chair of the Civic Federation’s legislation committee, who noted that a bill on the topic passed 81-18 through the House of Delegates in the 2018 session, and likely would have passed the state Senate but was bottled up on an tie vote in the powerful Senate Committee on Finance.
The resolution adopted by the Civic Federation would mandate a criminal conviction – including those resulting from plea bargains – prior to state or local governments’ beginning civil-forfeiture proceedings. As a backup position, the organization wants to shift the burden of proof from the person whose assets have been seized to the state or local authorities who seized it, in instances where no conviction occurs.
Read the entire article here at: insidenova.com
(11/25/18 -- Reason)
This Week, Supreme Court Will Hear an Important Case that Could Help Curb Asset Forfeiture Abuse
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana, an important property rights/asset forfeiture case. George Will recently published an excellent Washington Post column describing some of the issues at stake. I discussed Timbs in greater detail in this post, written back in June, when the Supreme Court first decided to hear it.
Like the asset forfeiture issue more generally, the Timbs case unites a wide range of groups across the political spectrum. The property owner is being represented by the Institute for Justice, a prominent libertarian public interest law firm. Organizations as varied as the ACLU, the Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, have all filed amicus briefs supporting Timbs. This unusual coalition reflects the fact that asset forfeitures are an affront to property rights, and disproportionately victimize the poor and racial minorities. However, asset forfeitures did enjoy the strong support of recently departed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who last year reinstituted a federal policy that helps state and local law enforcement agencies circumvent state limitations on forfeiture and keep a hefty share of the profits for themselves. Sessions' policy drew widespread bipartisan opposition. But reforms that passed the House of Representatives by unanimous vote have stalled in the Senate.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(11/21/18 -- Bloomberg Law)
Business, Progressives Unite at Supreme Court Against Big Fines
Business interest groups and social progressives aren’t known for seeing eye to eye. But their opposition to what they consider to be Indiana’s heavy handed asset forfeiture practice has brought them together at the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and more than a dozen other groups are siding with Tyson Timbs, whose 2012 Land Rover was seized by the state in a civil action following his conviction on drug charges.
They stressed in briefs ahead of oral arguments in Timbs v. Indiana set for Nov. 28 that the forfeiture of his $40,000 SUV far exceeded the maximum possible fine for his crime involving heroin under Indiana law. But they also believe it’s high time the high court make clear that states follow federal law against imposing such excessive fines.
“Driven by a quest to generate revenue and to fund state and local justice systems, the explosion of fines, fees, and forfeitures has buried people under mountains of accumulating debt,” the ACLU said in its friend-of-the-court brief, stressing that this unfairly impacts low income people across the country.
Read the entire article here at: bloomberglaw.com
(11/20/18 -- Our Town)
Judge: DA must divulge more records
Cambria County President Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III has issued opinions on a well-publicized transparency case against the district attorney. In four rulings spread across more than 100 total pages, Krumenacker gave seemingly mixed verdicts regarding forfeiture accounts, ordering additional financial documents to be disclosed within 60 days while declaring others exempt from review. At issue in the matters was whether Cambria County District Attorney Kelly Callihan had provided enough public records to satisfy Right-to-Know requests made by Johnstown resident John DeBartola.
“I just received the lengthy court opinions this afternoon and am in the process of reviewing them with counsel,” Callihan said in a one-sentence statement emailed to Our Town. DeBartola, meanwhile, seemed emboldened by the rulings to keep pressing for answers. He said that the district attorney's office withheld financial records from some of its forfeiture-related accounts. “Just give us the facts . . . just give us the details. I don't need a bunch of words,” he said. “I just need the truth.”
The funds in question are from asset forfeiture, which is typically cash confiscated from those charged with drug crimes. This money is typically used by authorities for law enforcement initiatives. DeBartola has characterized them as “secret slush funds” after learning that some of the money has been spent on country club dinners and pricey laptop cases.
Read the entire article here at: dailyamerican.com
(11/22/18 -- Longview News-Journal)
Lucrative law enforcement will become lawless
Tyson Timbs made a mistake, but not one as important as Indiana’s Supreme Court made in allowing to stand the punishment the state inflicted on him. Timbs was a drug addict — first with opioids prescribed for a work-related injury, then heroin — when his father died. He blew the $73,000 insurance payout on drugs and a $41,558 Land Rover, which he drove when selling $225 worth of drugs — two grams of heroin — to undercover police officers. His vehicle was seized and kept, which amounted to a fine more than 184 times larger than the sum involved in his offense. Come Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments concerning whether this violated the 8th Amendment, which says: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (Emphasis added.) The seizure was done under Indiana’s version of civil forfeiture laws, which allow governments to seize property used in the commission of a crime.
As they are often used, such laws are incentives for abusive governments, because the entity that seizes the property frequently is allowed to profit by keeping or selling it.
But although two federal judicial circuits and at least 14 state high courts apply the Excessive Fines Clause to the states, and although seven times the court (or two or more justices writing separately) has said that the Eighth Amendment as a whole applies to the states, it has never had an occasion to explicitly apply the Excessive Fines Clause.
This allowed Indiana’s Supreme Court to be permissive regarding the state’s forfeiture practices. The court unanimously rejected Timbs’ argument, that of the trial court, and of the appeals court. In a hearing on the state’s civil forfeiture request, the trial court said that making Timbs forfeit his vehicle would be “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [his] offense” and hence a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause. The state’s Supreme Court, however, held that the U.S. Supreme Court has been insufficiently “definitive.” The Indiana justices said that although “our colleagues on the Court of Appeals and the trial court may be correct in foretelling where the [U.S.] Supreme Court will one day lead on whether to apply the [Excessive Fines] Clause to the states,” until the clause is unambiguously applied, Indiana fines can be grossly disproportionate without violating the U.S. Constitution.
Read the entire article here at: news-journal.com
(11/21/18 -- SCOTUSblog)
Argument preview: Justices to consider whether Eighth Amendment ban on “excessive fines” applies to the states
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who lost his Land Rover after his conviction on state drug charges. A state trial court agreed with Timbs that requiring him to forfeit his car went too far, violating the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines,” but that won’t be the issue before the justices. Instead, the question is whether the Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments at all. The justices’ eventual answer will be important not only for Timbs, who hopes to get his $42,000 car back, but also for those state and local governments, for which fines and forfeitures have become a key source of revenue.
It may come as a surprise to readers that the entire Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – does not automatically apply to the states. But the Bill of Rights was originally interpreted as applying only to the federal government. Beginning in the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court ruled that some (and eventually most) provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which – among other things – bars states from depriving anyone “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Most recently, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies fully to the states because it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”; in a footnote, Justice Samuel Alito observed that the court had not decided whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states.
Read the entire article here at: scotusblog.com
(11/21/18 -- New York Times)
How to Crush an Outlaw Biker Club: Seize Its … Logo?
For many years, federal law enforcement authorities have been trying to take down the Mongols, a biker group they consider one of the most dangerous criminal enterprises in the country. But after a decade of trying, they have failed to deliver what they view as the coup de grâce: seizing control of the Mongols’ trademarked logo, a drawing of a brawny Genghis Khan-like figure sporting a queue and sunglasses, riding a chopper while brandishing a sword.
Now, in a racketeering trial underway in Orange County, Calif., federal prosecutors believe they have their best chance yet to take the Mongols’ intellectual property, using a novel approach to asset forfeiture law, which allows the seizure of goods used in the commission of crimes.
Prosecutors argue that taking the logo will deprive the group of its “unifying symbol” — the banner under which prosecutors say the group marauds.
But legal experts question the prosecutors’ grasp of intellectual property law. “Trademark rights are not tangible personal property like a jacket. They are intangible rights,” said Evan Gourvitz, an intellectual property lawyer with the law firm Ropes & Gray in New York. “But prosecutors are treating a trademark like a jacket.”
Read the entire article here at: nytimes.com
(11/18/18 -- Reason)
The 5 Worst Supreme Court Rulings of the Past 50 Years
3. Bennis v. Michigan (1996): According to the Fifth Amendment, the government may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet thanks to the widespread practice known as civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement agencies get to seize cash, cars, houses, boats, and other property from people who have been neither charged nor convicted of any underlying crime, if they merely say they suspect the property was connected to a crime. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court has given a rubber stamp of approval to this unconstitutional state of affairs. According to Bennis v. Michigan (1996), "the innocent owner defense" is no shield against a state's civil asset forfeiture regime. Where's the due process in that?
Continuing discovering how screwed we truly are at: reason.com
(11/15/18 -- Palestine Herald-Press)
Civil forfeiture called policing for profit, but police claim it deters crime
The Palestine Police Department inventory has grown markedly in the past year. Harley Davidson motorcycles, a state-of-the-art drone aircraft; and new, high-tech software are some of the department's newest acquisitions. None were purchased with taxpayer dollars, or placed in the 2017-2018 budget. The $6,000 software, $14,000 motorcycles, and $27,000 drone were all purchased with civil asset forfeiture funds secured by the department.
Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of police and government agents seizing money or property, when they suspect those assets are connected to illegal activity. Since the forfeiture process is treated as a civil – not a criminal – matter, assets can be seized and forfeited, even if no criminal charges have been filed. Local, state, and federal laws all have allowances for civil asset forfeiture. On every level, criticisms and controversy have met the practice.
Some critics maintain forfeiture laws seize property without due process; law enforcement says the laws stop crime, especially those involving drugs. Harsher criticisms equate the practice to policing for profit – giving law enforcement incentive to seize private property.
Somehow maintaining a straight face, Palestine Police Chief Andy Harvey told the Herald-Press that nothing could be further from the truth. “That would be unethical,” he ridiculously claimed, “It's unconstitutional, and it goes against our fundamental beliefs in policing.”
Stretching credulity to its limits, Anderson County District Attorney Allyson Mitchell disturbingly told the Herald-Press, “Just because someone isn't charged with, or convicted of, a crime at the time of asset forfeiture does not mean they won't,” she said. “The statutes of limitations on the criminal charges are typically much longer than those for civil filings.” Which apparently means that every single one of us is POTENTIALLY guilty of some future crime, and thus, fair game for rapacious robber cops.
Read the entire travesty here at: palestineherald.com
(11/12/18 -- The Washington Post)
Jeff Sessions, the doughty bigot
Jeff Sessions’s final act as attorney general was perfectly on-brand. On the way out of office, he signed an order making it more difficult for the Justice Department to investigate and implement reform at police departments with patterns of abuse, questionable shootings, racism, and other constitutional violations. Sessions once called such investigations — like those that turned up jaw-dropping abuses in places such as Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and Chicago — “one of the most dangerous, and rarely discussed, exercises of raw power.” He has had only cursory criticism of the horrific abuses actually described in those reports (which he later conceded he sometimes didn’t bother to read), which disproportionately affect blacks and Latinos. For Sessions, it is the federal government’s investigation of such abuses that amounts to not just an unjustified “exercise of raw power,” but a “most dangerous” one.
When President-elect Donald Trump first nominated Sessions, critics raised questions about things in his record that suggested he was racist. Defenders dutifully recited talking points — such as that Sessions had once prosecuted a Klansman for murder — that were later shown to be not entirely accurate. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) even cited these accusations as one of his reasons for voting for Sessions, despite Sessions being diametrically opposed to Paul on a host of criminal-justice issues, from asset forfeiture to sentencing reform to restoration of voting rights for the formerly incarcerated.
Paul’s claim to have been deeply offended by the accusation that Sessions might be racist was keeping in tradition with the Senate’s country-club mentality. Never mind the evidence. Polite senators simply didn’t make such accusations of other senators. So Sessions was confirmed. And he then set about pushing for policies indistinguishable from those that would have been pursued by an attorney general every bit the bigot Sessions’s critics accused him of being.
Read the entire opinion here at: washingtonpost.com
(11/14/18 -- Detroit Metro Times)
So pot's legal in Michigan — what now?
It's a big deal that voters legalized recreational marijuana in Michigan. We can all exhale now. That's not a weed joke. Cannabis supporters and activists have been holding their breath these past fews weeks before the big vote to legalize recreational marijuana on Tuesday, Nov. 6. Healthy and Productive Michigan came on with a last-minute barrage of anti-marijuana advertising, rattling some folks. But when it came down to it, Michigan voters came through for weed.
"It was like the light at the end of the tunnel first opening," says Christeen Landino, assistant executive director of the Michigan Affiliate of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or MiNORML. "The light was becoming brighter but it burst open Tuesday night like a dream fulfilled." More than 2 million other Michiganders shared that dream with a decisive decision. It's not "hazy" or "unclear" or "foggy" or any of those adjectives people who oppose marijuana reform want to use to label the new laws. There is no doubt about where voters stand on the issue.
Read the entire article here at: metrotimes.com
(11/9/18 -- ACLU)
Before Resigning, Jeff Sessions Handcuffed the Justice Department’s Ability to Police the Police
In his final move as attorney general, Jeff Sessions on Wednesday issued a new policy that all but eliminates federal oversight of state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in unconstitutional and unlawful policing. While Sessions — a white man with money and political connections — will likely never be personally affected by this policy change, his decision to sabotage the legal instruments of federal civil rights enforcement is going to harm people and communities of color for years to come.
The new policy sets unprecedented barriers for Justice Department attorneys to negotiate consent decrees, which are court orders jointly agreed on by the federal government and a state or local law enforcement agency accused of serious rights violations. They usually require new training and policies to resolve these violations at a systemic level, with implementation overseen by a court-appointed monitor until the agency has successfully carried out the required reforms. Such decrees have covered everything from use of force to racial bias and officer hiring and oversight to basic recordkeeping.
Ever since Sessions took office, he was openly hostile to consent decrees as a “harmful federal intrusion” on state and local law enforcement authority. And his final decision as attorney general codified his contempt.
Sessions’ final policy imposes substantive limits on consent decrees — for example, limiting the scope of reforms, restricting what tools the Justice Department can use to monitor compliance with the decree, and requiring the Justice Department to end federal oversight earlier than is often needed to complete reforms. It also imposes similar limitations on other types of settlement agreements that the Justice Department could use short of a consent decree.
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(11/8/18 -- The Elm)
Asset Forfeiture Laws Need To Be Balanced With Citizen Rights
The right to have your property protected from unlawful search and seizure is a right that is often taken for granted. Yet, it is frustrating whenever your rights are violated, especially if it is violated by the people whose jobs are mainly assigned to protect your rights. And it is especially frustrating when those people do not follow or otherwise pay attention to outdated or lapsed laws.
Several law enforcement agencies in Mississippi, both local and state, seized $200,000 worth of property in more than 60 separate civil asset forfeitures under a law that had expired after June 30. Local and state police were apparently not aware of the law’s expiration date and assumed that the law had been renewed by the legislature. Among the property seized by authorities were guns, vehicles, and cash. All these seizures had been done over the course of months without legal authority.
According to the Associated Press, the law allowed police to take property valued a total of $20,000 or less that had been associated with illegal drugs, even if the owner of the property was not convicted of a criminal charge. The only exception would apply to owners who fought the seizure in court within 30 days of the seizure. Eighty percent of the value of the property went to the law enforcement agencies, while the remaining 20 percent went to either a district attorney or the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics.
Read the entire article here at: elm.washcoll.edu
(11/6/18 -- The Detroit News)
Opinion: Senate must follow House on civil asset reform
Earlier this year, my plan to ensure innocent people don’t lose their personal property to civil asset forfeiture was approved by the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. This common-sense solution would protect the civil liberties of all Michigan residents while still allowing officers to crack down on convicted criminals. It would require an individual to be convicted of a crime before authorities are allowed to take and dispose of his or her property.
Unfortunately, the legislation has collected dust in the Senate Judiciary Committee for the five months since that historic vote. Sen. Rick Jones, who chairs the committee, appears reluctant to take the bill up for consideration. The former sheriff seems content with the status quo, which allows law enforcement officers to take and keep the property of individuals who are never even charged with a crime.
Giving police agencies the authority to take personal property and dispose of it before an individual is convicted or even charged with a crime is a failure of our justice system, and it must be corrected. Requiring a conviction will safeguard the fundamental rights of Michigan citizens while still allowing law enforcement agencies the ability to crack down on convicted criminals.
Read the entire opinion here at: detroitnews.com
(11/5/18 -- WUSA9)
Gun seizure under red flag law leaves suspect dead in Glen Burnie
A suspect is dead after an officer and the suspect struggled over a gun in Glen Burnie, triggering the officer to shoot and kill the suspect. The incident happened around 5 a.m. in the 100 block of Linwood Ave., the Anne Arundel County PIO said. Officers were responding to the area to serve an extreme risk protective order (red flag law) to confiscate the suspect's gun. The law allows family members or authorities to seek a court order to temporarily restrict a person's access to guns when they show "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others.
Police said the suspect, Gary J. Willis became irate when they tried to serve him. He opened the door to his house and grabbed the gun. When police tried to take the gun away, Willis fired his gun. A second officer fired their service weapon and hit Willis.
One of Willis' relatives tells the Baltimore Sun that his sister had filed for the protective order. The new Maryland red flag law lets relatives, police officers, and medical professionals file with the courts to temporarily remove someone's guns for risky behavior, including violence or threats of violence, drug abuse, or alarming statements and behavior.
Read the entire article here at: wusa9.com
(11/2/18 -- PoliceOne.com)
Retired Mich. cops say legal marijuana would help police-community relations
"This is a financial interest that these police and prosecutors have that they never mention to the public," a retired officer said. "It's policing for profit."
A group of retired Michigan police officers is campaigning for legal marijuana, pushing back against the majority opinion of law enforcement organizations in the state. "They want to keep it illegal because they want to be able to search any and every car or person they come in contact with by the claim that, (sniff sniff) I smell marijuana, get out of your car or up against the wall," said Howard Wooldridge, a retired detective from the Bath Township Police Department who is now a federal lobbyist and a member of COPS, Citizens Opposing Prohibition.
"Driving while black is still a problem in this state and across this country -- and the smell of marijuana is the hook to continue police action, which is often illegal and certainly repugnant," he said. Wooldridge was one of three former Michigan police officers who gathered Thursday for a press call organized by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. Also in attendance was Neill Franklin, the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership; retired Wayne County Sheriff's detective and current state Sen. Vincent Gregory, D-Lathrup Village; and Margeaux Bruner, a marijuana advocate who serves on the state's Impaired Driving Safety Commission.
So far, nearly every county sheriff in Michigan and a large number of county prosecutors have voiced their opposition to Proposal 1, which would legalize recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over. Police leadership organizations -- Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police and the Michigan Sheriffs Association -- have also endorsed the opposition campaign run by Healthy and Productive Michigan.
Read the entire article here at: policeone.com
(11/2/18 -- Michigan Radio)
Marijuana business owners say they're being robbed by police
Marijuana advocates say legal businesses and caregivers are being targeted for military-style drug raids in spite of attempts to obey the law in good faith. For owners of mainstream businesses, a minor lapse in regulatory compliance could mean receiving a warning and reinspection later. But for medical marijuana businesses, minor lapses in compliance can put them outside the protection of the law. Even the suspicion of a regulatory violation, or, in some cases, false accusations, can result in seizure of assets and prolonged court battles.
Darryl Berry studied Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act in detail before he started growing marijuana for his mother-in-law, who was dying of cancer at the time. He researched the medical benefits of marijuana as well as the regulations, and became a registered caregiver, meaning he was legally allowed to grow up to 12 plants for each patient in his care. He began growing for her and several other patients -- all legally. Berry had relationships with local law enforcement, and even invited them to inspect his operation. He thought he was following the law to the letter. That didn't protect him from being raided in September of 2015.
Berry says police ransacked his home and seized all of his assets. That included two houses, five vehicles, televisions, computers, cash, and many personal belongings. Liens were placed on both houses, preventing him from selling or taking out loans on them. Altogether, the value of the assets seized was over a million dollars. “I was robbed. It was armed robbery that they did. And it really makes me mad because I am a staunch conservative. I always trusted the police and thought if the police arrest someone, most likely they are guilty. That's what I thought,” said Berry.
Berry's attorney Michael Komorn said police are profiting by targeting legal marijuana businesses. “It’s a financial incentive. The officers themselves are getting to decide whether an individual is in compliance or not. That decision is also about whether they are going to take every piece of value that exists in the house or not. This is way too much unchecked authority, with too much incentive,” Komorn said.
Read about further atrocities here at: michiganradio.org
(11/1/18 -- Mackinac Center For Public Policy)
Comparing Michigan’s Largest Counties on Civil Asset Forfeiture
Oakland and Wayne counties are worlds apart when it comes to protecting property rights.
In 2015, Michigan lawmakers passed a package of bills that require local law enforcement agencies to report extensive information related to civil asset forfeiture. Police and prosecutors have broad discretion over how they use forfeiture, and the idea was to see if there were issues across the state.
One interesting tidbit we found, recently reported by Michigan Capitol Confidential, is that more than half the cases in which a person wasn’t charged with a crime but still had property forfeited occurred in Wayne County. This is likely because the county has a system set up to seize vehicles that law enforcement officials suspects are connected to alleged criminal activity. When this occurs, owners of these vehicles can file a challenge, pay a $900 fine to get their vehicle back. Alternately, they abandon the property and the county takes ownership.
Wayne County is the largest county in Michigan with 1.8 million people, or about 18 percent of the state’s population. The second largest is Oakland County with 1.2 million, and this county’s reported forfeiture data varies greatly from Wayne County’s. The Oakland County sheriff’s department and county prosecutor reported no cases in which they took the property of someone who was not first charged with a crime. (There are cases in which assets are forfeited without a conviction, but at least a criminal case was ongoing.)
Read the entire article here at: mackinac.org
(11/1/18 -- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Gwinnett sheriff’s forfeiture spending costs taxpayers
The federal review triggered in July by Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway’s purchase of a high-powered muscle car has already identified close to $100,000 in misused asset forfeiture funds, according to records obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as Department of Justice officials continue to examine expenditures.
Local taxpayers have footed the bill for that amount and could be on the hook for several times more by the time the review finishes. In addition to the $69,000 Dodge Charger Hellcat that the sheriff still drives to and from work, federal auditors are reviewing hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases made by Conway’s department.
Like the muscle car, at least one other expenditure — a $25,000 donation to a faith-based nonprofit — already has been identified as improper and had to be recouped from local taxpayers, records show. Other purchases under scrutiny range from a $175,000 bus to rifles donated to another agency.
His spokeswoman, Deputy Shannon Volkodav, on Wednesday said the department has a long history of fiscal responsibility and the sheriff is not concerned about the review.
Read the entire article here at: ajc.com
(10/30/18 -- Indiana Current)
Libertarian candidate for sheriff aims to end civil asset forfeiture
Duane “Dorn” Brenton jumped into the race for Hamilton County sheriff when it appeared that that Republican candidate Dennis Quakenbush would not be facing a challenger. “I don’t like watching anybody run unopposed,” Brenton said. Since then, Jason Straw, a Democrat, also joined the race.
Brenton, a Libertarian candidate from Fishers, said his top priority as sheriff would be to end civil asset forfeiture, which is when law enforcement officers confiscate property or large sums of money suspected of use in a crime without necessarily obtaining a warrant.
Read the entire article here at: youarecurrent.com
(10/29/18 -- Lake Forest Patch)
Ex-Police Chief Charged With Stealing Over $200,000 Waives Jury
The former police chief of North Chicago accused of stealing more than $200,000 from his department's asset forfeiture seizure fund elected Monday to waive his right to a trial by jury. He could stand trial before a Lake County judge as soon as January, according to court records.
Michael G. Newsome, 57, was arrested in October 2012 and charged with seven felonies related to theft from his department's drug seizure fund. The charges include official misconduct, theft of more than $100,000 of government property and misapplication of funds for a series of withdrawn between May 2007 and March 2012.
Two counts were dismissed by Circuit Judge James Booras in 2015 after Newsome's defense attorney, Doug Zeit, argued some of the charges fell outside the statute of limitations. However, a unanimous three-judge appellate court panel ruled in 2017 that the statute of limitations excludes periods where the accused is a public official and reinstated the charges.
Read the entire article here at: patch.com
(10/29/18 -- West Virginia Record)
AFP-WV aids bid to reform civil asset forfeiture policies
Americans for Prosperity-West Virginia has joined with several others in sending a letter to the Legislature seeking reform of civil asset forfeiture policies. West Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture Kent Leonhardt and the coalition of local and national organizations sent the letter this week to the West Virginia Legislature urging them to quickly address civil asset forfeiture policies in the upcoming session.
AFP-WV state director Jason Huffman said no innocent West Virginia citizen or business owner deserves to have the government permanently confiscate their property without being convicted of, or even charged with a crime.
"It’s high time for lawmakers to ensure that Mountaineers’ property rights are safeguarded," Huffman said in a statement provided to The West Virginia Record.
Read the entire article here at: wvrecord.com
(10/28/18 -- Salt Lake Tribune
Commentary: Civil forfeiture is worse than its proponents proclaim
A recent op-ed from the federal prosecutor assigned to Utah, John Huber, defends the practice of civil forfeiture from its critics, who include us (“Civil forfeiture is a useful tool in fighting crime,” Sept. 30). But not just us — 86 percent of Utah voters and 84 percent of all Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture. For the uninitiated, this is a law that allows the government to legally take possession of your property without even having to charge you with commission of a crime, let alone secure a conviction.
Huber first aims to defend this practice by writing that forfeiture “separate[s] criminals from the tools of their trade and the proceeds from their crimes.” The problem here? Too often, there is no conviction and therefore the person is still only an alleged criminal, presumed to be innocent. Huber’s attempt to muddy the waters here shows the underlying philosophy of forfeiture’s few champions—the presumption of guilt, rather than innocence, of the person and the property itself.
The data indicate the problem. The most recent data for forfeitures in Utah show that only 87 percent of cases involve a criminal charge, with only 58 percent resulting in a conviction. Even more troubling, 64 percent of cases involve a default judgment because the person doesn’t even fight the forfeiture at all.
Read the entire article here at: sltrib.com
(10/25/18 -- NPR News)
Indiana Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Civil Forfeiture Case
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that challenges how Marion County police and prosecutors disburse proceeds from property they’ve seized and sold.
Some taxpayers believe the departments are violating Indiana’s constitution.
Article 8 of the state Constitution says Indiana’s Common School Fund should receive money from fines and forfeitures that are the result of breaking state laws.
Several taxpayers are suing the Marion County prosecutor’s office and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for instead keeping all civil forfeiture proceeds for themselves.
Read the entire article here at: indianapublicmedia.org
(10/24/18 -- Grand Forks Herald)
Truck forfeited from Mandan shooting suspect and co-defendant
A judge has ordered the forfeiture of a truck seized from a traffic stop that netted illegal narcotics and a man police say was involved in a shooting in July in Mandan. South Central District Judge David Reich signed the order for forfeiture to the Mandan Police Department on Oct. 12. Defendants Ryan Azure and Kassandra Brady were arrested July 5 in the traffic stop involving the truck, a black 2006 Dodge Ram 1500.
Civil asset forfeiture is a separate matter from criminal proceedings in North Dakota. The Institute for Justice has ranked North Dakota as one of the worst states in the country for civil asset forfeiture, based on its low standard for forfeiture — probable cause — and the burden of proof placed on defendants to prove their property wasn’t involved in a crime.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(10/24/18 -- Fox5)
Woman's car impounded, fined $1200 for $10 of medical pot
A Detroit nurse who bought $10 in medical marijuana says Wayne County Deputies were targeting her and followed her both into and out of the dispensary. Crystal Sisson bought the gram of pot from the medical dispensary. According to her attorney, Barton Morris, that's when deputies targeted her. "(She) came out of the dispensary and was immediately pulled over by Wayne County Sheriff who was watching the dispensary - pulling people over coming out," Morris said. Sisson was pulled over for not using her turn signal and she admitted to having $10 in pot in her car. That's when things got worse for her.
"The only reason why they pulled her over, found marijuana in her car was to have the opportunity to take her car," Barton said.
Read the entire article here at: fox5ny.com
(10/23/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
Justices to hear civil forfeiture argument
A case that challenges Indiana’s civil forfeiture practices under the state Constitution, Jeana M. Horner, et al. v. Terry R. Curry, et al., No. 18S-PL-00333, was granted emergency transfer after a Marion Superior Court judge upheld the constitutionality of the former Hoosier process of disbursing civil forfeiture proceeds to law enforcement before depositing the remaining balance in the Common School Fund.
The Institute for Justice urged Marion Superior Judge Thomas Carroll to strike down that practice earlier this year, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for Indiana citizens and taxpayers. But Carroll granted summary judgment to the prosecutor’s office, finding that the constitutional provision did not include civil forfeitures. On appeal, the Institute for Justice alleges that Indiana’s civil forfeiture statute violates Indiana Constitution Article 8, Section 2. The case will be heard at 10:30 a.m.
Read the entire article here at: theindianalawyer.com
(10/22/18 -- Reader's Digest)
14 Bizarre Things the Government Actually Has the Power to Do
Take your things—without compensation: Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the police to seize your personal property and never give it back. They just have to have reason to believe it was involved in the commission of a crime—even if the person wasn’t convicted. In 2013, police in Indiana took a man’s $41,000 Land Rover after he pled guilty to selling less than $400 worth of drugs. However, whether this is justified is in question at the moment now that the the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
Read the other 13 here at: rd.com
(10/20/18 -- Clarion Ledger)
Rankin County Sheriff's Department steps in to fill Pelahatchie's police chief spot
The Rankin County Sheriff's Department is stepping in to assume temporary law enforcement duties for the town of Pelahatchie, which saw its police chief resign on Wednesday for the second time.
The board unanimously signed an "informal" letter of agreement to appoint Rankin County deputy Chris Picou as the town's new interim chief, Jackson Jambalaya first reported.
In May, the state auditor's office issued a demand for the repayment of $500,000 for the alleged misuse of drug forfeiture funds. The office demanded members of the past and current administration, including the current and former mayor, pay the money back.
Shortly afterward, Beechem held a news conference where she laid responsibility at the feet of the town aldermen and former Mayor Knox Ross. Ross has hired an attorney to dispute the charges. Picou, who says he is well-versed in forfeiture laws and procedures, said he would at best advise the board and mayor on what to do and what not to do. Bailey was clear his department would not have anything to do with the police department's budget.
Read the entire article here at: clarionledger.com
(10/19/18 -- Reason)
Alabama's Biased, Punitive, and Expensive War on Marijuana Is Ruining Lives
Mary Thomas, 75, doesn't look like the typical target of a drug sting. But that didn't make any difference to the police who entered her home in Northport, Alabama, in 2011. A friend of Thomas' grandson had been staying at the house, which had an informal open-door policy for acquaintances who were down on their luck. The new guest wasn't just having a rough time, though; he was a confidential police informant, trying to keep out of jail by giving the police leads on illegal activity.
People at the house, including Thomas, occasionally smoked marijuana, and when the police searched her home, they found a bag of pot. They cuffed Thomas and took $300 from her wallet and another $50 out of her coat pocket under the state's notorious civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity. "I had just got paid, and she searched me and took my money out of my pocket," Thomas says. "I tried to explain. There's a way you should be treated. I feel like I was done wrong because I was at home. I wasn't out there selling nothing to nobody."
Thomas was taken to jail, charged with a felony marijuana offense, and pleaded guilty. The court imposed roughly $2,000 in fines and fees, and she also faced the costs of hiring a lawyer. Of course, paying off those fees and fines was all the more difficult because Thomas' drivers license was automatically suspended for six months, making it extremely difficult to get to work. (Alabama is one of a dozen states that suspends licenses for drug offenses, although it recently exempted some petty drug crimes from automatic suspensions.) Taylor also lost her right to vote because of Alabama's felon disenfranchisement law.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(10/19/18 -- Michigan Radio)
Libertarian candidate for attorney general on civil asset forfeiture
Today we’re talking with the Libertarian candidate, Lisa Lane Gioia.
Listen to the full interview above to hear what Gioia thinks the attorney general's role in civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals should be, and her belief that civil asset forfeiture as a tool of law enforcement is unconstitutional.
Hear the entire interview here at: michiganradio.org
(10/19/18 -- Right On Crime)
Innocent Mississippians shouldn’t have to worry about having their cash or property taken
Mississippi has repeatedly made headlines for reining in civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows government agencies to take cash or property from citizens under mere suspicion. Despite efforts to instill transparency in a practice that is riddled with abuse, recent reports reveal state agencies are only partially complying.
A few months ago, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN) launched a searchable website that details cash and property seized through civil asset forfeiture. The website was mandated and funded through House Bill 812, by Rep. Marc Baker (R-Brandon), which was passed in 2017. The bill also established new guidelines for forfeiting property, which states government agencies must give probable cause for each seizure. Judges then have 72 hours to grant a warrant, otherwise the cash or property must be returned to the person from which it was taken.
Some might ask how returning seizures to innocent citizens could possibly be seen as a problem, and the answer is the financial incentive to seize and forfeit property in the first place. Government agencies can keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited cash and property. Benefactors of the practice have argued it’s needed to fund local departments.
Read the entire article here at: rightoncrime.com
(10/17/18 -- Mississippi Center For Public Policy)
Mississippi shows need for transparency around civil forfeiture
In the topsy-turvy world of the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, we were told that a person should be considered guilty until proven innocent, and that we must always believe accusers even when their allegations are unverifiable, remote, and arise under suspect circumstances. For conservatives, the hearings were a reminder of why the presumption of innocence is a bedrock American principle, and why the Founders guaranteed that citizens would not be punished unless they had been convicted of a crime under a fair and impartial process.
But long after the Kavanaugh hearings have faded from the spotlight, another recent legal invention known as civil forfeiture will continue to turn American principles of presumed innocence and due process on their head. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in which the state seizes property of someone convicted of a crime, civil forfeiture is based on the tortured legal fiction that property can be “guilty” of being connected to a crime and that civil proceedings can therefore be brought against the property itself instead of its owner. Cars, cash, guns, and even houses are routinely seized. Rather than being innocent until proven guilty, property owners often have a heavy burden to prove that their property was not connected to criminal activity and can be punished by having the property forfeited — even if they have not even been charged with, much less convicted of a crime. The proceedings usually have minimal judicial oversight and no real due-process protections.
Read the entire opinion here at: mspolicy.org
(10/16/18 -- Michigan Watchdog)
Nearly 1,000 people not charged, found not guilty, lost their property through forfeiture
Michigan law enforcement agencies took ownership of $11.8 million in cash and $1.3 million in property seized from individuals in 2017 through a legal process called civil asset forfeiture. The figures were obtained from responses to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The forfeited property included eight homes, 711 weapons and 7,999 vehicles, according to the information obtained from Michigan law enforcement.
Out of the 6,666 forfeiture actions in 2017, 736 were never charged with a violation and 220 were charged but not convicted. There were 2,876 people who were charged and convicted, meaning that 57 percent of the people were not convicted before losing their assets.
“Before locking someone up permanently, our laws and Constitution require they be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mackinac Center Director of Marketing and Communications Jarrett Skorup told Watchdog.org. “In the same way, nobody should permanently lose their assets unless they are first convicted in criminal court and it is determined that the assets were gained through illegal activity.”
Nearly 75 percent of forfeiture petitions in 2017 never went to trial because the property owners did not contest the claim. Eighty percent of assets taken were valued at $1,000 or less.
Read the entire article here at: watchdog.org
(10/15/18 -- WTAJ)
Governor Wolf will sign Timothy Piazza Antihazing Law
The Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law, sponsored by Senator Jake Corman, has unanimously passed the State Senate, and is now headed for Governor Wolf's desk. The bill changes penalties for a hazing-related death to include felony charges and forfeiture of property.
Tom Kline, the attorney for the Piazza family tells WTAJ that they are pleased about the progress of the bill in Pennsylvania and hope it will become a model to every other states in the country.
Read the entire article here at: wearecentralpa.com
(10/12/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
Philadelphia’s Civil-Asset ‘Robo-Forfeiture’ Process Dismantled
Lawyers representing the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania backed down from a four-year-old lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm, agreeing to limit city law enforcement agencies’ and prosecutors’ use of civil-asset forfeiture (CAF) to take ownership of individuals’ seized assets or property.
The lawsuit, heard by Senior U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, also alleged the city operated a “rigged system of copied ‘form’ legal documents and endless proceedings in a court run by the prosecutors themselves,” referred in the complaint as a “robo-forfeiture” program generating up to $5.8 million in annual revenue for the city.
Philadelphia government lawyers backed down in September, agreeing to a legally binding consent decree restricting how and when city law enforcement agencies may use civil asset forfeiture procedures and prohibiting the city Office of the District Attorney and the Philadelphia Police Department from using forfeiture proceeds to fund government salaries. The decree also creates a $3 million fund for compensating past forfeiture victims in the city.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(10/10/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
SCOTUS schedules Indiana Land Rover civil forfeiture case
The nation’s highest court will hear an Indiana civil forfeiture case next month that could determine whether the Eighth Amendment’s protections against excessive fines can be applied on the state level. The justices of the United States Supreme Court will hear Timbs v. Indiana, 17-1091, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 28. The case is on appeal from the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled last November that the Excessive Fines Clause has not been incorporated to the states.
In Timbs, Indiana’s justices held the state did not err when it seized Tyson Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover after he was arrested and charged on theft and drug counts. The state justices’ ruling overturned decisions from both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the forfeiture on the grounds that it was “grossly disproportionate” to Timbs’ offenses. The Court of Appeals noted the Land Rover was worth more than four times the amount Timbs could be statutorily required to pay in fines.
In a January cert petition, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which took up Timbs’ case after the Indiana Supreme Court ruling, argued the state high court erred in finding the Excessive Fines Clause had not been incorporated to the states. Sam Gedge, an attorney representing Timbs, noted other Eighth Amendment clauses, including protections against cruel and unusual punishment, have been incorporated.
Read the entire article here at: theindianalawyer.com
(10/9/18 -- Alabama Media Group)
Policing for profit debate continues in Alabama state races
Advocates for and opponents against reform believe those running for election to the Legislature need to become familiar with the details revolving around a matter that critics label as, "policing for profit." In Alabama, the issue focuses on the question: Should law enforcement continue to seize personal property during an arrest even when a criminal conviction does not occur?
Organizations ranging from left-leaning Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and right-leaning Heritage Foundation have detailed reports showing repeated incidences where assets are taken from people who have done nothing wrong.
Earlier this year, lawmakers considered legislation that would have made Alabama one of the few states in the nation to completely abolish the practice of police seizing assets without having a criminal conviction. Instead, negotiations involving all sides in the debate produced a new bill requiring more transparency through a database aimed at disclosing details about the property seized, the criminal offense that led to the seizure and details about the police agency involved.
Read the entire article here at: al.com
(10/9/18 -- Tampa Bay Times)
Mississippi police took property without legal authority
Mississippi police agencies have been seizing cash, guns and vehicles without legal authority for months after a state law changed and police didn't notice. An Associated Press review of a Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics database shows more than 60 civil asset forfeitures with nearly $200,000 in property taken by state and local agencies under a law that lapsed on June 30.
Civil liberty and property rights groups have long raised alarms nationally about the dangers of police seizing property without sufficient legal safeguards. Supporters of Mississippi's change say the old administrative forfeiture law didn't provide enough protection against questionable seizures.
But police kept on taking property after June 30. The Bureau of Narcotics database shows at least 15 agencies filed paperwork documenting administrative seizures. There could be many more. Jackson County's South Mississippi Metro Enforcement Team removed from the database documents relating to at least five forfeitures. Some other documents don't show clearly whether an agency sued to seize property.
Read the entire article here at: tampabay.com
(10/8/18 -- The Press)
Cash forfeited in traffic case
A forfeiture judgment recently settled in Wood County Common Pleas Court will result in the Lake Township, OH, Police Department receiving $331,991 for its law enforcement drug fund. Police Chief Mark Hummer announced the settlement by Judge Reeve Kelsey during last week’s meeting of the township trustees.
The case stems from a March, 26, 2017 traffic stop for turn signal violations on Bahnsen Road in Lake Township. According to the police report, the driver admitted to officers having $400,000 in cash in the trunk after being asked if he had any weapons, drugs or large amounts of money.
Read the entire article here at: presspublications.com
(10/5/18 -- The Hill)
Mueller moves for forfeiture order to seize Manafort assets
Attorneys for special counsel Robert Mueller moved on Friday for an order to seize assets that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort purchased with funds he hid from U.S. authorities in foreign bank accounts.
Mueller's attorneys submitted a court document as part of Manafort's plea agreement asking Judge Amy Berman Jackson to grant a request to seize five properties in New York owned by Manafort as well as a life insurance policy and three bank accounts. Forfeiture of the assets identified as part of Manafort's scheme to hide millions of dollars made lobbying for pro-Russia parties in Ukraine was agreed upon in a plea agreement Manafort signed with Mueller's team last month.
Read the entire article here at: thehill.com
(10/6/18 -- Columbia Daily Tribune)
Trial set for $626K seized in Boone County traffic stop
The owners of almost $627,000 confiscated during a January 2017 traffic stop in Boone County want their money back. No criminal charges have been filed against claimants Lu Li and Zhimin Peng, both of Chicago, but federal prosecutors say the money is tied to drug dealing and is now property of the United States in accordance with civil asset forfeiture law. In their claim for the money’s return, Li and Peng deny the money was the fruit of illegal activity and claim seizure of the cash violates their rights.
Peng was with Ting Wei Huang when they were stopped at 2:17 a.m. on Jan. 10, 2017 by Boone County Deputy Patrick Richardson as they drove 94 mph on Interstate 70 in a rental car. Huang and Peng told Richardson they were driving from Chicago to San Francisco on a three-day college break, according to the complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Tom Larson. Li allegedly told investigators who contacted her by telephone after the stop that the men were transporting the cash to California for her so she could purchase a home.
Read the entire article here at: columbiatribune.com
(10/4/18 -- New Lenox Patch)
Drug Dealer's Jeep Wrangler Faces Forfeiture: New Lenox, IL, resident Rex Stengele, 19, told police he has been selling cannabis forever, court documents show.
The Will County State's Attorney's Office of James Glasgow wants the 2010 Jeep Wrangler owned by the New Lenox family of Rex J. Stengele to be declared as a forfeited drug asset. The 19-year-old was arrested in April by sheriff's police on charges of manufacturing marijuana. The defendant lives in the 2500 block of Emily Lane, court records show. The forfeiture complaint states that a sheriff's deputy saw the New Lenox teenager "sell a confidential source two baggies of cannabis ... during the first week of April 2018."
Then, at 1:15 p.m. on April 17, Will County's gang suppression unit showed up at the house on Emily Lane announcing they had a search warrant. Court documents state that Rex C. Stengele, then age 78, "walked towards the glass door, waiving officers into the residence. The entry team then entered the house."
As it stands, the New Lenox family's 2010 Jeep Wrangler may become property of Illinois law enforcement agencies, if the vehicle is declared a forfeiture drug asset.
Read the entire article here at: patch.com
(10/3/18 -- TechDirt)
Lawsuit Settlement Looking To Kill Philadelphia's Severely Abused Forfeiture Program
The Institute for Justice has secured a big win in Philadelphia. The city's asset forfeiture program is being torn down and rebuilt as the result of IJ litigation. The city's program was infamous for things like seizing a house because one resident (not the owner) sold cops $40 worth of drugs. Another case featuring the IJ's legal assistance sought the return of another home seized after a $140 drug purchase. In the first instance, prosecutors dropped the case and returned the property after the litigation received national attention. In the latter, the state's Supreme Court found the seizure of the house unwarranted and unjustifiable -- a harsh punishment that far outstripped the seriousness of the crime.
The proposed settlement would drastically alter Philly's forfeiture laws and policies. Importantly, it would strip the financial incentive for seizures by redirecting forfeiture funds towards drug rehab programs and away from the law enforcement agencies that have directly profited from this program for years. It also would make tiny forfeitures -- the ones least likely to be disputed -- a historical relic. Seizures of less than $1,000 would either need to be tied to an arrest or used as evidence in criminal cases. Cash seizures of less than $250 would be completely forbidden. This is important because data shows the median cash seizure by Philly law enforcement is $178.
More due process is being introduced into the forfeiture process as well. If citizens can show a need for the seized property, they may be able to retain possession of it throughout the forfeiture proceedings. Property owners would -- for the first time -- be allowed to file requests for continuances if unable to make scheduled court dates. It also fully shifts the burden of proof to prosecutors, making them prove owners knew about illegal use of their property.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(10/3/18 -- Mississippi Center For Public Policy)
The Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics has begun to return property that the agency seized after the administrative forfeiture law was repealed.
This past session, the Mississippi legislature allowed the administrative forfeiture provision to sunset, meaning the previous law ceased to be in effect at the end of June. Administrative forfeiture allows agents of the state to take property valued under $20,000 and forfeit it by merely providing the individual with a notice. An individual would then have to file a petition in court to appeal.
On September 10, the Mississippi Justice Institute sent a letter to MBN advising the agency of the change in the law after it became apparent that they were continuing to seize property after the July 1 repeal date.
Read the entire article here at: mspolicy.org
(10/2/18 -- Michigan Live)
Judge orders $6 million returned to doctor cleared in 'pill mill' case
A Michigan judge has ordered more than $6 million in assets be returned to a urologist acquitted of charges that he was running a "pill mill." Dr. Joseph Edwin Oesterling, was acquitted in 2017 of charges including continuing a criminal enterprise, five counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and one count of maintaining a drug house.
Oesterling, previously chief of urology at the University of Michigan Hospital, was arraigned in 2016 on those charges following a seven-month investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Thumb Narcotics Unit. The agencies alleged overprescribing by Oesterling through his clinics in Caro, Saginaw and Mount Pleasant.
Tuscola County had retained Oesterling's assets and filed a suit under Michigan's Civil Asset Forfeiture Law. That suit was dismissed after a motion filed by Chapman and Robert Andretz of the healthcare firm Chapman Law Group, according to court documents.
Read the entire article here at: mlive.com
(10/2/18 -- Times Herald)
Daviess County, IN, contracts forfeiture attorney
The Daviess County Commissioners, working on the recommendation of the Daviess County Prosecutor, have hired an out-of-county lawyer to handle forfeiture cases in the future. Prosecutor Dan Murrie suggested the county contract with Chris Gambill, a Terre Haute attorney, to pursue forfeitures in drug cases.
“In some ways, the only way you can get at the drug dealers is to take their stuff,” said Murrie. “That is especially true with the Mexican drug dealers who are selling illegal substances to our people. We are never going to get them down there, but we can get to them by taking their possessions up here.”
“We’re not going after the little guys,” said Commissioner Michael Taylor. “We’re going after the big ones. With the contractor doing the work, we will get some reimbursement for that. It’s not going to be in every case. When we do seek it, the money will go back to the police to help make more busts in the future.”
Read the entire article here at: washtimesherald.com
(10/1/18 -- Forbes)
Civil Forfeiture May Be Over In Philly, But Abuses Abound Across America
Philadelphia is the birthplace of the U.S. Constitution, yet for more than a decade police and prosecutors ran a civil forfeiture machine that ruthlessly deprived citizens of their property as well as their constitutional rights. Law enforcement took cars, cash and homes—often from individuals who were never charged with a crime—and then used the proceeds to fund their own salaries.
Philadelphia’s forfeiture machine stood out as especially greedy, taking in annually more than Los Angeles and Brooklyn combined. To end this abusive system, the Institute for Justice and innocent citizens caught up in this forfeiture machine launched a federal class-action lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia. After four long years, that lawsuit is approaching the end with a landmark settlement that just requires the Court’s blessing. Constitutional government is being restored in Philadelphia, yet the battle against civil forfeiture abuse is far from over. There are striking parallels between what was happening in Philadelphia and the civil forfeiture cases IJ is fighting in other parts of the country.
Read the entire article here at: forbes.com
(9/30/18 -- Salt Lake Tribune)
U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John W. Huber explains why he likes stealing your stuff
Over the past year, a great deal of unwarranted criticism has been hurled at the government’s lawful ability to forfeit the tools and ill-gotten gains of criminals. Although forfeiture’s critics are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.
Critics of forfeiture claim that law enforcement officers can seize property with just a “mere suspicion” that it is linked to crime. This is inaccurate and misleading. Judges use the “probable cause” standard in the federal courts, and in Utah, before ordering the seizure of property. This is the same standard they use to issues search and arrest warrants.
Read more lies and half-truths here at: sltrib.com
(9/30/18 -- The Sentinel-Record)
Drug Task Force auction raises $85K
Vehicles seized under the authority of the state's civil asset forfeiture law and auctioned Friday at the city of Hot Springs' Bill Edwards Center generated more than $85,000 in sales. The proceeds will go to the 18th Judicial District East's Civil Asset Forfeiture Fund, which supports the 18th Judicial District East Drug Task Force. The multiagency unit is charged with interdicting the flow of illegal drugs into Garland County. Property and money it and other agencies expropriate during drug arrests accrues to the forfeiture fund. State and federal grants and fees collected from drug arrests also fund the drug task force. Per the state's criminal code, 20 percent of the funds are remitted to the Arkansas State Crime Lab Equipment Fund.
Real estate is also subject to forfeiture if the associated criminal offense is a Class B felony or higher. Properties on Ragweed Valley Road and Marjorie Lane linked to marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprises were quit claimed to the Garland County prosecutor's office last year, according to property records and agreements filed in the two forfeiture cases. No criminal charges were filed in connection with the Ragweed Valley Road seizure. According to a 2016 agreement, the owners consented to the property transfer in exchange for not being prosecuted.
Read the entire article here at: hotsr.com
(9/28/18 -- Caller Times)
Hey Texas, let’s stop stealing people’s stuff
On September 18, the city of Philadelphia agreed to place new limits on its notorious asset forfeiture program. This settlement was reached following a lengthy lawsuit by residents who had their home seized after their son sold just $40 worth of illegal drugs. From now on, the city can no longer use forfeited cash to pay the salaries of the prosecutors that try these kinds of cases, ending a perverse incentive structure that encouraged the city to seize as much as possible from innocent people. This case shows that some of America’s largest cities are starting to limit the abuse unregulated asset forfeiture inflicts on their residents. Texas is home to some of the nation’s worst forfeiture laws, and should follow Philadelphia's lead and stop seizing people’s property in cases where criminal charges aren’t filed.
According to an Institute For Justice study, Texas has one of the most pervasive forfeiture regimes in the country. The Office of the Attorney General reported that local and state agencies seized more than $50 million in 2017 alone. It’s obvious why this figure is so high.
If the police don’t need to press charges to take cash or cars from Texans, then they will be motivated to use forfeitures to enrich their own department. That has led some counties in our state to use forfeitures to fund nearly 40 percent of local police budgets. Clearly, that’s rife for abuse.
In one case, the Tenaha Police Department made its name by routinely stealing valuables from anyone who drove through town. When Ron Henderson and Jennifer Boatwright were driving on the highway, they were pulled over by a Tenaha police officer for driving in the left lane without passing. The officer asked if there were any drugs in the car — they said no, and consented to a search. After finding cash and a glass pipe that Boatwright stated was a gift for a relative, the officer took the couple to the police station. There, the Shelby County District Attorney threatened to charge them with felonies and take away their child — unless they signed their money off to the city.
Read the entire article here at: caller.com
(9/11/18 -- WFYI)
Do Indiana's Civil Forfeiture Laws Violate The State Constitution?
Police across Indiana seized more than $3 million worth of property and cash during fiscal year 2017 that they believe was involved in suspected crimes. Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies say civil forfeiture empowers them to take the fruits of crime and use some of the proceeds to further other investigations. But critics say where the proceeds go creates conflicts of interest – and may even violate the state constitution.
Some legislators argue the way Indiana allows money from civil forfeitures to be used creates a major conflict of interest. Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) says it can lead to distrust. We have to separate where the money goes from the people actually doing the seizing of the property," Pierce says. "Because I think it breeds cynicism amongst the public when they see the prosecutors and law enforcement directly profit from the assets that are seized."
And there are questions about whether the practice violates the state’s Constitution, which says the common school fund should receive money “from the fines assessed for breaches of penal laws of the State; and from all forfeitures which may accrue.” Several Marion County residents are suing the prosecutor, police and mayor, arguing the county’s ignored that statute for years and instead distributed all proceeds to local law enforcement efforts.
Read the entire article here at: wfyi.org
(9/27/18 -- The Legal Intelligencer)
No Common-Law Civil Forfeiture in Pa., High Court Rules
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that common-law civil forfeiture does not exist in Pennsylvania, but stopped short of saying the same for common-law criminal forfeiture, instead leaving that issue for another day.
The justices ruled 6-1 to uphold a unanimous January 2017 decision by the Commonwealth Court en banc in Commonwealth v. Irland, which said the state government has no legal basis, absent statutory authority, for seizing so-called derivative contraband. The Commonwealth Court’s decision had reversed an Adams County trial judge’s ruling. Writing for the high court majority, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor said the court agreed with the Commonwealth Court “that there is no historical foundation establishing common law civil forfeiture in the commonwealth and that civil forfeiture of derivative contraband requires statutory authorization.”
Saylor added in a footnote that “criminal forfeiture, as a common law precept, does appear in some authorities as having been employed in Pennsylvania around the time of the commonwealth’s founding,” but said that issue was not relevant to the Irland case, which dealt only with “civil derivative contraband forfeiture.”
Read the entire article here at: law.com
(9/26/18 -- ACLU)
The Reports of Civil Asset Forfeiture’s Death in Philadelphia Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Last week, Philadelphia and its district attorney, Larry Krasner, agreed to overhaul the city’s civil asset forfeiture practices after a long history of abuse and subsequent reform efforts thwarted by prosecutors across the state. But no one should be fooled into believing that forfeiture has been “dismantled” in Philadelphia.
For years, the City of Brotherly Love has been in the national spotlight for its aggressive use of civil asset forfeiture — the police practice of seizing private property merely suspected of having a connection to a crime. For decades, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office has amplified its budget with millions of dollars each year from forfeiture.
Analyses by investigative journalists and the ACLU of Pennsylvania showed that these forfeiture revenues came mostly from taking small amounts of cash —less than $200 at a time — as well as vehicles and houses from people who had not been convicted of any crime but live in heavily policed communities of color. Because civil forfeiture is not a criminal proceeding, property owners have no right to counsel, and most lose their property by default when they fail to formally respond to the government in court.
It’s a sign of progress that Larry Krasner has pledged to diminish the use of civil asset forfeiture. But with the infrastructure of forfeiture still intact, and no policy prohibiting its use by the office, a future district attorney could simply ramp up its use again.
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(9/25/18 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Supreme Court set to hear case involving civil forfeiture and the Eighth Amendment
As the Ringling Bros. spectacle inside the Beltway captivates the country, it’s easy to forget the Supreme Court’s next term opens Monday. The justices — eight of them, at this point — are slated to hear a number of high-profile cases, including one that could prompt reform of the pernicious practice known as civil forfeiture. In Timbs v. State of Indiana, the court will consider whether the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government. At issue are statutes that allow law enforcement officials to confiscate money, property, cars and other valuables not only from convicted criminals but also from people who have never been been charged with a crime.
Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to a $225 drug transaction he made with an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to a year of house arrest, five years probation and fees and fines totaling $1,200. But Indiana officials also sought to seize Mr. Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover he had purchased with money from an inheritance. With help from the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, Mr. Timbs fought the forfeiture action, arguing that allowing the state to take his expensive vehicle — on top of his other punishments — was, in essence, an excessive fine. At trial, the judge agreed, pointing out the Land Rover was worth four times the maximum fine the state could have imposed against Mr. Timbs under the law. An appeals court upheld the ruling.
But the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court, holding that state officials are not bound by the Eighth Amendment. “This is, surprisingly, an open question,” The New York Times reports. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment ensures most of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states, the Times notes, the justices have issued conflicting decisions involving the excessive fines clause.
Read the entire article here at: reviewjournal.com
(9/25/18 -- Watertown Daily Times)
Investigation into vehicle, cash seized in January ongoing, FOIA reveals
An investigation into two Hogansburg residents that resulted in the seizing of a vehicle and $30,000 in cash after a traffic stop in January is still ongoing, a Times Freedom Of Information Act request has revealed. On Jan. 10, the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department stopped a 2009 Toyota Highlander for a failure to signal and keep right, searched the car after a K-9 officer found a small quantity of marijuana and $30,000 in cash, and confiscated the marijuana, the cash and the car. The vehicle and cash were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of an ongoing federal investigation and a civil forfeiture case was brought by ICE.
The Sheriff’s Department reported on Jan. 11 that deputies Devin Thomas and Collin Nicol stopped the car at 1:46 a.m. on County Route 53 in the town of Brasher. “At the time it occurred, it was the third time they stopped that individual,” Mr. Wells said Monday, although he was unsure of which individual was the target of the investigation. The driver, Nadine T. Pierce, 35, of 20 Raquette Point 2, Hogansburg, was issued tickets and a passenger, Jordan D. Francis, 33, Hogansburg, was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana after a small amount was found between the passenger seat and the central console. After the stop, the deputies posed with the seized cash along with a K-9 officer named Fable and posted the photo to Facebook. The photo was later taken down.
In February, Russel Linstad, agent in charge at the Department of Homeland Security-ICE office in Massena, confirmed that ICE had seized the cash and the 2009 Toyota Highlander as part of an ongoing investigation. He also confirmed that ICE had objected to the Sheriff’s Department posting a photograph from the scene on Facebook because the investigation was ongoing. Mr. Linstad also confirmed ICE was bringing a civil forfeiture proceeding to confiscate the money and vehicle.
Read the entire article here at: watertowndailytimes.com
(9/24/18 -- Times-Tribune)
Seizing reform
Civil asset forfeiture long ago was converted from a means to fight drug trafficking into a back-door means to help fund law enforcement at the expense of fairness and due process. Conceptually, civil asset forfeiture makes sense. The idea is to deny drug traffickers the material benefits of their illicit trade. But in practice, it often has gotten out of control.
Philadelphia long has been among the most aggressive jurisdictions. According to a landmark study by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Institute for Justice, Philadelphia averaged $5.6 million a year in asset forfeiture revenue from 2002 through 2014. As Philadelphia raked in that $72 million, all of the state’s other 66 counties combined took in $102 million. It took in twice as much as Brooklyn and Los Angeles combined.
And it isn’t about big-time dealers. In 2010, for example, the study found that prosecutors filed more than 8,200 cash forfeiture cases claiming an average of $550 each, with a median amount of cash actually seized of just $178. In all, between 2002 and 2014, Philadelphia seized 1,248 homes and other real properties, 3,531 vehicles and more than $50 million in cash.
Read the entire editorial here at: thetimes-tribune.com
(9/21/18 -- STL News)
Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights Releases Report on Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws & Practices
The Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
has issued a report on the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws and practices, examining their discriminatory impact on the basis of race, color, national origin, and/or disability status, and fair administration of justice. In 2017, the Committee convened a public briefing and received testimony from diverse panelists and members of the public.
Tennessee’s first civil asset forfeiture law was enacted in 1998, and has seen a series of amendments to this date. Specifically, it aimed to deter professional criminals and combat organized crime by seizing and retaining assets, profits, and proceeds of criminal activity. The enacting legislation made clear that tools provided to law enforcement were meant to be consistent with due process of law, to protect innocent owners of property, and to avoid interfering with commercially-protected interests.
Tennessee is one of only three states in the nation that require a property owner to post a cash bond before being permitted to contest the legality of a forfeiture. In addition, state law raises important concerns about disparate impact on low-income individuals and communities of color. Recently-reported incidents of misuse of forfeited funds by Tennessee agencies raise additional concerns about the need for immediate reform.
Committee Chair Diane Di Ianni said, “Our review of Tennessee’s civil forfeiture statute reveals that it is among the least protective of property owners in the nation. Procedural protection for owners seeking return of their property is lacking, and there is no right to
counsel even where basic needs are at risk. Also lacking is the comprehensive data needed to ensure fair and consistent application across communities. State-wide reform of Tennessee’s forfeiture law is urgently needed in order that the statute meet its goals of providing tools for law enforcement while, at the same time, respecting and ensuring the due process of law and the fair administration of justice for all Tennesseans. We hope that our report and its specific recommendations contribute to that end.”
(9/20/18 -- Coingeek.)
Alleged AlphaBay leader’s crypto millions forfeited in California court
Millions of dollars in cryptocurrency and assets have been seized by U.S. authorities from the estate of Alexandre Cazes, a dark web entrepreneur believed to have been the brains behind the now-defunct AlphaBay marketplace. After arresting Cazes at his lavish home in Bangkok in 2017, authorities have this week been given the go-ahead to seize his net assets under civil forfeiture laws, in an amount that could total as much as $23 million.
Authorities seeking the Canadian national’s extradition to the United States smashed a vehicle through the gates of Cazes’ mansion in Thailand, in a raid that saw the 26-year-old entrepreneur remanded to a prison in the Asian country. However, within a matter of days, Cazes committed suicide in his prison cell, before the matter could be brought to trial.
The Sept. 6 ruling from a court in Fresno, California, means authorities can now seize assets from his estate, at a time when authorities are cracking down more aggressively on those found to have been involved in running marketplaces on the dark web.
Read the entire article here at: coingeek.com
(9/20/18 -- Newsday)
Nassau police: Asset forfeiture money to be used for school safety
Money seized from drug dealers — $300,000 of it — will be reinvested in opioid prevention and school safety programs, Nassau County law enforcement officials announced Thursday. The money, part of the police department’s asset forfeiture fund, will be used to pay overtime for officers to visit schools and educate students on the dangers of narcotics, Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder said at a news conference Thursday at Hofstra University in Hempstead announcing a school safety forum next week.
Read the entire article here at: newsday.com
(9/19/18 -- Times of San Diego)
Chula Vista, San Diego Police Get Millions in Asset-Forfeiture Funds
The Internal Revenue Service on Wednesday presented a pair of San Diego-area law enforcement agencies with checks totaling $26.7 million as a result of a settlement resulting from an international bank’s admission of guilt to charges of defrauding the U.S. government. The IRS’s criminal division disbursed the funds during an afternoon ceremony at Chula Vista police headquarters.
Of a total of $119 million in forfeitures to the IRS from a California subsidiary of Netherlands-based Rabobank, $20.8 million went to the San Diego Police Department, earmarked for training, technology and equipment to enhance officer safety. The Chula Vista Police Department, for its part, received $5.9 million for equipment, infrastructure and technology. In addition, the California Franchise Tax Board, like the SDPD, got a $20.8 million allocation.
Read the entire article here at: timesofsandiego.com
(9/19/18 -- BillyPenn)
Civil asset forfeiture reform: Don’t expect Philly DA and police to stop seizing money anytime soon
In a historic class-action lawsuit settlement announced Tuesday, Philadelphia officials agreed to reform parts of the city’s controversial civil asset forfeiture program and establish a $3 million fund to compensate victims who had their property seized through its widespread practice.
Four years in the making, the settlement still needs needs to be stamped by a federal judge before it has any teeth. But Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner have already committing to a raft of reforms that have hailed been as a major win for civil liberties advocates.
Still, while the rules of engagement have changed, the practice itself isn’t going to disappear entirely. And there are still many questions unanswered as to how the newly settled reforms will work in practice — and of equal importance, where all that secret forfeiture money will go now that the program has come clean.
Read the entire article here at: billypenn.com
(9/18/18 -- The Legal Intelligencer)
City to Roll Back Civil Forfeiture and Compensate Philadelphians Affected by It
The city of Philadelphia has agreed to stop allowing law enforcement to profit from civil forfeiture, a controversial practice involving the seizure and sale of private property from a criminal suspect. The city has also agreed to set up a $3 million fund to compensate those affected by it. The settlement was announced Tuesday morning and concludes a 2014 federal lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, which had brought the case on behalf of Chris Sourovelis and several other plaintiffs who have had property taken by law enforcement through civil forfeiture.
The terms of the settlement dictate that the city cannot seize property for minor drug crimes like possession, will not forfeit cash in amounts less than $250, and will not use any proceeds to pay police officers or prosecutors, to name a few conditions. Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner, along with other officials gathered at a City Hall press conference Tuesday afternoon, lauded the near-total abolition of civil forfeiture in the city.
Read the entire article here at: law.com/thelegalintelligencer
(9/18/18 -- WTOP)
Philadelphia agrees to overhaul property seizure law
Philadelphia has agreed to overhaul its civil forfeiture laws as part of a proposed lawsuit settlement announced Tuesday, limiting what law enforcement officers can seize and how it can use the proceeds. The city’s civil forfeiture law allows law enforcement officials to confiscate property if someone is suspected of a crime and to keep the proceeds for its coffers. The 2014 class action lawsuit, filed by the Institute for Justice, alleges that the law violates defendants’ due process because of the lack of oversight and a financial incentive for the confiscations since the proceeds have been used to pay salaries.
“Without any conviction or criminal charges, people are losing their property,” said Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney for the Institute who directs its national initiative to end forfeiture abuse. “This decree completely transforms the Kafkaesque procedures with the notorious courtroom 478. It ensures judges not prosecutors oversee the forfeiture process and monitor it for fairness.”
Nationwide, lawsuits have been filed with mixed success alleging the state and local forfeiture laws are unconstitutional. The Institute will argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court later this year in which an Indiana man is challenging the seizure of his car as an excessive fine. The Institute has said that Philadelphia’s civil forfeiture practices are some of the most stringent in the country, averaging about $5.6 million in property seizures per year over the decade before it filed its lawsuit.
Read the entire article here at: wtop.com
(9/18/18 -- Bitcoin.Com)
US Confiscates Millions in Cryptocurrencies in Alphabay Forfeiture Case
This month the US District Court of Eastern California has been very busy dealing with cases involving the infamous and now defunct darknet marketplace the Alphabay. The Federal courthouse in Fresno just recently wrapped up the forfeiture case involving the alleged Alphabay leader Alexandre Cazes. Further, the Fresno courthouse has charged and have plans to indict multiple Alphabay and Silk Road vendors with distribution and conspiracy charges this month.
The Alphabay marketplace and the investigation that followed after its demise has always been a very hot topic of conversation. The multinational law enforcement operation called Operation Bayonet culminated with the take down of both Hansa and Alphabay darknet markets. When the Alphabay went offline the police force targeted a Canadian national living in Thailand named Alexandre Cazes. Cazes was accused of being the Alphabay’s leader and as usual, because some of the crimes were committed on US soil, American prosecutors wanted Cazes extradited to the states. However, Cazes committed suicide in a Thai jail not long after he was arrested in his home.
Last week the US District Court of Eastern California’s Fresno courthouse wrapped up Cazes civil forfeiture case, which has allowed them to seize his luxury cars and millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrencies. When Cazes was arrested, US law enforcement confiscated well over $8 million dollars worth of cryptocurrencies collectively. Cazes had various digital assets such as BTC, XMR, ETH, and ZEC. Alongside this, authorities seized six of Caze’s beachfront homes strewn across various islands around the world. All the property confiscated added up to roughly $12 million as international police had also nabbed Caze’s BMW motorcycle, Lamborghini, and Porsche during the bust.
Read the entire article here at: news.bitcoin.com
(9/17/18 -- New York Law Journal)
Prosecutors Seek Forfeiture of Money Paid to Bribe Ex-Cuomo Aide
U.S. attorneys have told a Manhattan federal judge they want to claw back money paid to bribe Joseph Percoco, a former top aide in the Cuomo administration, in the wake of his conviction on political corruption charges. Prosecutors wrote in a letter motion to U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York that they have been unable to agree to a forfeiture amount with Percoco’s defense team, so the government is asking for it all—more than $300,000. Percoco was convicted in March of this year of taking bribes from two companies with business before the state.
Percoco is represented by Barry Bohrer, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel in Manhattan. The case was prosecuted by attorneys with the office of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman of the Southern District of New York. According to the letter from prosecutors, Percoco’s team agreed to forfeiture of the $35,000 Percoco was convicted of taking from COR Development, a developer from central New York that sought money from the state for ongoing development projects. They hit a road bump with the other $285,000 Percoco was convicted of taking. Those payments were made to Percoco’s wife over 38 months from Competitive Power Ventures, an energy company that wanted to build a power plant in the Hudson Valley. The company provided Lisa Percoco a low-show job in exchange for Percoco’s influence over state officials.
Read the entire article here at: law.com
(9/17/18 -- Daily Herald)
A Constitution Day reminder: Don’t let government take your stuff
In Colonial America, British officials were able to freely search through people’s homes, boats and businesses, seizing property from innocent colonists. They were quick to take advantage of the writs of assistance that granted them power to search for smuggled goods within private property — writs they wrote themselves. Furious with these excessive and unwelcome searches and seizures, the Founding Fathers wisely aimed to protect individual rights against government intrusion in the Constitution. One of these rights is the presumption of innocence — a fundamental principle since the days of English common law. It purportedly prevents actions like flippant searches and seizures without evidence of one’s guilt. And while the American criminal justice system tries to protect this presumption of innocence for people, their property can still be treated as guilty unless it is proven innocent.
This process is known as civil asset forfeiture, and it allows law enforcement to take and keep a person’s property without convicting them with — let alone charging them of — a crime. The property they take, whether it be cash, cars or even houses, are inanimate objects not afforded the same rights as criminally accused people — but they are still treated as if they were involved in a crime. Forfeiture cases will typically be titled The State of Utah v. Fifty Dollars or The State of Utah v. 2007 Black Mazda. Because prosecutors might never criminally charge the owner of the property, they can simply seize it and permanently take ownership without any criminal charges so much as being filed. The only thing that needs to be present is suspicion that the items were somehow related to a crime.
A recent poll found that an astounding 84 percent of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture — including politicians from both major political parties. Despite this opposition, the practice remains pervasive throughout the country. This is not surprising considering the billions of dollars the government takes through forfeiture every year, providing a substantial financial incentive for government agencies to violate a person’s right to own property.
Read the entire article here at: heraldextra.com
(9/17/18 -- KSL.Com)
Utah attorney general seeks $1M in civil forfeiture from 7 pawn shops
On June 19, investigators served search warrants on seven pawn shops along the Wasatch Front simultaneously following numerous complaints that some were acting as fencing operations, or knowingly purchasing stolen goods from people. The investigation began after Home Depot officials reported to Unified police that they had lost about $60 million due to retail theft over the past five years, according to a statement from Attorney General Sean Reyes' office.
According to the search warrants, undercover officers were able to successfully sell items provided by Home Depot to several pawn shops from March through June. Some of those items were still in their orignal packaging and some still had anti-theft devices on them, the warrants state. When investigators raided the pawn shops in June, they seized an "overwhelming" amount of property, according to the attorney general's office, ranging from power tools to kitchen appliances to sporting goods.
Read the entire article here at: ksl.com
(9/14/18 -- Charleston Gazette-Mail)
Eli Baumwell: End policing for profit in WV
Last month, the Charleston Gazette-Mail reported on the seizure of $10,000 in cash, various gift cards and a smartphone from Tonya Smith and Dimitrios Patlias. Even for Smith and Patlias, who had done no wrong, it took two months, repeated calls and a journalist asking questions before the property was returned. Many others who have property seized under the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture Act are not so lucky.
Even at face-value, civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally unfair. Police may “seize” or take any property that they claim they suspect of being related to a crime. The police do not have to arrest, charge or convict anyone to take this property. For many people, losing a cell phone, computer, vehicle or cash can be financially devastating. Once the property is in police possession, departments may return it or try to “forfeit” it — take it for their own use. For cash, that means keeping it, and for other property, they may auction it off, or as they often do with cell phones and vehicles, use them in undercover operations.
Read the entire opinion here at: wvgazettemail.com
(9/13/18 -- Yes! Weekly)
Kernersville, NC, Police seizure of legal CBD raises questions
An incident that occurred on May 8 raises questions about whether the Kernersville Police Department is aware that industrial hemp products are legal in North Carolina.
On that date, Detective J. N. Smith entered the AAA Quick Mart (744 Piney Grove Rd.) and removed eight units of “Hemp Symmetry” products manufactured by the Asheboro-based company Founder’s Hemp. The seizure resulted in no arrests and no charges being filed. But it deprived store owner Malik Aslam of merchandise with a wholesale cost of $116.92 and a retail value is $222.92. Those prices were verified by attorney Bob Crumley, who co-wrote the statute making industrial hemp legal in North Carolina and founded Founder’s Hemp, the state’s first registered hemp processor, and supplier of the confiscated merchandise.
On July 31, I contacted the office of Kernersville Police Chief Tim Summers about the incident and was referred to Captain Kevin Clodfelter in the Investigative & Technical Services Bureau. I asked Captain Clodfelter if there was an ongoing investigation and whether or not the confiscated product, which I understood to be legal in North Carolina, would be returned. Captain Clodfelter said he needed to speak to Detective Smith’s commanding officer, and that either that officer or Captain Clodfelter himself would call me back the next day. That call never came, but on Aug. 2, Detective Smith returned the product to the business from which she’d confiscated it on May 8, unopened and in its original packaging.
Read the entire article here at: yesweekly.com
(9/12/18 -- TechDirt)
Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions
Here's one way to avoid the lengthy, often-futile process of recovering your assets after they've been seized by the government via civil asset forfeiture. The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports law enforcement suddenly decided to return $10,000 to the couple it seized it from, but only after being asked to comment on the forfeiture.
The couple was traveling from New Jersey to a casino in West Virginia. A West Virginia state trooper rolled the dice on the out-of-state plates and pulled over their car for "failure to drive within [their] lane." From there, the stop became exploratory with the trooper accusing them of smuggling drugs, smuggling cigarettes, or -- following a search of the vehicle -- gift card fraud. Smith and Patlias had $10,000 in cash between both of them. In addition, they had a number of gift cards, loyalty cards, and cash cards -- all legally obtained -- which the trooper used to shore up the last accusation on the list. Despite being possible fraudsters/smugglers, the trooper handed the pair a warning for the lane violation and let them go on their way. So, they returned to New Jersey with $2 in their pockets.
This set the forfeiture in motion. The couple had 30 days to state a claim to their belongings, otherwise the proceeds would be split between the state police and the prosecutor. The trooper had every incentive to seize everything in the car (which included a cellphone): 90% of proceeds go to the agency that performed the seizure.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(9/12/18 -- Alabama Today)
Alabama Appleseed files amicus brief to rein in civil asset forfeiture and policing for profit
Alabama Appleseed — a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to work to achieve justice and equity for all Alabamians — joined a diverse group of twelve organizations asking the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) essentially to rein in civil asset forfeiture.
Alabama Appleseed, along with organizations the include the Drug Policy Alliance, FreedomWorks, NAACP, and Americans for Prosperity, have specifically asked the SCOTUS to find that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” applies to all 50 states.
The brief reference a case the SCOTUS agreed to hear back in June, Timbs v. Indiana. The case, an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs used his 2012 Land Rover to purchase and sell heroin throughout the state. He later pled guilty to dealing and conspiracy charges, paid approximately $1,200 in fees, and received a six-year sentence: one year of home detention and another five years on probation. Additionally, the state of Indiana sought forfeiture of his Land Rover because he had used the vehicle to transport drugs. But Timbs had bought the vehicle legally with proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. In court, the Indiana Court of Appeals refused to allow the civil asset forfeiture, finding it “would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [Timbs’s] offense” and such actions violated the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. However, on appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision saying the Eighth Amendment clause does not apply against the states.
Read the entire article here at: altoday.com
(9/11/18 -- Peninsula Daily News)
Sequim man awarded attorney fees by Washington state Supreme Court
The state Supreme Court has ruled that a Sequim man who beat criminal marijuana charges is entitled to attorney fees after the Olympic Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team attempted to seize his property in 2009. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of Steven Fager after he and his brother, Timothy Fager, successfully defended themselves against criminal drug charges sought by OPNET and the seizure of Steven Fager’s property.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Mary Yu, filed Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that state law requires courts to award attorney fees to substantially prevailing claimants in civil forfeiture cases. “When interpreting statutes, our task is always to give effect to the legislature’s intent,” she wrote. “The legislature’s intent … was ‘to protect individuals against having their property wrongfully taken by the State.’ ”
That means Steven Fager is entitled to “reasonable” attorney fees not only in the civil forfeiture case, but also in the related criminal case he defended himself against.
Read the entire article here at: peninsuladailynews.com
(9/7/18 -- Techdirt)
Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
A win for at least one resident -- and victim of shady forfeiture practices -- has been handed down by Utah's top court. Kyle Savely had $500,000 taken from him by Utah law enforcement during a traffic stop. No charges were filed and Savely was never arrested, but a dog told the Utah Highway Patrol it could search the vehicle and seize the cash, even though the search failed to produce any drugs.
An early forfeiture reform initiative, voted into law by Utah residents in 2000, says the government must return forfeited property if no criminal charges are filed within 75 days. The Utah Highway Patrol apparently had no charges to file, but rather than return the money when Savely requested it back, it chose to hand it over to the DEA via equitable sharing. Equitable sharing with the feds allows state agencies to bypass more restrictive state laws and help themselves to 80% of whatever's seized. The DEA pitched in, too, hoping for 20% of the seized cash, further demonstrating the perverse incentives of the federal forfeiture loophole.
Savely challenged this move, claiming the state had jurisdiction over the seized cash and could not use equitable sharing to route around state law. The court agrees for the most part, but notes the initiative isn't the "model of clarity" and the government can present plausible arguments for federal jurisdiction over the cash, even with the lack of required charges at state level.
Read the entire article here at: techdirt.com
(9/7/18 -- Daily Business Review)
Coral Gables, Miami Mansions Face Forfeiture in $1.2B Venezuela Money-Laundering Scheme
The federal government wants to seize a three-bedroom condo at the glitzy Porsche Design Tower, a Miami mansion and two others in Coral Gables as part of an alleged conspiracy to launder $1.2 billion embezzled from Venezuela’s oil company. Authorities charge an elaborate network designed to clean money taken from state-run Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, and place funds in fake investments and South Florida real estate.
Federal authorities want to seize two estates in Coral Gables’ affluent Cocoplum enclave — a 4,190-square-foot, five-bedroom home at 194 Isla Dorada Blvd. and a 4,677-square-foot, four-bedroom home at 6905 Prado Blvd. — plus a 3,962-square-foot, three-bedroom home at 597 Hibiscus Lane in Miami’s Bay Point neighborhood, according to forfeiture notices filed Aug. 29. Also, there’s a forfeiture notice for a 38,200-square-foot vacant lot in Coral Gables.
Read the entire article here at: law.com
(9/5/18 -- Empowering Mississippi)
Advocates Recognize Officials for Ending Administrative Forfeiture in Mississippi
Mississippi joins a number of other states reforming their civil asset forfeiture laws thanks to state officials. This week, Empower Mississippi joined the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Mississippi Justice Institute, The American Conservative Union, FreedomWorks, Right on Crime, and The Heritage Foundation in a letter applauding legislative leadership for allowing administrative forfeiture’s sunset provision to become law this year. The sunset provision was a measure within the statute that provided that the law would cease to have effect at the end of July 2018 unless further legislative action was taken to extend the law. And, lawmakers took no further action on the law.
Read the entire article here at: empowerms.org
(9/5/18 -- Newsday)
Suffolk lawmakers OK asset forfeiture bill
A bill passed by Suffolk lawmakers on Wednesday prevents law enforcement agencies from using asset forfeiture funds for employee bonuses and gives legislators oversight on purchases with unds that exceed $20,000. Bill sponsor Legis. Rob Calarco (D-Patchogue) said it would provide a check on spending of the funds collected during criminal investigations, which are used by the district attorney, police, sheriff and probation departments without legislative approval. Under previous District Attorney Thomas Spota, $3.25 million in bonuses was paid to attorneys from 2012 to 2017. His predecessor, James Catterson, used asset forfeiture funds to pinstripe cars and for a secretary’s retirement watch.
The current bill, which passed 15-0, with three abstentions, requires purchases over $20,000 to be reviewed by the county executive, presiding officer and chair of the public safety committee. Within six days, any one of the three can request that the purchase be considered by the public safety committee at its next meeting. They would have the opportunity to discuss the purchase in executive session.
Read the entire article here at: newsday.com
(9/5/18 -- National Law Review)
Use of Tainted Assets to Pay Attorney Fees: A Primer on the Pitfalls
On August 29, the Wall Street Journal reported a story that other news outlets later have picked up: the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is investigating whether Jho Low, a Malaysian businessman at the center of the alleged embezzlement of $4.5 billion from 1Malaysia Development Bhd, is paying – via two intermediaries – his U.S.-based lawyers with allegedly tainted funds. The report states that there is no indication at this time that the U.S. attorneys were aware that the funds could have originated from money Mr. Low allegedly siphoned off from 1MDB. Rather, the investigation centers on Low’s potential use of intermediaries to facilitate the payments. The DOJ already has filed civil forfeiture complaints seeking to recover almost $1.7 billion in various high-end assets from Mr. Low and others allegedly bought with the embezzled funds, and it reportedly is investigating Mr. Low individually for potential criminal charges.
Attorney Fees and Tainted Funds: The Basics -- At bottom, money laundering involves a financial transaction which uses proceeds of certain crimes. The popular understanding of such a transaction is one whereby “dirty” money is placed into a legitimate business or through a nominee account in an effort to “cleanse” the money of criminal taint. However, 18 U.S.C. § 1957 – one of two money laundering statues under the U.S. criminal code – contains no requirement that the government prove an intent to conceal the proceeds of a crime, or any other specific intent, such as an intent to promote the underlying crime. That is, one who simply “knowingly engages” in a monetary transaction involving over $10,000 of “criminally derived property” can be charged under § 1957. Knowledge is the only required mental state, so long as the transaction involves over $10,000
Read the entire article here at: natlawreview.com
(9/5/18 -- Bismarck Tribune)
Standing Rock prosecutor emphasizes due process in forfeiture laws
As a Bismarck lawmaker looks to reform North Dakota's civil asset forfeiture law, a tribal prosecutor highlighted the scope of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's related code. John Wilson, chief prosecutor for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said at the Tribal Leaders Summit on Wednesday in Bismarck that the tribe limits asset forfeiture to drug trafficking cases. Federal prosecutors, however, usually get first crack at a case, as Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement serves Standing Rock.
North Dakota has been rated as one of the "worst" states in the United States by the Institute for Justice for its asset forfeiture laws, stemming from the low burden of proof for forfeiture, the owner's burden to prove their property wasn't involved in a crime and an alleged incentive for law enforcement agencies to confiscate property to fill their coffers.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(9/4/18 -- News Tribune)
Confiscated drug money now going to Bureau County
On paper, it didn’t look like much of a bust: Just 15 grams of marijuana. But inside the car, drug agents found cannabis-drying equipment, a deodorizer and heat-sealed bags and rubber bands — along with $79,621 in cash. Nobody went to prison — not for half an ounce of pot — but it was one of the biggest seizures of 2016 and it didn’t happen in La Salle County. The car was stopped west of Princeton by an interdiction team run by the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Narcotics Team.
Drug interdiction may have been a hot topic in La Salle County that year and, certainly, voter disapproval helped Republican Karen Donnelly become state’s attorney that fall. Her first move was to shut down the county’s disputed interdiction unit, the SAFE Team. But while all that was going on, TRI-DENT quietly launched an interdiction team west of the La Salle County line and now the drug money is lining Princeton’s coffers instead of Ottawa’s.
It’s a rapidly-growing number of couriers paying the price. Drug seizures in Bureau County have climbed nearly 1,000 percent over the past three years, according to a NewsTribune analysis of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, while La Salle County totals have fallen off by about half.
Read the entire article here at: newstrib.com
(8/31/18 -- WTVM)
Selma Police Department forfeiture fund account controversy resolved
A resolution was reached Friday on an issue that was brought to the office of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall out of Selma.
Police Chief Spencer Collier sought an opinion from the attorney general's office Friday. During that conference call, the office told the chief, Wade, the city attorney and the council that the state law allows the chief to be in charge of the funds.
"The attorney general's office made it clear that neither the council nor the finance director has any influence on how forfeiture funds are spent," said Selma Police Chief Spencer Collier.
Read the entire article here at: wtvm.com
(8/31/18 -- WTIU News)
U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Indiana Civil Forfeiture Case
An Indiana law allows police to seize thousands of dollars worth of property if they think it’s involved in a suspected crime – regardless of whether the person who owns it is ever convicted. The country’s highest court is set to hear a challenge to one aspect of that civil forfeiture law later this year.
A Marion resident named Tyson Timbs claims police violated the Eight Amendment’s excessive fines clause when they seized his vehicle – worth more than $40,000 – because he used it to transport a few hundred dollars worth of drugs. The case will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. And while it started as an attempt to get his vehicle back, Timbs says it’s now about something bigger.
The trial court ruled in Timbs' favor, saying the vehicle was worth more than four times the maximum penalty he could face in criminal court. And, the Indiana Court of Appeals also sided with Timbs. The ruling says the seizure was disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. But, the Indiana Supreme Court took a different stance.
Read the entire article here at: indianapublicmedia.org
(8/31/18 -- The Wetsern News)
Bits n’ pieces from east, west and beyond
Using civil asset forfeiture laws intended to cripple drug kingpins, law enforcement took more from people in 2015 than burglars did — $5 billion. According to Peter Kraska, PhD, professor at the School of Justice Studies, the “takings” are often from low-income people who, without an attorney, are forced to accept the loss. A 2018 report, Policing for Profit, says civil asset forfeiture has turned into a state-theft “industry.”
(8/30/18 -- WTVM 9)
Selma police department funding runs into controversy
The Selma Police Department's forfeiture account has suddenly become the center of controversy and the chief is none too happy about it. "I can tell you in 22 years, I have never seen an attempt like this," said Selma Police Chief Spencer Collier.
Collier is pointing the finger at Finance Director Ronita Wade for getting involved in something she allegedly has no clue about, the police department's forfeiture account. "These are funds derived from narcotic trades or illegal weapon trades," said Collier.
According to the chief, Wade wants to take over the account to the point where the police department has to get permission to use the money to buy more police equipment. Wade reportedly introduced the idea to the Selma city council earlier this summer. This week, the council voted to table the idea at a later date.
Read the entire article here at: wtvm.com
(8/29/18 -- Breitbart)
WV State Trooper Allegedly Took 10K from Couple Without Charging Them
Dimitrios Patlias and Tonya Smith were stopped by a West Virginia state trooper on the highway who allegedly confiscated their money and gift cards without even charging them with a crime. Smith says that the state trooper pulled them over and searched their persons, vehicle, and Smith’s purse. The couple was accused of smuggling cigarettes, having drugs in the car, and committing gift card fraud. It appears, however, that the pair had done nothing wrong.
Officer “Walker” allegedly took $10,478 dollars in cash as well as 78 gift cards from the pair. Patlias and Smith were headed to Jefferson County’s Hollywood Casino but were forced to turn around and return to their Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, home. “It was a disgusting way of being treated,” Smith said. “We work hard for our money.”
While supporters of the West Virginia forfeiture laws that allow these things to happen point out their effectiveness against the illegal drug trade, Smith is not convinced. “To me, this law, now that I’ve learned of it, it turns police officers into dishonest crooks,” she said. “I feel like I was in a movie.”
On Thursday, an officer returned Patlias and Smith’s property to them in full. A state police spokesman has confirmed that “a complaint was made by Mr. Patlias,” and an Internal Affairs investigation is now “ongoing.” Smith said that the incident has left “a bad taste in her mouth.”
Read the entire article here at: breitbart.com
(8/29/18 -- Salt Lake City Weekly)
Forfeiture's Demise
If asset forfeiture seems awfully wrong to you, it kind of is. The practice has long been a tool of law enforcement to get the bad guys before they can take off with the money. Congress was responding to that troublesome War on Drugs with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The idea is to catch the bad guys and take all their money, homes, cars—everything—before they're charged or convicted. Problems arise, however, when you catch an innocent person. In Utah, the Supreme Court has sided with a man who lost $500,000 for being accused of following another car too closely, the Deseret News reported. And many other states are jumping on the bandwagon. This might be the beginning of the end. The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing its first case on asset forfeiture in 20 years, according to Forbes magazine.
(8/27/18 -- Macomb Daily)
County treasurer wants state review of prosecutor's "off book" bank accounts
An emerging scandal in the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office or a rush to judgement by an inexperienced treasurer? That was the question floating Monday in the County Administration Building in Mount Clemens after Macomb County Treasurer Lawrence Rocca sent a letter to state officials, asking them to investigate the findings of a recent audit of the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office. The audit found four so-called secret bank accounts totaling more than $250,000 handled by Prosecutor Eric Smith.
According to Rocca's letter, during the county's external financial audit, which was conducted by the accounting firm of Plante Moran PLLC, auditors discovered four bank accounts that were not recorded on the county's general ledger. Copies of checks sent from "off book" funds from asset forfeitures as when property is seized in criminal cases -- such as vehicles in drunk driving cases or cash held by drug dealers -- were deposited by the prosecutor's staff into Chemical Bank. The accounts have funds totaling $239,581 as of Aug. 21, according to the letter.
Other items of concern listed by the county treasurer:
* The accounts have a tax ID number that doesn't belong to Macomb County
* The accounts have three signers of record -- Smith, Langtry, and Assistant Prosecutor -- and former County Treasurer -- Derek Miller
* Two of the accounts had recently had tax ID numbers changed from the county to a third-party tax ID. Rocca found it "especially concerning" because the change was made June 5, one day after his office began asking questions about it
* The prosecutor's office had told Rocca's staff it had only one bank account under its control
Read the entire article here at: macombdaily.com
(8/27/18 -- WXYZ Detroit)
Macomb Co. treasurer asking state treasury department to investigate county prosecutor
7 Action News has learned the Macomb County Treasurer is asking the Michigan Treasury Department to conduct an investigation into Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith and 4 "off book" bank accounts. This has been confirmed by Chief Deputy Treasurer Joe Biondo.
According to the letter dated last Thursday, one account was discovered in June by auditors. During the summer months, it was then discovered it was not one, but four "off book" accounts with a combined balance of more than a quarter of a million dollars: $239,581 as of August 21.
The Macomb County Prosecutor's Office released the following statement in response: "The letter released by Macomb County Treasurer, Larry Rocca, shines a light on his lack of experience and knowledge of the State forfeiture laws. Contrary to Rocca’s belief, these forfeiture funds cannot be improperly co-mingled with the County’s general fund budget, including being used for employee salary and benefits. The previous two Treasurers of the County were aware of these funds and confident that they were protected and applied to serve the men and women of law enforcement and the victims of crimes in this County.
Read the entire article here at: wxyz.com
(8/25/18 -- Deseret News)
Utah Supreme Court sides with man who wants to recover $500K seized in traffic stop
A jury found he was not guilty of a traffic violation in February, but a Utah man still has not recouped the $500,000 in cash troopers seized when they cited him for following another car too closely in 2016. Kyle Savely last week got much closer to recovering the money after the Utah Supreme Court ruled in his favor. A lower Utah court had the power to order the cash be returned to him even after the federal government sought to take the money, the opinion states.
The unanimous decision surrounds a Utah law allowing police to seize property they suspect is linked to a crime, even if the owner isn't charged or convicted. The Tuesday ruling was cheered by civil liberty advocates, who say it closes a loophole that has allowed police to skirt protections in the law by handing off the property to the federal government.
"Law enforcement has been deliberately trying to avoid the requirements of Utah law in a number of cases, including this one. The clear message from the Utah Supreme Court is they better follow the law," said Savely's attorney, James Bradshaw.
The Utah Attorney General's Office and the Utah Department of Public Safety, which oversees the Highway Patrol, declined to comment on the outcome of the case.
Bradshaw would not say why his client was carrying 52 bundles of cash at the time of the traffic stop, but emphasized there was no evidence that his possession of the money was illegal. He declined to make his client available for an interview and said he would soon ask again in court filings for the money to be returned.
Read the entire article here at: deseretnews.com
(8/25/18 -- Charleston Gazette-Mail)
WV State Police seize $10K from couple without charging them with a crime
A West Virginia State Police trooper issued Dimitrios Patlias a warning for failing to drive within his lane, just before seizing more than $10,000 in cash from him and his wife.
On June 9, Tonya Smith — who was almost eight months pregnant — and Patlias were headed to the Hollywood Casino in Jefferson County. They had capitalized on several promotional offers and had 13 and 14 (respectively) $100 gift cards on them, along with the cash. The trooper pulled them over, Smith said in an interview, and ranged from accusing them of smuggling cigarettes, to having drugs in the car, to gift card fraud. After searching the car, their persons, and Smith’s purse, the trooper let them go with a uniform warning citation. However, he also took the $10,478 in cash, the 78 “gift cards” in the car, and Patlias’ smartphone, according to a property disposition report. Smith said 27 of those cards were gift cards, the rest of them were the kind of rewards program cards you get from any chain business. Patlias and Smith wound up returning to their home in Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, stripped of all their cash but $2, without ever having been charged with a crime.
“It was a disgusting way of being treated,” Smith, a nurse, said. “We work hard for our money.”
In February, the state House Judiciary Committee considered a bill that would tie civil asset forfeiture to its respective criminal proceeding, i.e., if you’re acquitted criminally, the seized property cannot be forfeited. The bill died in committee.
After the Gazette-Mail reached out to the state police Monday with inquiries about the seizure, and after weeks of Smith calling police, the Jefferson County prosecuting attorney and local politicians, Smith said an officer returned her and Patlias’ possessions in full Thursday evening.
When asked a number of questions about the seizure of Patlias and Smith’s property Tuesday, a state police spokesman confirmed the details but said he did not know whether the seized property had yet been forfeited.
Read the entire article here at: wvgazettemail.com
(8/22/18 -- HuffPost)
Manafort’s Convicted. So What Happens To His Houses, Ostrich Jacket And Luxury Suits?
Among the most engrossing parts of Paul Manafort’s trial were details of how the former Trump campaign manager spent millions of dollars on real estate and luxury goods, including a $15,000 ostrich-skin jacket, using money from offshore accounts that he didn’t pay taxes on. Now that Manafort is behind bars for the foreseeable future, what happens to all his stuff?
Hollywood loves a good montage of government agents seizing Lamborghinis and gilded homes from corrupt executives and criminal kingpins. But while it’s possible that Manafort’s lavish possessions will eventually end up being taken away from him and sold to the highest bidder, there’s a long way to go before that happens.
A federal jury convicted Paul Manafort on Tuesday on a myriad of crimes relating to tax and bank fraud, deciding he was guilty on eight charges that could amount to 80 years in prison. But not all of Manafort’s guilty counts are subject to criminal forfeiture laws. Those laws say that the government can only take control of an individual’s property for certain crimes. Tax fraud, which accounted for five of Manafort’s eight guilty verdicts, isn’t on the list.
Manafort was also convicted on two counts of bank fraud, however, which are subject to criminal forfeiture. To be able to seize those assets, the court has to determine there is a close enough connection between Manafort’s property and his crimes for him to lose ownership. But experts say that in the case of bank fraud, it can be hard to prove exactly how much money someone gained through criminally misrepresenting themselves.
Read the entire article here at: huffingtonpost.com
(8/22/18 -- 2KUTV)
Utah Highway Patrol may have to return $500,000 that it seized during traffic stops.
The Utah Supreme Court voted unanimously against the Utah Highway Patrol, stating they violated state law Wednesday, according to a news release. In the case Savely v. UHP, nearly a half a million dollars was taken through civil asset forfeiture. It was then transferred to the federal government in violation of state laws, which prohibit such transfers except in rare circumstances.
"The public is rightly outraged by laws that allow the government to take property from people not charged with a crime, as was the case here," Connor Boyack, president of Libertas Institute said in a press release. "It's even worse when state laws designed to protect a property owner's rights are not followed by state agencies, which is why we're very pleased to see the state's highest court unanimously holding them accountable."
Read the entire article here at: kutv.com
(8/20/18 -- The Columbian)
Vehicles seized by Clark County Sheriff’s Office released.
The Clark County Sheriff’s Office and Clark-Vancouver Regional Drug Task Force have agreed to return three vehicles allegedly involved in drug trafficking to their owners. The county also agreed to pay $10,000 to the owners for damage the vehicles may have sustained while they were seized.
In Washington, law enforcement can seize equipment, vehicles and other property allegedly used to manufacture or transport controlled substances. The law allows owners of this property to challenge the seizure.
Read the entire article here at: columbian.com
(8/17/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
North Dakota Needs Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
In recent years, states have taken many steps toward limiting the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize property from criminal suspects without conclusive evidence a crime was committed, a process known as civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture can also be completed without bringing criminal charges against those whose assets have been seized. The standard of proof permitting seizure differs from state to state. Since 2014, 24 states have comprehensively reformed their forfeiture laws, with 14 states now requiring a criminal conviction before assets are seized. Three states have even banned the practice altogether.
A recent story displaying a Dakota Access Pipeline protester’s fight to reclaim a pickup truck shines a bright light on North Dakota’s egregious civil asset forfeiture laws, which remain among the worst in the nation. In 2016, during a Thanksgiving Day protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline in Mandan, Aaron Dorn was arrested and charged with felony reckless endangerment. According to a state trooper, Dorn was arrested after trying to swerve his vehicle, a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado, to hit the trooper’s car. Following the arrest, the truck was seized under the state’s forfeiture laws. Despite having been acquitted of the charges during a trial in June, Dorn has not yet recovered his vehicle, which he argues is needed to help provide for his household.
Along with Massachusetts, North Dakota has the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country, with analysts at the nonpartisan Institute for Justice giving the state an “F” grade in their report card of state civil asset forfeiture laws. In many states, a much higher standard of evidence is required to seize property – generally a conviction or a preponderance of the evidence. In North Dakota, law enforcement agencies are allowed to seize property if they have probable cause that the property was involved in illegal activity.
Read the entire article here at: heartland.org
(8/16/18 -- ABC33/40)
Feds seek suspected dealer's bitcoins after 60 pound pill bust
The 'Feds' are after a suspect's cryptocurrency, after law enforcement members say he was busted for selling about 60 pounds of pills through the mail. Court documents show $17,400, 6.19 bitcoins and 6.23 bitcoin cash were confiscated from Henry Nguyen's St. Clair County, AL, home during a federal search and seizure warrant. Bitcoins market value is at about $6,000 each right now and Bitcoin Cash is about $500.
Without a password or warrant, they cannot be taken out of the account. So, the feds have filed a complaint for forfeiture. Also seized from another home, materials and drugs used in a massive drug manufacturing operation.
Nguyen's attorney Mike Hanle says the federal government is coming after that cash and coin before federal criminal charges are even filed.
Read the entire article here at: abc3340.com
(8/16/18 -- WJAC)
Centre County, PA, first to make drug forfeiture reports available to public
Centre County District Attorney Bernie Cantorna announced Thursday that he will make the county's drug forfeiture reports public, the first county to do so in the state. As part of that announcement, Cantorna said he will be releasing all reports from 2013 to 2017.
“If we are going to hold public officials accountable, we must have transparency,” said Cantorna. “From now on, annual drug forfeiture reports will be made public in Centre County."
Read the entire article here at: wjactv.com
(8/15/18 -- Topeka Capital-Journal)
Forfeiture and Seizure Act undermines liberty
The more rights you think you have, the more your rights are taken away. The Civil Asset Forfeiture law — yes, I said law — is simply one many cannot believe!
The Standard Asset Forfeiture and Seizure Act was passed in 1994 (Rep. Gail Finney has been vocal in sharing how this law threatens our constitutional rights). In July 2018, an amendment to the HB2459 bill was passed that requires a repository to gather information concerning each seizure for forfeiture made by a seizing agency.
Before this amendment, there was no law in existence in Kansas that would require an accounting of property seized.
First, many citizens may not have known that their property or cash could be seized even if they were not charged or convicted of a crime! If you think that you are out of harm’s way because you were only stopped and not charged or arrested for a traffic infraction, think again. If a warrant is obtained for items A, B and C and they also take Item D and you want to try to sue the law enforcement agency to get your item D, property or cash back, guess what? You pay the cost of the forfeiture action, including attorney fees.
The amendment to HB2459 fortunately requires the KBI to maintain the repository and an associated public website. The agency, however, has nearly a whole year to do so. So, law enforcement agencies on or before Feb. 1, 2020, must annually compile and submit their forfeiture fund reports to the repository. Perhaps too little, too late.
Read the entire article here at: cjonline.com
(8/14/18 -- Enterprise)
Fullertons settle YONET asset-forfeiture case
A retired UC Davis fire captain whose Woodland home and hydroponics business were raided by a Yolo County drug task force in 2016 has prevailed in a civil asset forfeiture case seeking the return of cash seized during the operation. An agreement affirmed Monday in Yolo Superior Court calls for the release of just over $53,000to Paul and Maricel Fullerton and four of their store clients, out of about $55,000 initially sought.
The Fullertons at one point faced felony drug-sales, child-endangerment and weapon-related charges following the Feb. 18, 2016, raids by the Yolo County Narcotic Enforcement Team. Only Paul Fullerton was convicted, pleading no contest to misdemeanor counts of possessing marijuana for sales as part of a plea deal in which the remainder of his charges and his wife’s case were dismissed, though he denied he sold marijuana at all.
Read the entire article here at: davisenterprise.com
(8/14/18 -- Lakeshore Weekly News)
Feds announce $16.4 million recovered for investor victims of Thomas Petters
The Department of Justice announced Monday, Aug. 13, that an initial distribution of $16.4 million has been issued to victim investors of the Thomas Petters fraud scheme. These funds, forfeited to the United States through criminal and civil forfeiture proceedings prosecuted in Minnesota, will be sent to about 364 victims worldwide, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis.
Additional forfeited funds will be distributed to victim investors through the remission process when pending forfeiture proceedings are completed. The total distribution amount is yet to be determined. Exactly how much of the nearly half a billion dollars seized from Petters remains to be distributed has not yet been announced.
Read the entire article here at: swnewsmedia.com
(8/14/18 -- New York Law Journal)
Asset Forfeiture: A Field Guide
While asset forfeiture is commonly thought of as applying to personal property, such as a vehicle used to illegally transport narcotics, in their Transactional Real Estate column, Peter Fisch and Mitchell Berg discuss its application to real property.
Asset forfeiture is a process by which the federal government of the United States may seize, without compensation, any privately-owned real or personal property that facilitated or was otherwise involved in the commission of certain types of criminal activities. The government may initiate forfeiture proceedings in either civil or criminal court depending on the underlying violation, and civil and criminal forfeitures are governed by distinct sets of statutory rules. While asset forfeiture is commonly thought of as applying to personal property, such as a vehicle used to illegally transport narcotics, this article will discuss its application to real property. Consider the high-profile seizure of the midtown-Manhattan skyscraper at 650 Fifth Avenue: in what is being called the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in U.S. history, the federal government seized the billion-dollar property after a jury concluded that its owners had violated monetary sanctions against Iran and had engaged in money laundering schemes.
The risks of real property forfeiture are not limited to anti-money laundering or terrorism-related violations. With many state legislatures legalizing the medical and recreational use of marijuana, potential criminal forfeitures stemming from violations of the Controlled Substances Act—which may be enforced with respect to marijuana notwithstanding the liberalization of state law—leave landlords, lenders, and tenants exposed to greater risk of losing their property interests.
Read the entire analysis here at: law.com
(8/8/18 -- Orlando Sentinel)
Leesburg ringleader of 'massive' meth, heroin operation indicted, will lose Porsche, Corvette
The federal government plans to use forfeiture laws to seize a 2016 Porsche Panamera and other vehicles from a Leesburg man accused of being the ringleader of a “massive” methamphetamine and heroin operation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Wednesday.
Charlie Wayne Harrison Jr., 32, and 10 co-conspirators have been indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of meth in Lake, Sumter, Marion and Pinellas counties, William Daniels of the federal prosecutor’s office said. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration seized 14.5 kilograms of pure crystal meth, 5.5 kilos of heroin, 19 firearms and about 6 pounds of gold jewelry valued at about $95,000, he said. Law officers also seized $1,171,353 in cash, alleged to be profits of Harrison’s drug organization, Daniels said.
Read the entire article here at: orlandosentinel.com
(8/7/18 -- Watchdog)
Bipartisan group urges Congress to reform civil asset forfeiture laws
A bipartisan group of nonprofits is urging Congress to begin remedying what has been dubbed “policing for profit” – pernicious civil asset forfeiture proceedings on the part of federal, state and local law enforcement authorities.
Asset owners often never receive any official notice that federal civil forfeiture proceedings are under way, or instructions as to how to respond and contest their loss, according to the Institute for Justice, a non-profit law firm that has emerged as a leading agent of asset forfeiture reform at both the state and national levels.
Federal civil forfeiture policy and practice circumvents state law, according to 20 non-profit civil organizations that signed a July 26 letter to Congress urging members to begin reforms.
State and local law enforcement authorities made about 62,000 cash seizures totaling nearly $2.5 billion on the nation's highways without producing a search warrant or outstanding criminal indictment as part of federal civil forfeiture actions from 2001-2014, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Darpana Sheth told Watchdog.
Read the entire article here at: watchdog.org
(8/7/18 -- Grand Forks Herald)
Charges dropped in second large I-94 drug bust; same Stutsman deputy made both arrests
The Stutsman County State's Attorney's Office moved to dismiss drug charges against two people Friday at the request of the Stutsman County Sheriff's Office, according to court documents. "After reviewing the case and going over it with the state's attorney, we found some issues with the case," said Chad Kaiser, Stutsman County sheriff. "We felt it was best to dismiss the case."
Mae Thao, 32, St. Paul, and Xang Thao, 30, Redding, Calif., were charged in December 2017 with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class A felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The move comes after charges were dropped in another large drug bust in Stutsman County earlier this year after a judge ruled the traffic stop leading to the arrests was not justified. The same officer, Stutsman County Sheriff's Deputy Matt Thom, made the arrests in both cases.
Kaiser said the drugs seized in the cases will be destroyed. Law enforcement officials are exploring seizing the vehicles used in both cases and cash seized during the arrest of Mae Thao and Xang Thao under North Dakota's civil asset forfeiture law.
Read the entire article here at: grandforksherald.com
(8/6/18 -- American Civil Liberties Union)
Federal Judge Declares ‘Policing for Profit’ Unconstitutional
Anybody who has watched at least one episode of Law & Order knows that in America, anyone accused of a crime is considered “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s the way it should be, at least. When a person is accused of a crime, the burden of proof belongs to the accuser. But what most people don’t realize is that police routinely use a constitutionally dubious form of legal jiu-jitsu called “civil asset forfeiture” to flip this basic principle of fairness on its head. With civil asset forfeiture, police literally accuse your stuff of a crime, and you as the owner have to prove that your stuff is innocent.
In 2015, the ACLU of New Mexico, in collaboration with the Institute for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Rio Grande Foundation, helped pass a bill that abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring police to obtain a criminal conviction in court before they can take a person’s property. The bill also requires that any forfeited assets must go into a state general fund to reduce the profit motive inherent in this law enforcement practice. The bill passed unanimously, and New Mexico now has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture in the nation.
But several New Mexico police departments were too addicted to the easy money. The Albuquerque Police Department, among others, refused to fully comply with the new state law claiming that it didn’t apply to their DWI vehicle seizure program. Albuquerque police continued to seize thousands of vehicles pre-conviction and demand thousands of dollars in “fees” to secure their return. If people couldn’t pay the ransom, the department kept the vehicle.
A federal judge just handed down a landmark ruling that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program violates residents’ constitutional rights by taking their property before they’ve been convicted of a crime. This is a major moment in the fight against the unjust practice of civil asset forfeiture. Not only will New Mexico law enforcement agencies be forced to comply with our state prohibition against the practice, but this victory establishes an important legal precedent that victims of civil asset forfeiture can use to fight back nationwide
Read the entire article here at: aclu.org
(8/6/18 -- Reason)
The Justice Department Didn't Charge Him With a Crime. It's Going to Take $39,000 from Him Anyway
In order to get back any of the money that the New Hampshire State Police took from him, Edward Phipps has agreed to let federal prosecutors keep most of it, even though he has not been charged with any crimes.
The cops took the cash during a traffic stop in 2016. Phipps wasn't even in the car at the time. The police pulled the driver over for tailgating and for going one whole mile per hour over the speed limit. A search turned up a bag full of $46,000 cash in the trunk. Police then brought in a drug-sniffing dog, which came up empty. Though they have presented no evidence of any criminal act, police took the money and federal prosecutors declared their intent to force the forfeiture of the funds, so they could keep it. Phipps came forward in July 2017 to indicate that the cash was his, and he said it was obtained legally.
We took note of this case back in March, and it looks like the Justice Department succeeded in getting its way. As part of a settlement, Phipps has agreed to give the Department of Justice $39,000 of the $46,000 seized.
This wasn't supposed to happen. New Hampshire reformed its civil asset forfeiture laws in 2016 to require a criminal conviction before police or prosecutors could force people to forfeit money or property. Unfortunately, the state's reform did not close a loophole that lets local police partner with the feds in a program called Equitable Sharing. In this system, local police use the federal asset forfeiture program instead of their own and then the Justice Department distributes most of the forfeited money back to local law enforcement.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(8/5/18 -- In Forum)
A North Dakota law allowing cops to seize property without a conviction is in need of reform
Consider this scenario: A man who sympathizes with a protest movement is inspired to drive thousands of miles from his home to deliver supplies to demonstrators. He decides to take part in a protest. He is accused of swerving and trying to ram into traffic. His pickup truck is seized by law enforcement officers. He is acquitted of the charges—but now finds himself in protracted and expensive civil litigation to get back his truck, which he depends on for his livelihood. Sound far fetched? It happened to Aaron Dorn, a New York man, who was arrested in 2016 in Mandan. He's still trying to get back his truck. Yet the confiscation of his property was perfectly legal—and utterly unjust.
It's a process called civil forfeiture, and it's intended to deprive criminals of assets they've accumulated illegally. That sounds good, and few would argue with taking away ill-gotten gains from a drug dealer, once he's been convicted. But as Dorn's case illustrates, civil forfeiture is ripe for abuse. A suspect's property can be confiscated long before a trial in North Dakota. And what is the burden of proof that law enforcement officers must meet to seize the property of a suspect who is presumed not guilty in criminal court? A low standard—the lowest allowed—probable cause. Then, as Dorn learned, even after an acquittal the burden of proof falls on his shoulders; he must prove to a judge's satisfaction that his property wasn't used for criminal purposes.
North Dakota's reform effort fizzled in the 2017 session, despite attention on the law's potential for abuse. Police officials and prosecutors, including Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, assured lawmakers that law enforcement officials and judges strive to implement the civil forfeiture law fairly. Defense lawyers and legal rights activists testified in favor of the reform bill, contending there are in fact abuses; one lawmaker said he knew of "dozens" of cases.
In fact, nobody really knows how many Aaron Dorns are out there. That's because North Dakota doesn't require any reporting on civil asset forfeitures. We do know, however, that they add up. The reform bill would have meant substantial reductions in the amount of forfeitures law enforcement agencies could keep. The impact per biennium was estimated at $540,000: $300,000 for the Highway Patrol, $200,000 for the Office of the Attorney General and $40,000 for the Game and Fish Department.
Read the entire opinion here at: inforum.com
(8/5/18 -- New Hampshire Union Leader)
Feds keep most of $46,000 seized by NH trooper from Maine man without criminal charges
Federal prosecutors have agreed to return $7,000 to a Maine man as part of a settlement stemming from the seizure of $46,000 in cash during a traffic stop on I-95 in 2016.
A state police trooper stopped Alexander Temple, of Portland, Maine, for moving violations and conducted a search of the vehicle, discovering the stacks of bills in a paper bag. Temple was never charged with a crime related to the money, but the U.S. Attorney’s office seized the cash through a process known as civil asset forfeiture.
The practice has been widely criticized by civil liberties groups on both sides of the political spectrum. The federal asset forfeiture program, known as equitable sharing, was partially curtailed by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2015, but current Attorney General Jeff Sessions revived it in 2017. Civil asset forfeiture allows police and prosecutors to seize money or property they believe to used in, or the proceeds of, a crime without having to charge the owner with committing a crime. Once the asset is in the government's possession, the burden of proof is on the owner to demonstrate that the property was legally obtained and used. If the owner does not succeed in meeting that burden of proof, the prosecutors and police divvy up the proceeds.
This year, the state Senate passed legislation that would limit state and local law enforcement agencies from referring civil forfeiture cases to the federal government unless the amount in question exceeds $100,000. The bill is in interim study in the House.
Read the entire article here at: unionleader.com
(8/2/18 -- Everett Independent)
Candidate for Middlesex County, MA, District Attorney pledges to end civil forfeiture if elected
Donna Patalano says, "Being District Attorney is about more than just prosecuting crimes. According to a 2017 ACLU poll, 60 percent of Massachusetts voters were surprised to learn that District Attorneys can take away money and property from people even if they haven’t been convicted of a crime. This process is called civil asset forfeiture and it allows prosecutors to seize any property that police believe is connected to criminal activity following an arrest. Massachusetts laws regarding asset forfeiture are archaic. The Institute of Justice has given Massachusetts an “F” rating for its asset forfeiture laws and practices.
"On my first day as District Attorney, I will change asset forfeiture practices in Middlesex County. The District Attorney doesn’t need to wait for the legislature to pass different laws to make this change. No property will be “forfeited” until someone is convicted of a crime. It’s that simple. I will also release information about what property is taken and who the property is taken from (demographic data and convictions)."
Read the entire statement here at: everettindependent.com
(8/1/18 -- Forbes)
Federal Judge Remarkably Upholds Upholds Innocent Until Proven Guilty Defense
In a landmark decision, a federal court ruled that Albuquerque’s civil forfeiture program “violates procedural due process” because it forced hundreds of property owners to prove their own innocence. With his ruling spanning over 100 pages, Judge James Browning also found that the city’s “forfeiture officials have an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases,” since the program has “de facto power over its spending…the more revenue it raises, the more revenue it can spend.” Thanks to this incentive to police for profit, the city’s forfeiture program “generated $11.8 million in revenue in the form of forfeitures, settlements and fees,” between fiscal 2009 and 2016. The program was so lucrative, revenues actually exceeded expenses for four of those years.
Judge Browning’s ruling is the latest flashpoint in the battle against civil forfeiture in New Mexico, which has been a surprising hotbed for reform. Back in 2014, the Institute for Justice and The New York Times exposed a vehicle forfeiture conference where New Mexico law enforcement officials made a series of startling statements, including calling civil forfeiture a “gold mine” that offered “little goodies.”
Spurred in part by those Kinsley gaffes, lawmakers unanimously approved legislation to abolish civil forfeiture throughout the state. When the law took effect in July 2015, New Mexico became the second state (following North Carolina) to only allow criminal forfeiture, which requires a criminal conviction to forfeit property.
Yet Albuquerque refused to comply with the new state law, and continued to seize cars under its municipal forfeiture ordinance. As the city’s chief hearing officer revealed in the infamous 2014 conference video, “about half of the vehicles that APD seizes are not owned by the offender that we confiscate it from.” Instead, the vehicle owners are “the mothers, the fathers, the wives, the girlfriends, the brothers, [and] the uncles” of the offenders.
Browning rejected the city’s argument that its probable-cause hearings were sufficient to protect due process. “Proving that the City of Albuquerque has probable cause to seize a vehicle does not reveal anything about what the vehicle’s owner could or could not have reasonably foreseen,” he noted. Those hearings require the city “to prove nothing about the car owner.”
Should other courts adopt Browning’s reasoning, it could have a major impact. Today, only 16 states (including New Mexico) and Washington, DC put the burden of proof on the government for innocent-owner claims.
Read the entire article here at: forbes.com
(8/1/18 -- Legal Reader)
Seizing Property a Subject Up for Debate in Michigan Lawsuit
Stephen Nichols, 42, is part of a class-action federal lawsuit filed in June involving himself and two others whose vehicles were seized by Detroit area police never to be seen again. Nichols was pulled over in Lincoln Park on July 2, 2015. He didn’t have valid insurance, so his 1998 Toyota Avalon was taken away and his property is still impounded in a Brownstown Township lot. The lawsuit alleges the drivers’ 14th Amendment due process rights were violated when their vehicles were seized and impounded. Wayne County prosecutors and sheriffs are defendants in the lawsuit. “Mr. Nichols still hasn’t had a hearing, which is ridiculous,” said Shaun Godwin, attorney for the plaintiffs. “The law says prosecutors have to bring a case promptly, but it’s not defined under the law what ‘promptly’ is.”
Ed Zelenak, attorney for the City of Lincoln Park, which also is named in the lawsuit, confirmed Nichols pleaded guilty to having fraudulent insurance at the time. Yet, critics of property forfeitures say they violate the law’s presumption of innocence. The case is seeking unspecified damages, and closely follows a bill approved in May by the state House requiring Michigan police to secure a criminal conviction before seizing property.
The Supreme Court has historically rejected challenges to civil forfeitures, including the landmark 1996 case of a Royal Oak resident, Tina Bennis, who said her car was improperly seized because she didn’t know her husband had used it to pick up a prostitute. “Normally, the Supreme Court has looked at these cases as violations of the Fourth Amendment (which covers probable cause and unreasonable search and seizure), and they’ve been upheld, but now they’ll look at it from a different perspective,” said Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, at the time. “The argument the court will now hear is that forfeitures constitute an unreasonable fine on people’s assets. It’ll be interesting to see how they rule.”
Last year, Michigan police seized an estimated $13 million in civil property, according to the state police 2018 Asset Forfeiture Report. Of this number, 736 people were not charged with a crime and 220 were charged but not convicted. Another 228 weren’t charged because they cooperated.
Read the entire article here at: legalreader.com
(7/31/18 -- My Champlain Valley)
Vermont Idiots Actually Proud of Their Forfeiture Program
Securing nearly 300 miles of the Canadian border is a difficult job for the U.S. Border Patrol. But, thanks to a federal law that allows local agencies to collect up to 10 percent of assets seized in a Border Patrol arrest, local law enforcement have an incentive to help crack down on illegal activity.
"Over the last several years, Swanton (Sector) has shared almost $300,000 to local agencies, along with various equipment, to include a vehicle and a boat," Robert Dandrow, acting deputy patrol agent of the Swanton Sector Intelligence Unit cluelessly boasted.
In 2005, agents say a New Jersey man, Luis Cordero, was arrested trying to smuggle $400,000 in cash across the border in a pickup truck. The Franklin County Sheriff's Department, the South Burlington Police Department received $40,000 each.
Read the entire article here at: mychamplainvalley.com
(7/30/18 -- Santa Fe - New Mexican)
Federal judge finds Albuquerque vehicle forfeiture program unconstitutional
A federal judge has ruled Albuquerque’s vehicle forfeiture program unconstitutional, saying it flips the concept of innocent until proven guilty by forcing property owners to assume the burden of proving their innocence and creates a financial incentive for police to seize property.
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller announced in April that the city would discontinue the program in light of the constitutional challenges, but the decision handed down Monday by United States District Court Judge James O. Browning also could have consequences for the city and county of Santa Fe.
Browning’s ruling decides a lawsuit filed by an Albuquerque woman, Arlene Harjo, against the city of Albuquerque. Harjo was represented by the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based public interest law firm intent on eradicating programs that promote “policing for profit.”
Sheriff’s Office spokesman Juan Rios confirmed in an email that the county stopped enforcing its ordinance July 25, two days after The New Mexican reported the Sheriff’s Office — and nearly every other law enforcement agency in the state — had not been complying with a portion of the state forfeiture law created in 2015 that requires them to file annual reports that detail whether they had seized any property.
The city of Santa Fe — which made close to $500,000 from the sale of forfeited vehicles in 2017 — has been defending its program in several pending court cases. Former City Attorney Alfred R. Walker took the position in those cases that the 2015 changes to state law — including those that ban civil forfeiture without a conviction and require proceeds from forfeited property to be turned over to the state — don’t apply to forfeitures made under the city’s own ordinance.
Read the entire article here at: santafenewmexican.com
(7/30/18 -- Reason)
Federal Judge Rules That Albuquerque's Asset Forfeiture Created an Unconstitutional Profit Incentive
"There is a realistic possibility that forfeiture officials' judgement will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain."
FINALLY calling a spade a spade, a federal judge has ruled that Albuquerque's civil asset forfeiture program violated residents' due process rights by forcing them to prove their innocence to retrieve their cars. Under civil forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner isn't charged with a crime.
The city of Albuquerque "has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years," U.S. District Judge James O. Browning wrote in an order filed Saturday. "Thus, there is a 'realistic possibility' that forfeiture officials' judgment 'will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain'—the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend."
In a statement, Institute for Justice attorney Robert Everett Johnson said the Institute "will undoubtedly use this decision to attack civil forfeiture programs nationwide. Today's ruling is a total victory for fairness, due process and property owners everywhere. The court ruled the government must prove that an owner did something wrong before it can take away their property. Beyond that, the judge ruled that law enforcement cannot benefit financially from revenue generated by a forfeiture program. Together, these rulings strike at the heart of the problem with civil forfeiture."
New Mexico essentially banned civil asset forfeiture in 2015, but Albuquerque argued the state law didn't apply to its own city codes and continued to seize cars.
Shortly after the March opinion was released, Albuquerque officials announced they were ending the city's forfeiture program. But Saturday's decision is still important: Two other New Mexico local governments continue to flout the reform law and seize vehicles, and almost no state or local police departments have complied with new reporting requirements for forfeiture activities.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(7/27/18 -- Bismarck Tribune)
Forfeiture law not fair to the acquitted
Some would argue that North Dakota’s civil asset forfeiture law is akin to legalized theft. The Tribune thinks there’s a lot of truth in that argument. As reporter Jack Dura’s story earlier this week pointed out, the state has one of the toughest forfeiture laws in the country. Under North Dakota law, law enforcement only needs to have probable cause to take cash or property they believe may have been involved in a crime. The burden of proof is on the citizen to establish their property was not used in relation to a crime, as opposed to just being returned to the owner if they are found not guilty. There are cases where the suspect isn’t charged and the property is forfeited.
Law enforcement agencies in the state don’t have to track seizures and can keep the first $200,000 worth of seizures each biennium, then the money goes into the state's general fund. It’s a nice setup -- you can take property, sell it and keep the money and, in many ways, not be held accountable.
Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, who hasn’t been afraid to challenge establishment policies, tried to change the law during the 2017 legislative session. His bill passed the House, but when it was heard in the Senate Becker encountered “forceful testimony against it" by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. Becker couldn’t get one senator to support his bill. He plans to try again in the 2019 session and if that fails he’s considering an initiated measure.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(7/26/18 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Forfeiture abuses continue
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been an enemy of civil forfeiture reform, but apparently some excesses are too much for even his Justice Department to accept.
Last week, federal officials sent a letter to the Gwinnett County sheriff’s office in Georgia asking that it return the forfeiture money it used to buy a souped-up Dodge Charger Hellcat, complete with tinted windows. The feds said the purchase was “extravagant” and that the car “is a high-performance vehicle not typically purchased as part of a traditional fleet of law enforcement vehicles,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
Mr. Sessions’ Justice Department has — perhaps inadvertently — highlighted one of the major inequities stemming from civil forfeiture, which allows police to seize homes, cars, cash and other valuables from owners who have never been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. To make matters worse, many jurisdictions allow departments to keep the proceeds generated from the sale of such assets.
Read the entire opinion here at: reviewjournal.com
(7/26/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
Future of state forfeiture law called into question
Three years ago, the state Legislature made it illegal for a local government to take ownership of property from a defendant before that person is convicted of a crime, like DWI. But the city of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County have claimed that the state law doesn’t apply to them. The two local governments have continued to take vehicles from DWI drivers who are charged with new offenses.
The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office now says it will comply with the state law, but Santa Fe city government has taken the issue to the state Court of Appeals. A federal judge in Albuquerque says in a recent court decision that the DWI forfeiture ordinance in New Mexico’s largest city, which is similar to Santa Fe’s, does not pre-empt the state statute.
Santa Fe County sheriff’s spokesman Juan Rios said it was the county attorney’s interpretation that the sheriff’s office didn’t need to report forfeitures to the DPS, but the department will now comply with the law after receiving inquiries from local reporters and the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va.
Read the entire article here at: abqjournal.com
(7/25/18 -- New Hampshire Union Leader)
Dominican trafficking fentanyl in NH takes plea deal; $942K forfeited in civil action
A resident of the Dominican Republic pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to participating in a fentanyl trafficking conspiracy after selling drugs to undercover agents in Nashua last year. Raul Vantroi Arias Ruiz pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Concord, U.S. Attorney Scott W. Murray announced Wednesday.
According to court documents and statements made in court, from at least December 6, 2016, through May 2, 2017, the defendant arranged for the sale of fentanyl to customers in New Hampshire, using his co-defendant, Yossi Rafael Rincon-Ramirez, to make drug deliveries. Four of the fentanyl sales he arranged during that time period were made in Nashua to an undercover agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Based on those drug buys, law enforcement officers arrested Arias Ruiz at his home in Methuen, Mass., on May 2, 2017. After obtaining a search warrant for the residence, which included two adjacent apartments on the second floor of the building, law enforcement officers found approximately $941,994 in cash and two firearms, along with approximately 90 grams of fentanyl, 20 grams of heroin and 30 pounds of marijuana.
The $941,994 was forfeited to the U.S. in a civil forfeiture proceeding. As part of his plea agreement, Arias Ruiz has agreed to forfeit the firearms. Arias Ruiz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30.
Read the entire article here at: unionleader.com
(7/24/18 -- Bismarck Tribune)
DAPL protest defendant’s case highlights civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota
Aaron Dorn just wants his truck back. He was arrested during a Thanksgiving Day protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 in Mandan and charged with felony reckless endangerment, among other offenses. A state trooper alleged Dorn tried to swerve and ram his vehicle in traffic on Main Street in Mandan.
In June, Dorn was acquitted at trial, but his legal battle isn’t over. Morton County has held his 2003 Chevrolet Silverado since his arrest. Even though Dorn was acquitted, getting his truck back is a separate matter involving civil asset forfeiture, or the law enforcement seizure of property suspected to be involved in criminal activity.
Dorn is facing a tough challenge as the Institute for Justice ranks North Dakota as one of the worst states in the nation for civil asset forfeiture laws based on the state’s low burden for seizure and forfeiture, with no conviction required, only probable cause.
Dorn also said he plans to share his story in future legislative testimony. Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, has sought to reform civil asset forfeiture in North Dakota, taking aim at what he says is a “little known” area of law that was “shocking” to him when he first learned of it.
Becker’s bill to reform aspects of civil asset forfeiture passed the House, but garnered zero votes in the Senate after North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem “gave forceful testimony against it,” Becker said.
Read the entire article here at: bismarcktribune.com
(7/24/18 -- WFAA 8)
FBI seized $77,000 in cash saying it’s drug money
The Federal Bureau of Investigation seized more than $77,000 in cash that was stuffed into two bags and brought to Dallas’ Love Field Airport in January, alleging that the bags smelled like marijuana, according to a complaint for forfeiture filed in federal court on Friday.
The man whose name was on the duffle bag told police they smoked marijuana a day earlier, which he said is why the money smelled. The man told investigators that he was traveling to California to meet with someone about bitcoin trading. He planned to return to Dallas within 24 hours, the complaint said. The woman who owns the backpack also claimed she was traveling to Burbank to trade bitcoins.
Read the entire article here at: wfaa.com
(7/23/18 -- Reason)
Georgia Sheriff Buys $70K Dodge Charger Hellcat With Forfeiture Funds - Now the Justice Department wants the money back
Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway thinks his department's $70,000, 707-horsepower Dodge Charger Hellcat (black with tinted windows, natch) is a perfectly normal policing tool to buy with federal asset forfeiture funds. The U.S. Department of Justice disagrees.
The Justice Department sent a letter last week demanding that the Georgia county reimburse it for the "extravagant" muscle car, which was purchased with funds from the Equitable Sharing Program—a federal program that funnels hundreds of millions of dollars a year in asset forfeiture revenues to local and state police departments.
Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may "adopt" state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.
The Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office is far from the first department to get in hot water for misusing forfeiture funds, or even the first in Georgia. For example, there was the $90,000 Dodge Viper that the Camden County sheriff purchased with forfeiture funds for the department's DARE program.
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(7/22/18 -- Santa Fe-New Mexican)
New Mexico agencies fail to report forfeited assets as law requires
New Mexico sparked a nationwide trend when it banned civil forfeiture in 2015 — becoming the first state to end the practice of seizing and selling the property of people who had been accused, though not convicted, of a crime. Thirteen states followed suit. But three years later, the effort in New Mexico appears stalled.
State law enforcement agencies are not complying with the reporting requirements of the law, according to records requests. It’s also not clear what has become of currency that reportedly has been forfeited. And the state treasurer — who is supposed to receive lawfully forfeited currency and property — complains the measure is unworkable because it’s unfunded and doesn’t include enforcement provisions.
Others, however, have made inquiries. Robert Johnson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based public interest law firm, provided the newspaper a letter it sent the department in June, expressing concern the reports weren’t being published and asking the Department of Public Safety to provide the records. If the department didn’t comply, the letter said, the firm would be “forced to explore legal remedies.”
Meanwhile, the city of Santa Fe continues to operate a program that allows it to keep or sell vehicles without convictions under certain circumstances. Albuquerque discontinued a similar program in April in the face of pending lawsuits that allege the program violates defendants’ civil rights.
Read the entire article here at: santafenewmexican.com
(7/21/18 -- Reason)
Michigan Man Files Suit After Waiting 3 Years for a Hearing to Get His Seized Car Back
Under Michigan law, Stephen Nichols was supposed to get a "prompt" court hearing to challenge the forfeiture of his car, which police in the town of Lincoln Park seized in 2015 because he was driving it without valid insurance. It's been three years since then, and Nichols still hasn't had his day in court.
Last month Nichols and two other plaintiffs filed a federal class-action lawsuit, first reported by The Detroit News, alleging that Wayne County police and prosecutors seize residents' property and force them to wait months, sometimes years, for a hearing. The suit argues the delays violate the 14th Amendment right to due process.
In addition, Wayne County prosecutors offer to settle cases out of court for $900, leaving owners to choose between getting their vehicle back quickly, even if they believe they were innocent, or shelling out even more money for a lawyer and waiting months to get their means of transportation back.
"The bigger issue with Wayne County forfeiture is—for drugs, prostitution and drag racing—they're seizing the vehicles on sometimes the flimsiest of evidence or no evidence at all, just the mere allegation that someone went to a drug house or dispensary," says Maze, a Detroit attorney who handles asset forfeiture cases. "They don't find anything in the car or on the person, but they take the vehicle and offer to settle with the owner for $900. They set the number at $900 because they know it's low enough that the person can't afford to hire an attorney to fight it for that."
Read the entire article here at: reason.com
(7/21/18 -- Louisiana Record)
Bill concerning civil forfeiture sent to House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure
House Bill 92 (HB 92) expands upon the types of property that may be seized in civil proceedings. The proposed addition to the current law states, "In addition, all property, immovable or movable, including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through a pattern of racketeering activity may be forfeited and disposed of in a civil proceeding, as provided by law."
HB 92 expands the types of property that may be forfeited by stating "immovable or movable" property may be seized. Also, the bill clearly defines money as a seizable asset if it is determined that the money in question was used in a crime, intended for use in a crime, or the result of criminal activity.
(7/19/18 -- Tap Into)
Diegnan Bill to Establish Asset Forfeiture Reporting and Transparency Requirements Passes Senate
Legislation sponsored by Senator Patrick J. Diegnan, Jr. that establishes asset forfeiture reporting and transparency requirements passed the full New Jersey Senate today.
“Across New Jersey, law enforcement can confiscate cash, cars and other property from people, often without ever charging them with a crime,” said Senator Diegnan (D-Middlesex) “While defensible as a means to take the material support of the criminals and instead makes it the material support of law enforcement; a need for a wide-ranging transparency of the scope and scale of asset forfeiture is needed and is vital for keeping law enforcement accountable against abuses and bringing forfeiture spending into the light of day for the public good.”
The bill, S-1963, would require county prosecutors to compile and submit to the Attorney General quarterly reports concerning asset seizure and forfeiture by law enforcement agencies within that county. Specifically, the bill would require these reports to include information pertaining to each seizure of property, information and nature pertaining to the forfeiture of property, the value of property seized and forfeited, and the date of the forfeiture order. The bill would also require county prosecutors to report information about the amount of forfeiture funds received or the value of forfeited property by law enforcement agencies in the county, federal agencies, or joint task forces.
Read the entire article here at: tapinto.net
(7/18/18 -- Your Observer)
Legal fees exceed settlement payment in Longboat forfeiture case
Longboat Key paid more in legal fees than it collected in a settlement with the owner of a condominium the town tried to seize in a civil proceeding connected with more than a dozen counts of video voyeurism.
Legal fees for the town in its pursuit of seizure and forfeiture of 623 Cedars Court totaled more than $38,000, town records show. The town in the past several weeks finalized a settlement in the case in which property owner Wayne Natt agreed to pay the town $30,000.
Natt pleaded no contest to 14 counts of video voyeurism in a plea deal that landed him 364 days in jail, three years of probation and inclusion on the state’s sex offenders list. He was accused of hiding cameras in his condo and secretly video-taping guests who stayed there, some of whom booked short-term rentals through online services such as Airbnb.
“The town wanted to send a message,” said Town Manager Tom Harmer. “We met our goal to say, ‘This isn’t acceptable on Longboat Key.’”
Read the entire article here at: yourobserver.com
(7/17/18 -- Lexocology)
BANKING, LENDING, AND INSOLVENCY RESTRICTIONS RELEGATE THE LEGITIMATE CANNABIS INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA TO AN ALL-CASH BUSINESS, VULNERABLE TO CRIME
On October 2, 2012, kidnappers robbed and abducted a marijuana dispensary owner from his Newport Beach home. They then drove him to the Mojave Desert where they tortured him and demanded that he reveal where he had buried his medical marijuana proceeds (rumored to be in the millions of dollars). After concluding that the dispensary owner was not going to reveal his “secret stash” buried in the desert, the kidnappers caused bodily harm and drove away. Since the dispensary owner had been lawfully licensed and was operating in compliance with the laws of the State of California, why did his dispensary not keep its monies in a bank like other businesses generally do?
This grievous risk to life and limb is not exclusive to this unfortunate man. His episode is just one of many frightening and shocking events that are occurring throughout the emerging legitimate cannabis landscape. Marijuana-related businesses (MRBs), even after being legally established under state law and operating under strict regulations and oversight, nonetheless cannot open a simple deposit account at a bank owing to inconsistent, conflicting federal regulations.
Under the current federal prohibition of marijuana many banks, fearing potential repercussions, simply refuse to do business with marijuana growers, extractors, distributors, and sellers— even ones that operate legally in their own respective states. As a result, MRBs are forced to operate on a cash-only basis, making them prime targets for robberies, kidnappings, and extortion.
Read the entire article here at: lexology.com
(7/16/18 -- The American Conservative)
Keeping Cops’ Hands Out of Your Pockets
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to rule on a case that could have a major impact on civil liberties and whether civil asset forfeiture can continue to serve as low hanging fruit for bureaucratic interests run amok.
Timbs v. Indiana involves a man whose $42,000 Land Rover was confiscated via civil asset forfeiture. Attorneys from the libertarian public-interest law firm, Institute for Justice, don’t deny their client Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling $385 worth of heroin in two transactions and that his vehicle was used in the sale.
What they do contest is that the confiscation of the Land Rover (purchased with a payment from a life insurance policy, not drug money) was unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment.
The Indiana Supreme Court didn’t rule whether the forfeiture was excessive. Instead, it ruled that the state wasn’t subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, and that it is a matter for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. Fourteen other states already adhere to the Excessive Fines Clause, but Indiana and three others do not, according to the ABA Journal.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the Excessive Fines Clause. With that said, if it rules in favor of Timbs, such a decision will not fully overturn the practice of civil asset forfeiture. However, it could rein in one major aspect of its abuses.
Read the entire article here at: theamericanconservative.com
(7/16/18 -- The Morning Call)
Drug forfeiture program had a banner year, Pennsylvania DA says
Northampton County’s drug forfeiture program had a blockbuster year in fiscal 2018, producing a pool of money that prosecutors are looking to spend on good civic causes.
The district attorney’s office seized a record $280,907 in cash, plus 10 vehicles that will be auctioned, under a state forfeiture law that targets the drug trade.
Morganelli said he is also encouraging residents to form block watch organizations in their communities that promote citizen involvement. He said the seized money could help defray their startup costs.
Morganelli ended his statements with a question: "Has anybody seen my soul?" he tearfully pleaded.
Read the entire article here at: mcall.com
(7/16/18 -- The Detroit News)
Class-action suit challenges civil forfeitures
Stephen Nichols didn’t have valid insurance when he was pulled over by Lincoln Park police on July 2, 2015, so his car was seized and towed away. More than three years later, the 1998 Toyota Avalon is still sitting in a Brownstown Township impound lot as Nichols awaits a hearing to get it back.
Nichols, 42, is part of a class-action federal lawsuit filed last month by him and two other people whose vehicles were seized by police. The suit alleges their 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.
“Mr. Nichols still hasn’t had a hearing, which is ridiculous,” said Shaun Godwin, attorney for the plaintiffs. “The law says prosecutors have to bring a case promptly, but it’s not defined under the law what ‘promptly’ is.”
Wayne County prosecutors and sheriffs are defendants in the lawsuit. The county’s corporation counsel, which is handling the suit, did not respond to requests for comment.
Read the entire article here at: detroitnews.com
(7/14/18 -- The Press Democrat)
Rohnert Park officials tight-lipped over police asset seizures led by embattled former sergeant
Rohnert Park city leaders said they had little to no knowledge of their public safety department’s aggressive efforts to intercept black-market drugs and cash by sending police officers far outside the city.
None of the five elected City Council members would say last week whether they believed those operations were an effective use of city resources, but one called for a closed-door meeting to discuss an investigation into a controversial former sergeant in the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety who led the seizures.
The operations focused in large part on the heavy flow of marijuana and cash down Highway 101 between the North Coast’s famed Emerald Triangle cannabis growing region and the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond.
Targeting motorists on that route, Rohnert Park officers seized $2.4 million in cash and valuable assets in the past three years — more than any other law enforcement agency in Sonoma County claimed under civil forfeiture laws. Many of the seizures were near the Sonoma-Mendocino county line — more than 40 miles north of Rohnert Park — and their peak came during a period when the city was struggling to fully staff its public safety department of cross-trained police officers and firefighters.
The city’s top enforcer in those missions, former Sgt. Brendon “Jacy” Tatum, left the force in June amid a city investigation into the complaints of a driver who said he was the victim of a drug robbery by unidentified officers on Highway 101. Tatum’s departure also coincided with mounting complaints about his on-duty conduct.
Councilman Jake Mackenzie said it is the job of the city manager, Darrin Jenkins, and the public safety department’s director, Brian Masterson, to oversee the agency’s operations. Masterson has repeatedly declined to answer questions about the Highway 101 stops or about Tatum, a decorated 15-year veteran he promoted to sergeant in 2015.
Tatum said he resigned in June because he wanted a career change. He was taken off duty in April when the city began investigating him and another still-employed officer, Joseph Huffaker. The probe was launched in response to a man’s complaints about a December traffic stop and drug seizure in Mendocino County.
The case has publicly spotlighted Tatum’s reputation as a controversial law enforcement figure who made his name with aggressive patrolling of Highway 101 along the Sonoma-Mendocino county line. Multiple people who had property taken from them during encounters with Tatum have since come forward to claim the sergeant violated their rights. One man is suing Rohnert Park, accusing Tatum of being responsible for $10,000 that he said remains missing after Tatum and another officer seized in a traffic stop $132,000 in cash that had been stored in sealed containers in his girlfriend’s car. Only $121,920 ended up in evidence at the police department, court documents show. Tatum denied the allegation.
Read entire article here at: pressdemocrat.com
(7/14/18 -- NewsOK)
Medical marijuana comes with real (estate) consequences
Way back in November 2014, when I dared write about the Institute of Real Estate Management's white paper on the subject, "Marijuana in Property Management," I was roundly mocked, accused of sensationalism and dang near hooted off the internet.
I freely admit to having a little fun with it, mainly because legal marijuana, even for medical use, did seem so far-fetched for Oklahoma.
That was then. When Oklahoma voters legalized prescribed medical marijuana last month, it took just three days for the silence to be broken.
And, now, since 57 percent of voters got everybody else's attention on Election Day — including people working in commercial real estate — here are the Institute of Real Estate Management's updated thoughts on the subject, by sectors most directly affected by growing, processing and dispensing marijuana:
Read the entire listing here at: newsok.com
(7/14/18 -- The Press Democrat)
Rohnert Park must explain asset seizure program
Rohnert Park police seized more than $2.4 million in cash and other valuables over the past three years — substantially more than any other law enforcement agency in Sonoma County.
A chunk of that money goes straight into the department’s budget.
At least some of the people whose property was seized weren’t arrested or prosecuted.
Moreover, many of them were nowhere near Rohnert Park when they were pulled over by police.
You might call it policing for profit.
California lawmakers tightened the rules in recent years, and most local law enforcement agencies have scaled back their use of asset forfeiture.
Rohnert Park kept going, as Staff Writer Julie Johnson reported in two articles this week that focused in part on the actions of an ex-officer named Jacy Tatum, who is the subject of scrutiny, including a federal lawsuit and an internal investigation by his former employer.
Tatum frequently pulled drivers over on Highway 101 near the Mendocino-Sonoma County line, a route that connects marijuana farms in the Emerald Triangle to the Bay Area and other major population centers. He was decorated by the department, but he also has been accused of misconduct by people whose property was seized, and Sonoma County prosecutors placed him on an official list of unreliable witnesses.
Tatum is no longer employed by the Rohnert Park Public Safety Department, but officials there refuse to say whether he resigned or was fired, when he left or why, citing a state law that provides police officers with extraordinary protection against public disclosure, even in cases of official misconduct. Tatum says he quit, and he denies any wrongdoing.
Other curious incidents included a December 2016 traffic stop near Hopland, when Tatum and another officer seized $65,000 worth of marijuana from Hue Freeman of Mendocino, who said he was en route to make a delivery to a Southern California dispensary and carrying all the paperwork required by state law.
In another instance, a Fairfield man said $10,000 went missing from $132,000 in cash taken from his car during a traffic stop by Tatum and another officer near Cloverdale in March 2016. Lucas Serafine, a professional gambler, said he was headed to a poker tournament and to buy property in Humboldt County when he was pulled over. He was never charged with a crime, and $100,000 of his money was returned. Serafine is suing the city, seeking the remainder of the money that was seized.
Read entire article here at: pressdemocrat.com
(7/12/18 -- New York Law Journal)
Harvey M. Stone and Richard H. Dolan report on a decision involving restitution and forfeiture.
In United States v. Pratt, 17 CR 262 (EDNY, June 11, 2018), Judge Brodie denied defendant’s motion to credit forfeited funds to restitution.
In April 2017, the defendant stole $29,485 from the U.S. Postal Service. He pleaded guilty to theft of government funds and misappropriation of property by a USPS employee. In November 2017 the court granted, without opposition, the government’s motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture in the amount of $29,485, representing the proceeds of the crime. As part of his sentencing submission, the defendant moved to require the government to apply the forfeited funds to restitution because the amounts of forfeiture and restitution were the same. The defendant sought to avoid double payment.
As Brodie observed, forfeiture and restitution serve different purposes. Forfeiture is paid to the government and is intended to relieve a defendant of ill-gotten gains, while the purpose of restitution is to compensate the defendant’s victims. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that without specific statutory authorization, district courts do not have authority to order the use of forfeited funds for payment of restitution, see United States v. Bodouva, 853 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2017). Other circuits, including the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, have reached the same conclusion.
The government has sole discretion to apply forfeited funds that it has collected to restitution. But as set forth in the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, the government may do that only where other property is not available to satisfy a restitution order.
(7/11/18 -- Reason)
Police Seized Property of Close to 1,000 People in Michigan—Without Ever Convicting Them of Crimes
That's the bad news. The good news is that we have this information at all. In 2015 Michigan passed legislation that mandated local law enforcement agencies report more information to the state about the extent of their seizures. The Department of State Police just released its first report that encompassed all agencies for a full calendar year.
Law enforcement agencies across the state seized more than $13 million in cash and property in 2017. And while State Police Director Kriste Etue claims in the report's introduction that all those seized assets were "amassed by drug traffickers," that's not really what the numbers show.
Tom Gantert, managing editor of Michigan Capitol Confidential, which is published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, drilled down into the report and noted that 956 people who had their money or property seized last year were not convicted of a crime. Of those, 736 people were not even charged with a crime for which property forfeiture was permitted. And yet such forfeiture happened, quite frequently. To put it in larger context, it happened to 14 percent of the people who had their stuff taken.
Police and prosecutors are able to essentially legally steal people's property under the process of civil asset forfeiture. Under "civil" forfeiture, criminal convictions are not necessary. Instead, police and prosecutors basically accuse the property itself of being connected to a crime. Using lower evidentiary thresholds and complicated bureaucratic and administrative procedures, civil forfeiture subverts the typical legal process by forcing citizens to prove themselves and their property innocent of crimes rather than forcing prosecutors to prove guilt.
Read entire article here at: reason.com
(7/8/18 -- St. George News)
No charges required: Police in Utah seized $2.2 million in cash under civil forfeiture law
Civil asset forfeiture laws in states across the country have been criticized by civil liberties advocates who say they can be abused by police to shake down suspected criminals without having to file charges. Three states —North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska — outlaw civil asset forfeiture entirely and 11 require a criminal conviction for forfeiture proceedings to begin, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The 2017 report on state asset forfeiture showed virtually all of the money and other assets seized by police came in drug investigations. In 13 percent of the cases, no criminal charges were filed
The average amount of cash seized by Utah authorities in a given case was $1,000. Authorities seized as little as $50 and as much as $910,000 in a single incident.
That relatively low average disturbed Connor Boyack, president of libertarian-leaning nonprofit group Libertas Institute, who has pushed to limit asset forfeiture in Utah.
“It creates huge financial disincentive for somebody to hire an attorney and pay several thousands of dollars to try and fight a forfeiture of such a small amount of property,” he said.
Read entire article here at: stgeorgeutah.com
(7/9/18 -- The Press Democrat)
Former Police sergeant under investigation led Rohnert Park’s aggressive role in asset seizures
Over the past three years, Rohnert Park’s police officers have seized more cash and valuable assets from motorists and others suspected of breaking the law than any other law enforcement agency in Sonoma County. The total came to more than $2.4 million, nearly as much as the top two largest agencies combined.
In just one of those years, 2016, the record $1.4 million in assets seized by Rohnert Park amounted to 25 times more than what was confiscated by Sonoma County’s largest city police force, Santa Rosa, which has two and half times more officers than Rohnert Park.
Many of the seizures happened along a remote stretch of Highway 101 near the Sonoma-Mendocino county line — more than 40 miles from Rohnert Park city limits. The traffic operations by Rohnert Park were ratcheted up even amid struggles to fully staff the department of 71-sworn officers and firefighters. They increased even as other local law enforcement agencies curbed or stopped their efforts, reflecting changes in state marijuana laws and a shift by local prosecutors away from taking lower-level marijuana cases to trial.
Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch made it clear at the outset of her tenure in 2011 that marijuana cases would be a low priority for her office apart from significant black-market drug investigations.
In 2014 and again in 2016, Ravitch issued memos to local law enforcement agencies explaining higher thresholds police must meet to seize assets and changes to the laws that limit the autonomy of officers seeking to take property during roadside stops.
Rohnert Park’s aggressive, outsized role in such operations has come into sharp focus this year after the city’s Public Safety Department launched an investigation in April into its top interdiction officer, Sgt. Brendon “Jacy” Tatum, who resigned in June after being on leave for nearly three months.
Tatum’s boss, Rohnert Park Public Safety Department Director Brian Masterson, has refused to speak with The Press Democrat about the former sergeant, or answer questions about the city’s Highway 101 traffic stops or his management of the department in general.
Read entire article here at: pressdemocrat.com
(7/4/18 -- The News Tribune)
Indiana high court to hear civil forfeiture case
Indiana's highest court will consider whether all civil forfeitures in the state must be paid into a fund that helps school districts pay for technology upgrades, building new schools and other projects.
Police and prosecutors have been permitted by Indiana law since 1984 to divert for "expenses" a portion of the revenue generated through the seizure of property and cash connected to criminal enterprises — a process known as civil forfeiture.
Such forfeitures generated $3.4 million during 2017, but only about $63,000 was deposited in the Common School Fund, according to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.
Six taxpayers are suing Marion County over its civil forfeiture distribution scheme. And the high court, in a rare move, has agreed to bypass a review of that case by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
A new Indiana law that took effect Sunday permits police and prosecutors in every county to retain 90 percent of forfeiture proceeds, regardless of expenses, with just 10 percent dedicated to the Common School Fund.
Read entire article here at: thenewstribune.com
(7/3/18 -- Right On Crime)
Too many American dreams are stolen by civil asset forfeiture
Ohioan Rustem Kazazi learned that first-hand. At the age of 64, and after many years of hard work, he decided to take twelve years’ worth of savings ($58,100) back to Albania. That’s when he discovered an unfortunate reality: the same U.S. government that encourages prosperity can also take it. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents seized Kazazi’s savings while he was going through security at the airport.
CBP agents took his cash through a little-known practice called civil asset forfeiture. It allows government agencies and law enforcement officers to seize cash and property that is merely suspected of being tied to criminal activity. What’s worse is that there is no requirement for a criminal conviction to be reached before the cash or property is forfeited. The burden of proof is wrongly placed on the property owner to prove their own innocence—leaving an often expensive, uphill legal battle as the only route for retrieving said property or life savings.
Right on Crime conducted a poll last year revealing that 88 percent of Texans support the idea that a criminal conviction should be reached before the government can forfeit someone’s property. Senior researcher and retired police officer Randy Petersen says that Kazazi’s case “points out the problem is not an abuse of the system, but the system itself.”
Read entire opinion here at: rightoncrime.com
(7/3/18 -- News 4 JAX)
Corrine Brown's attorney seeks to appeal $654,000 forfeiture order
The attorney for former Rep. Corrine Brown is asking a federal appeals court for the opportunity to argue why a Supreme Court ruling from June 2017 applies to Brown's case, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars she has been ordered to pay back following her conviction in the One Door for Education scheme.
Brown, 71, was convicted of 18 federal crimes in May 2017, including conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. The following December, she and her co-conspirators, Ronnie Simmons and Carla Wiley, were each given prison sentences, and ordered to collectively forfeit $654,292.39. Each defendant was potentially responsible for forfeiting the full amount. Additionally, Brown and Simmons were ordered to forfeit another $10,000, collectively.
Tuesday's legal filing from attorney William Kent asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to allow him to file a brief of up to 10 pages, to explain how the Supreme Court's ruling in Honeycutt vs. United States applies to Brown's case. In the 8-0 ruling in Honeycutt, the nation's highest court ruled that in conspiracy cases, defendants could not be held jointly and severally liable in a forfeiture order. That means a court must determine how much each defendant is financially responsible for based on their role in the conspiracy.
Read entire article here at: news4jax.com
(7/3/18 -- Salt Lake Tribune)
Last year, Utah police officers seized items worth $2.5 million.
It’s called civil asset forfeiture, and it is a process that allows law enforcement to take personal property if police believe the items are connected to criminal activity. Under state law, cash and belongings not returned to individuals can be kept by the government and are often handed out to law enforcement groups to support confidential informants or purchase new police equipment.
The state’s annual report, released last week by the Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice, shows nearly all seizures in 2017 — 96 percent — were related to drug investigations. And nearly all of the property that was seized was cash, though police agencies also reported that they took cars, gambling machines and other items. The value of those items were estimated at just over $400,000.
Read entire article here at: sltrib.com
(7/2/18 -- MS News)
Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics launches forfeiture website
In a press conference, MBN Director John Dowdy said that this is a new way for the bureau to stay transparent.
You can now go to the website to look at everything from guns to drugs the bureau has seized over the last year.
You can view the website at http://www.forfeiture.ms.gov/
Read entire article here at: msnewsnow.com
(6/30/18 -- SC Times)
DUI and drugs among top reasons for property forfeiture in Minnesota
ST. CLOUD — More than 7,000 seized items in Minnesota received a final decision in the forfeiture process, according to a state auditor's report, and driving under the influence was among the top reasons for property being subject to forfeiture.
Read entire article here at: sctimes.com
(6/29/18 -- Pharos-Tribune)
New Indiana forfeiture laws take effect July 1
Senate Enrolled Act 99 establishes some limits when property is seized by law enforcement. The law requires an affidavit to be filed by the prosecuting attorney within seven days of the seizure explaining why the property was seized and deems that the property will be returned to the owner if no probable cause is determined.
(6/29/18 -- DesMoines Register)
Hunters will get seized property back from DNR
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is now required to return property seized on suspicion that an animal has been illegally killed or captured if it fails to secure a conviction.
Supporters say the law change, which took effect July 1, brings guidelines for the DNR in line with recent changes to Iowa's civil forfeiture law and will avoid situations where hunters have had guns or valuable trophies seized and kept after the charges against them were dismissed. The DNR says the law change simply codifies current policy.
Read entire article here at: desmoinesregister.com
(6/29/18 -- Your Observer)
Longboat Key, FL, settles forfeiture case
The town of Longboat Key has settled its property forfeiture case against an accused video voyeur, accepting $30,000 in lieu of the actual condominium police said was connected to his criminal case.
Wayne Natt, who has pleaded guilty to 15 counts of video voyeurism, agreed to pay the town “in order to avoid further legal costs and expenses and the uncertainty of the outcome of the Forfeiture Proceeding and any potential related civil litigation,” according to a draft order sent to the 12th Judicial Circuit Court on June 20.
Read the entire article here at yourobserver.com
(6/29/18 -- The Statehouse File)
New laws take effect July 1
Civil forfeiture: Senate Enrolled Act 99 establishes some limits when property is seized by law enforcement. The law requires an affidavit to be filed by the prosecuting attorney within seven days of the seizure explaining why the property was seized and deems that the property will be returned to the owner if no probable cause is determined.
Read the entire article here at thestatehousefile.com
(6/27/18 -- Coindesk)
US State Seeks to Confiscate $24 Million in Dark Web Bitcoin
The U.S. government is seeking to forfeit 4,000 bitcoins that were seized during a crackdown of vendors on darkweb marketplaces - an amount that worth over $24 million as of press time.
According to an announcement published by the Department of Justice for the District of Maryland on Tuesday, the prosecutors indicted two men, Ryan Farace and Robert Swain, both residents of the state who allegedly manufactured drugs and distributed them through darkweb marketplaces.
"As part of the indictment, the government seeks the forfeiture of no less than $5,665,000, plus the value of 4,000 bitcoin believed to be the proceeds of the illegal drug sales," the prosecutors said in the announcement.
The request, if approved, would mark the latest addition to the existing pool of cryptocurrencies confiscated by the U.S. government, which could be subject to further auction into the market.
Read the entire article here at coindesk.com
(6/25/18 -- Albert Lea Tribune)
State should reconsider proposed forfeiture law
Spurred by abuses of the state’s forfeiture laws (particularly by the now defunct Metro Gang Strike Force in 2009), lawmakers passed a bill in 2014 that requires a conviction in criminal court before someone’s property could be forfeited in civil court, according to a press release from the institute. But the reform did not apply to administrative forfeitures, or cases where the owner could not or did not challenge the forfeiture case in civil court.
According to the state auditor, 95 percent of drug-related forfeitures and 97 percent of DUI-related forfeitures were administrative, the release stated. Statewide, the average forfeiture was just under $1,700.
“Far too often, it costs more to hire a lawyer to fight for the seized property than what the property itself is actually worth,” said Institute for Justice legislative counsel Meagan Forbes. “This system stacks the deck against innocent Minnesotans and forces many owners to walk away.”
Read the entire opinion here at albertleatribune.com
(6/24/18 -- Washington Examiner)
Supreme Court could limit states' ability to impose excessive fines
The Supreme Court will decide in its next term whether states face limits when it comes to the fees and fines they can impose on people, just like the federal government does, in a case that could radically change the way state and local governments mete out punishment.
The court agreed on Monday to hear the case Timbs v. Indiana, which raises the question of whether the 8th Amendment's excessive fines clause, which provides protections against the federal government imposing excessive fees and fines, also applies to states.
Read the entire article here at washingtonexaminer.com
(6/21/18 -- Bloomberg)
Government Calls It Forfeiture, But It’s Theft
The Declaration of Independence states that all men have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This represents a change from an earlier document, which postulated humanity’s natural rights as “life, liberty and property.” The wording may have been changed to avoid enshrining slavery — already a point of contention between northern and southern states — as a right. Or it may have been changed due to Benjamin Franklin, who didn’t want to encourage the notion that government taxation was tantamount to theft.
But even though property rights aren’t all-encompassing, they are undeniably an important part of a healthy society. Obviously, some kinds of property should never be allowed, especially slavery and other things that restrict human freedom. And obviously, government should be allowed to take some portion of people’s property for the greater good, though the Fifth Amendment says it can't do so with without providing some form on compensation. But there are limits. Put too many curbs on people’s ability to own their own things, and they start to feel powerless. Allow people to steal each other’s possessions, and the economy will grind to a halt. Some economists even believe that property rights are one of the key institutions that let countries develop and grow rich.
Read the entire opinion here at bloomberg.com
(6/19/18 -- Reason)
Supreme Court Will Hear Case on the Excessive Fines Clause that Could End Up Curbing Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided to consider Timbs v. Indiana, an important constitutional property rights case. As my co-blogger Eugene Volokh and Reason's Damon Root explain, the case will address the question of whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies against states, as well as the federal government. If the Supreme Court decides that the Clause does apply against the states, it will also have to consider exactly what kinds of fines qualify as "excessive" and to what extent the Clause applies to asset forfeitures, as well as more conventional fines.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(6/19/18 -- Forbes)
Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional
For the first time in over 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the opportunity to review the constitutionality of civil forfeiture laws, which allow the government to confiscate cash, cars, and even homes. On Monday, the court granted a cert petition from Tyson Timbs, who was forced to forfeit his $40,000 Land Rover in civil court to the State of Indiana, after he pled guilty to selling less than $200 worth of drugs.
When Tyson tried to sell undercover officers four grams of heroin, he was arrested in 2013. As punishment, Tyson agreed to serve one year of house arrest and pay $1,200 in court fees. But the state also wanted his Land Rover, which Tyson had bought with life-insurance proceeds after his father died.
Determined to keep his truck, Tyson argued that forfeiting the Land Rover would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines.” A trial judge agreed, and rejected the forfeiture as “grossly disproportional.” Under Indiana law, a felony conviction could trigger a maximum fine of $10,000—less than a quarter of what Tyson’s Land Rover was worth. That decision was upheld by an appellate court.
But in November, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed that decision, and instead ruled that the Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause provided no protection to Hoosiers. “The Excessive Fines Clause does not bar the State from forfeiting Defendant’s vehicle,” the court ruled, “because the United States Supreme Court has not held that the Clause applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Read the entire article here at forbes.com
(6/14/18 -- Civil Beat)
Hawaii AG Mismanaged Asset Seizure Program
The AG failed to account for forfeited property and didn’t spend $2 million for drug prevention programs as required by law, the report found.
Hawaii’s asset forfeiture law has long been criticized for what seems to some like a patently unjust policy: it allows government officials to seize and destroy or sell private property without a court proceeding – or, in some cases, even without even charging anyone with a crime.
On Thursday, the Hawaii State Auditor issued a report that raises even more concerns about the controversial program. According to the audit, the Office of the Attorney General, which administers the program, has failed to account for property obtained by forfeiture, inadequately managed program funds and failed to allocate some $2 million for drug prevention as required by law.
Read the entire article here at civilbeat.org
(6/14/18 -- Tech Dirt)
CBP Agrees To Hand Back Almost All Of The $58,000 It Stole From A 64-Year-Old Man At A Cleveland Airport
A 64-year-old man, an Albanian with legal US citizenship, was stripped of more than $58,000 in cash by Customs and Border Protection at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport last year. Rustem Kazazi was headed to Albania with the cash to fix up his family's old home and possibly buy property there. The CBP claimed... well, it really claimed nothing, other than its right to Kazazi's life savings.
Fortunately for Kazazi, this legal battle may be over already. Kazazi sued on May 31st. Following a conference with a district judge, the CBP has decided to return all of the money it took. Well, almost all of it.
Read the entire article here at techdirt.com
(6/13/18 -- The American Spectator)
Civil asset forfeiture and cannabis crackdown seem to go hand in hand.
As the rhetoric ratchets up after President Trump said he’ll likely support efforts in Congress to end the federal ban on marijuana, the passage of such a law could have unintended side benefits — helping to curb civil asset forfeiture.
You know about civil asset forfeiture, don’t you? That process by which law enforcement agencies take your goodies — cash, cars, even homes — simply because they suspect it could have been used in a crime, often using the proceeds to fund other goodies, such as guns or vehicles, for their departments.
You don’t have to be convicted to lose your stuff, and it can be hell trying to get it back. The process laughs at constitutional due process protections. Steven Greenhut called it “government thievery” in a recent American Spectator column.
Read the entire article here at spectator.org
(6/13/18 -- Post Bulletin)
Rochester, MN, Police net $169,346 in forfeitures
Minnesota law enforcement agencies netted over $7 million in proceeds in 2017 from property forfeitures, according to a report released Tuesday.
The annual Criminal Forfeitures Report by State Auditor Rebecca Otto indicated that agencies completed 7,852 forfeitures in 2017, compared with 7,048 in 2016.
Among law enforcement agencies in the state with the highest number of completed forfeitures was the Rochester Police Department, which had 156, netting $169,346.
Read the entire article here at postbulletin.com
(6/12/18 -- New Hampshire Watchdog)
Asset forfeiture transparency bill becomes law in New Hampshire
Republican Gov. Chris Sununu last week signed into law Senate Bill 498, which directs the state Attorney General to collect and publish online statewide data on forfeiture and seizure of personal property as a part of police investigations. The legislation sailed through the Senate and House of Representatives during the last session without even needing any roll call votes.
The Institute for Justice, a legal advocacy group that has litigated a number of cases involving eminent domain and asset forfeiture in recent years, issued a news release saying that the new law would “shed light on the state’s secretive forfeiture spending.”
Read the entire article here at watchdog.org
(6/12/18 -- Twin Cities Business)
Criminal Forfeitures in Minnesota Rose More Than 11 Percent in 2017
St. Paul police had nearly twice the number of forfeiture incidents than the Minneapolis police force reported.
Minnesota law enforcement agencies seized a little over $9.4 million in vehicles, firearms, cash and other property last year as the number of forfeitures related to criminal activity climbed year-over-year by more than 11 percent, according to a report released Tuesday by the Minnesota state auditor’s office.
Driving under the influence or with a controlled substance was cited 88 percent of the time as the basis for property being forfeited in 2017.
Read the entire article here at tcbmag.com
(6/9/18 -- GoLocal Prov)
RI Needs to “Completely Rewrite Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws” Says Stenhouse on LIVE
Mike Stenhouse with the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity joined GoLocal News Editor Kate Nagle at the Rhode Island State House on GoLocal LIVE, to talk about what he says in the need to “completely rewrite civil asset forfeiture laws in Rhode Island.”
“It’s a valuable law enforcement tool — when it’s applied to criminals,” said Stenhouse. “But when innocent people are suspected of a crime or a regulations violation and have their assets seized — and they are proven innocent and they can’t get their asset backs — how is that fair in today’s society.”
Read the entire article here at golocalprov.com
(6/11/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
WISCONSIN ENACTS SWEEPING CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill protecting residents’ constitutional rights to property and due process.
Senate Bill 61 (S.B. 61), sponsored by state Sen. David Craig (R-Town of Vernon), sets new requirements for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in using civil asset forfeiture to take ownership of individuals’ seized assets or property.
In most cases, police or prosecutors now must obtain a criminal conviction before property held by individuals accused of committing a crime can be forfeited. The law went into effect on April 5.
Read the entire article here at heartland.org
(6/11/18 -- Rolla Daily News)
Continuing the discussion on asset forfeitures
As reported, on January 1, 2017, the Phelps County, MO, Sheriff’s office reported a beginning balance of $2.89 million of federal forfeiture funds, and during the course of 2017 they received an additional $1.12 million of federal forfeitures-- their share of the funds they previously seized and turned over to the federal government-- and reported a balance of $3.26 million, after expenses, at the end of 2017, according to according to Compilation of 2017 Federal Forfeiture Reports, State Auditor Nicole Galloway published in March 2018.
“We are number one in the state in asset forfeiture,” District 1 Commissioner Larry Stratman truthfully stated. He then untruthfully claimed, “Some people hold that the asset forfeitures are taking good money away from really nice people who are using them for good purposes -- when that is not the case.”
In Phelps County, it is typical to find money in drug-related crimes where the person driving the car goes to jail not truly knowing anything about the money, according to Stratman.
“I guess the problem is that Missouri has an asset forfeiture law that makes it much more difficult to attach to the private property and the claim is that local law enforcement is circumventing the law by turning the property over to the federal government,” stated District 2 Commissioner Gary Hicks.
Read the entire article here at therolladailynews.com
(6/8/18 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Another example of civil forfeiture abuse
If you doubt the importance of transparency when it comes to correcting government transgressions, consider the case of Rustem Kazazi.
Last October, Mr. Kazazi, a 64-year-old U.S. citizen who immigrated from Albania in 2005, was traveling through Cleveland’s Hopkins International Airport on his way back to his native country. His carry-on luggage contained three envelopes of cash — $58,100 — that he hoped to use to purchase a family vacation home and to help relatives.
Customs officials sent him to an interrogation room, where they strip-searched and questioned him. They then confiscated all his money using the fig leaf of civil forfeiture. Mr. Kazazi was never charged with any crime. That might have been the end of the story. Fighting a seizure is expensive and time-consuming — the deck is stacked in favor of the authorities. But in May, attorneys with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm in Arlington, Va., took the case pro bono and went to court.
Turns out Customs and Border Protection failed to file a formal forfeiture complaint against the cash. In addition, the agency “tried to justify its actions by sending the Kazazis an outrageous letter claiming their money was ‘involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation,’” IJ reports. In fact, Mr. Kazazi and his family had tax documents and financial records to show they had legally acquired the money, his attorneys point out.
Earlier this month, the story hit the press. Within a week, the government had agreed to return the money.
On Friday, a judge ordered the Kazazi case to trial — he and the government are now locked in a dispute about exactly how much money was seized. But his ordeal highlights the need for reform at both the state and federal levels. Nobody should lose a home, property or cash to the authorities without first being convicted of a crime. Allowing law enforcement to help themselves to valuables on a mere suspicion that the property may have been connected to a crime is an affront to private property and due process — and is little more than legalized theft.
Read the entire editorial here at reviewjournal.com
(6/8/18 -- The Week)
America's immigration inhumanity
Zero tolerance policies have been spreading throughout America for the past 40 years, wreaking havoc wherever and whenever they've been tried. That's because their fundamental premise is that the cause they aim to advance is so righteous that authorities have impunity to go after minor offenses with maximal force.
Meanwhile, civil asset forfeiture policies, the other gift of the zero tolerance approach to drugs, handed law enforcement officials the power to confiscate any physical asset they suspected of being used in a crime without bothering to obtain convictions. Despite a massive public outcry, forfeiture spread like wildfire and became a standard part of policing — no doubt because the seized assets are lucrative for law enforcement salaries and budgets.
Reagan, a Republican, invoked zero tolerance policies to fight drugs. A few years later, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, invoked them to fight guns in schools. Soon enough, schools used zero tolerance to fight every classroom ill from drugs to unruly behavior.
But none of this compares to the hideousness transpiring at the border, where this administration has unleashed zero tolerance policy against desperate migrants fleeing poverty and violence.
Read the entire article here at theweek.com
(6/7/18 -- The Blade)
Civil asset forfeiture is a form of legal theft
The case of a 64-year-old Cleveland man, who is suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection for strip-searching him and seizing more than $58,000 in cash from him without charging him with a crime, highlights the abuses that can arise from civil asset forfeiture.
The American Civil Liberties Union has long lobbied against civil asset forfeiture, claiming it is ripe for abuse by the authorities and that seizing the property of someone who is not charged with a crime is unconstitutional. It is.
The case of the Kazizis proves that it is.
Read the entire opinion here at toledoblade.com
(6/6/18 -- Jamestown Sun)
Stutsman County, ND, contracts with Ryan for forfeiture services
The Stutsman County Commission unanimously approved a request from Stutsman County Sheriff Chad Kaiser to contract with attorney Leo Ryan to conduct forfeiture services in cases where property and cash are seized in the commission of a crime on Tuesday.
Kaiser said at the County Commission meeting that the Stutsman County Sheriff’s Office was having issues with some of it forfeitures. The normal process is Stutsman County State’s Attorney Fritz Fremgen or one of the attorneys on his staff would handle a forfeiture request.
Kaiser said he talked with Ryan, who is also the city of Jamestown’s attorney, and Ryan has agreed to take on the forfeiture work for the county. Ryan’s firm, Dalsted & Ryan P.C., will be paid $95 to $150 an hour for the work.
Read the entire article here at jamestownsun.com
(6/5/18 -- Tennessean)
ACLU of Tennessee sues Mt. Juliet over police seizure of veteran's BMW
Officers took Lewis Cain's BMW in 2017 after coming to his home with a warrant for his son. Cain, a disabled military veteran, lived with his son at the time.
The ACLU-TN said the seizure was made without a search warrant or notice of a hearing. The lawsuit states the police violated the Fourth Amendment, which blocks unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Mr. Cain is an innocent property owner with no connection to any alleged criminal activity. Police clearly violated his constitutional rights when they took his car without a warrant or hearing," Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN executive director, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight for meaningful reform to our state’s unfair civil asset forfeiture system so that no one else has to go through what Mr. Cain experienced."
Read the entire article here at tennessean.com
(6/5/18 -- 13WMAZ)
How are some confiscated funds being spent in Macon-Bibb, GA?
An 'asset forfeiture account' holds confiscated funds, or money recovered from crimes. Over the last three-and-a-half years, Macon District Attorney, David Cooke says his office's asset forfeiture account has grown from around $100,000 in 2014, to over $1 million now.
When 13WMAZ checked the asset forfeiture records reported to the state, we found a discrepancy. It appears not all the forfeited funds had been accurately disclosed.
Cooke says the list was missing at least one deposit of $1.4 million from September 28th, 2017 and is working to get the documents corrected.
Read the entire article here at 13wmaz.com
(6/4/18 -- The Patriot Post)
Legal Plunder as Law Enforcement
What is civil asset forfeiture and why should you care?
If you own property that could be stolen from you and then used in some type of criminal activity, your property, once recovered, doesn’t have to be returned to you. If you simply possess a large amount of cash and are stopped and searched, the money can be taken and held for an administrative review to determine if, indeed, it was lawfully obtained or possessed. It may not be returned.
So, in reality, there’s a real possibility your life may be impacted by the issue of civil asset forfeiture. Regardless, it’s an issue that emphatically demonstrates the metastasizing cancer of bureaucratic government.
Read the entire article here at patriotpost.us
(6/2/18 -- My San Antonio)
Policing for profit — this cannot be allowed to go unpoliced
The nightmare began for Gerardo Serrano when, on Sept. 21, 2015, he drove up to the border crossing at Eagle Pass in his 2014 Ford pickup. The reason for the trip? He wanted to interest a cousin from Mexico in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States.
After Serrano took a few photos of the border as mementos, two U. S. border agents demanded the password to his phone. When Serrano exercised his rights and refused, one of the agents said he was “sick of hearing about your rights.”
“You have no rights here,” the agent said.
The agents searched the truck, and finding five .38-caliber bullets in the truck’s console, one of them said, “We got him!” Serrano had a concealed-carry permit but no weapon on him. The agents seized the truck, alleging it was being used to transport “munitions of war.”
Later, to request a hearing on the seizure, Serrano was required to post 10 percent of the truck’s value, $3,804.99. The hearing never took place.
But in the two years Serrano was without a truck, he continued making the $672.97 monthly payments on it, and he paid more than $700 to keep it insured and $1,004.61 to register it. He also ended up paying thousands more on rental cars.
Represented by the Institute for Justice, or IJ, Serrano is not only suing for restitution but seeking a class-action judgment on behalf of others mistreated in other seizures.
With most laws, especially those under which government interests conflict with the rights of its citizens, there are differences of opinion. So, it’s not surprising that civil forfeiture has been debated for many years in every state, pitting law enforcement against property rights advocates.
Read the entire article here at mysanantonio.com
***
***
(5/31/18 -- Reason)
American Brazenly Robbed of $58,100 Life Savings by Federal Agents at Cleveland Airport
Rustem Kazazi, an American citizen, was just trying to get on a plane to return to his native Albania last October, from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. He was initially flying to Newark where he'd catch a connection to Albania.
At an American airport, he was the victim of desperadoes who took everything he had.
Kazazi ran his carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine, like we all must. In that luggage was his life savings in cash, $58,100. There was zero attempt to be clandestine or smuggle-y about it. It was divided into three labeled and marked stacks of $100 bills, all in one envelope with $58,100 written on the outside.
TSA agents noticed the money. Hard not to, I guess. They called Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) on Kazazi, who took him off to a private room to grill him, as well as strip him naked for a search for, what? money he did not label openly in his carry-on luggage?
While his English is poor and he couldn't quite understand the agents, they refused him either an interpreter or to summon family for help.
Kazazi and his family today filed a formal motion for return of property under Rule 41(G) against U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and some of its authorities and agents hoping to get his stolen life savings back. The motion was filed with the assistance of consistent civil-forfeiture-justice fighters from the Institute for Justice, and the preceding details were gleaned from it.
Read the entire opinion here at reason.com
(5/31/18 -- Des Moines Register)
Iowa Supreme Court puts a dent in property forfeiture abuses
A rose to the Iowa Supreme Court, whose ruling last week should put a significant dent in property forfeiture abuses by Iowa law enforcement agencies.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans from government search or seizure of property without due process of law. And yet the Des Moines Register found in 2016 that agencies had seized more than $55 million and more than 4,200 vehicles over the past 20 years, in some cases without ever charging the owner with a crime.
The Supreme Court found:
Courts must decide whether law enforcement properly and lawfully seized items before deciding a claim against the property. The government can’t use the seized property as evidence in a forfeiture claim if the property was seized illegally.
Officers can’t force people to answer questions about seized property as a condition for its return. That could force someone to choose between possibly incriminating himself or forfeiting the property.
Prosecutors can’t avoid paying attorney fees for people trying to get their property back by strategically dropping a forfeiture case at the last minute. In some cases, the cost of legal fees to get property back could exceed the value of the property.
Read the entire editorial here at desmoinesregister.com
(6/1/18 -- People's Pundit Daily)
Is Asset Forfeiture Disgusting, Nauseating, Reprehensible, Despicable, or Awful?
On several occasions, I’ve shared horror stories of government brutality and asserted that all decent people should be libertarians. If you still are not convinced, today we’re going to look at seven stories about so-called civil asset forfeiture, which is a sanitized term. Most people call it stealing.
Or “policing for profit.”
Read the entire opinion here at peoplespunditdaily.com
(5/31/18 -- The Newspaper)
Iowa Supreme Court Cracks Down On Police Auto Seizures
Unanimous Iowa Supreme Court decision restores due process protections in roadside seizure cases and hands Prosecution its own ass.
Police in Iowa may no longer seize the cash from passing motorists and put the burden on drivers to prove that they deserve their money back. The state Supreme Court on Friday delivered a unanimous blow against the increasingly common law enforcement tactic by restoring due process rights to drivers who had their property taken even though they were never charged with a crime.
On September 12, 2015, Iowa Department of Transportation Sergeant Kevin Killpack spotted a 1999 Ford Expedition with New York license plates traveling on Interstate 80. His first thought was that the SUV must be carrying drugs. He paced the vehicle and claimed it was traveling 4 MPH over the 70 MPH speed limit to justify a traffic stop.
The Ford had been carrying $44,900 in cash in a well-hidden compartment, and the state of Iowa wanted to keep it. Yet the state had no evidence that Herrera and Rodriguez had committed any crime. Under state law, seized property can only be returned after its owner provides a detailed account of how he came into possession of the property, who he bought it from, and all related details. That requirement, the high court found, violates the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. As a procedural matter, the justices also found that the state has to establish that the initial search and traffic stop was lawful before deciding the forfeiture claim.
The court also ordered attorneys fees be paid for the owner of the Ford, noting that the state offered its full resistance to any attempt to have property returned, only to give it up without a judge's ruling in an attempt to avoid triggering the requirement that the state pay the prevailing party's legal bills.
"Allowing fee awards under chapter 809A when the owner prevails after contested proceedings furthers the legislative purpose to incentivize attorneys to represent citizens seeking return of their property from the government," Justice Waterman wrote. "This will help level the playing field for persons contesting government seizures of private property."
Read the entire article here at thenewspaper.com
(5/31/18 -- The Washington Post)
U.S. Customs seize 64-year-old's life savings and keep it without charging him with a crime
A 64-year-old Cleveland man is suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection after agents strip-searched him at an airport in October and took more than $58,000 in cash from him without charging him with any crime, according to a federal lawsuit filed this week in Ohio.
Customs agents seized the money through a process known as civil asset forfeiture, a law enforcement technique that allows authorities to take cash and property from people who are never convicted or even charged with a crime. The practice is widespread at the federal level. In 2017, federal authorities seized more than $2 billion in assets from people, a net loss similar in size to annual losses from residential burglaries in the United States.
“The government can just take everything from you,” said Wesley Hottot, the Kazazi family's attorney. Hottot is with the Institute for Justice, a civil-liberties law firm working to overturn civil forfeiture. People wishing to challenge a civil forfeiture must essentially demonstrate their innocence in court, Hottot said, turning the dictum of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head.
The Kazazis said they were also flabbergasted by the allegation of “smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering.” There was no indication of how the officers arrived at that conclusion. “This was the most offensive thing I've ever seen,” Erald Kazazi said. “They provide no evidence. They list three different things without even saying which one it is.”
In a statement, CBP said that “pursuant to an administrative search of Mr. Kazazi and his bags, TSA agents discovered artfully concealed U.S. currency. Mr. Kazazi provided inconsistent statements regarding the currency, had no verifiable source of income and possessed evidence of structuring activity,” that is, making cash withdrawals of less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements.
Hottot noted that the structuring allegation was not included in the seizure notice. “They've never mentioned structuring before,” he said. “I think what were really seeing here is some creative Monday-morning quarterbacking by CBP, trying to justify the unjustified.”
Read the entire article here at washingtonpost.com
(5/30/18 -- Forbes)
Iowa Supreme Court Rules Civil Forfeiture Laws Violate Fifth Amendment, Upholds Pleading The Fifth
The Iowa Supreme Court struck a blow on Friday against the state’s civil forfeiture laws, which allow the government to permanently confiscate property without ever filing criminal charges. In a unanimous, 33-page ruling, the court strengthened the constitutional protection against self-incrimination for owners fighting civil forfeiture, revived a motion to suppress evidence, and rejected a tactic commonly used by prosecutors to prevent owners from being awarded thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees.
Iowa has been a surprising hot spot for civil forfeiture, ensnaring motorists, professional poker players, and an entrepreneur who ran a Mexican restaurant for almost four decades. The state even rewards the aggressive pursuit of forfeiture cases: Police and prosecutors can keep up to 100 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property. Little wonder then that forfeiture has become quite profitable for law enforcement. An investigation by the Des Moines Register revealed that Iowa law enforcement agencies had taken over $55 million in cash and more than 4,200 vehicles since 1985.
Spurred by these abuses, last year, Iowa legislators strengthened due process protections for innocent owners, and required a criminal conviction to forfeit property valued at under $5,000. Although Iowa’s conviction threshold is the lowest of the 15 states with a conviction requirement, in 2015, data analysis by the Institute for Justice found that only 14 percent of Iowa’s cash forfeitures topped $5,000. Friday’s ruling should further curtail civil forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at forbes.com
(5/30/18 -- National Center For Public Policy Research)
Big Government’s Focus on Fines and Fees Disparately Impacts Poor, Minority Communities
Law enforcement agencies focus too much on revenue-generating activities that have a negative impact on poor and minority communities, further straining the relationship between police and the communities they serve, according to the black leadership network Project 21. As part of its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” Project 21 recommends 10 criminal justice reforms. Among them: Requiring convictions be obtained before assets are forfeited, prohibiting incarceration for fine-only misdemeanors, requiring fines and forfeitures go to general funds rather than an enforcing agency’s budget and considering a person’s ability to pay when levying fines.
“Our founders never intended that merely being accused of a crime would be a sufficient basis to take a man’s home or his property. It is axiomatic that, before you must forfeit your car or personal savings, the government should obtain a finding of guilt of some relevant charge,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor and senior counsel to congressional leaders. “Just because government has a voracious appetite for funds, it’s not a good enough reason to dispense with a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Even more troubling, Project 21 notes, is the appallingly high rate of incarceration related simply to an inability to pay fees and fines. By one estimate, approximately 20 percent of inmates in some local jails are incarcerated because they owe money for legal offenses. In other words, those with fine-only misdemeanors such as traffic violations have been jailed for merely failing to pay fines.
Read the entire article here at
(5/30/18 -- Washington Examiner)
Trump is right that Jeff Sessions is terrible
The current attorney general vigorously supports ballooning the federal government’s power and authority over the states, and all in the name of expanding the nation’s farcical war on drugs. In May 2017, for example, Sessions overturned a DOJ policy instructing prosecutors not to specify drug amounts when filing charges against low-level and nonviolent offenders. The idea was that this rule, which was handed down in 2013, would give judges the ability to sentence at their discretion. This way, small-time offenders could be given reasonable sentences, as opposed to the judge having no choice but to apply mandatory federal sentences, which can range from five years to life in prison.
This policy was apparently too lenient for Sessions, who explained at the time that, "We’re on a bad trend right now. We've got too much complacency about drugs. Too much talk about recreational drugs.”
Later, In January, Sessions announced he would roll back a policy limiting the federal government’s ability to prosecute marijuana users and distributors in states that have legalized cannabis. This was not only an attack on federalism, but setting federal agents on a crusade against marijuana is also a hilariously unrealistic use of the DOJ’s already limited time and resources. It’s not even good management.
Sessions is unfit for office because he operates as one who believes it's better to be safe than free, and that man exists to serve the law and not the other way around.
Read the entire opinion here at washingtonexaminer.com
(5/29/18 -- NBC News)
Foreign cartels embrace home-grown marijuana in pot-legal states
In early April, local and federal authorities descended upon 74 marijuana grow houses in the Sacramento area they say were underwritten by Chinese organized crime. They filed court paperwork to seize the properties, worth millions of dollars.
Federal officials allege that legal recreational marijuana states like California, Colorado and Washington, where enforcement of growing regulations is hit-or-miss, have been providing cover for transnational criminal organizations willing to invest big money to buy or rent property to achieve even bigger returns.
The suspects are targeting states that have already legalized marijuana "in an attempt to shroud their operations in our legal environment here and then take the marijuana outside of the state," said Mike Hartman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, which regulates and licenses the cannabis industry. Authorities say they've seen an increase in these "home grows" since the launch of recreational pot sales in Colorado.
Read the entire article here at nbcnews.com
(5/29/18 -- Yellowhammer)
High-level Alabama incumbents likely won’t help civil asset forfeiture reform
Stories like Frank Ranelli’s – a Birmingham-area businessman whose more than 130 computers were seized by Homewood police in 2010 on suspicion that some were stolen – were what drove Alabama’s legislators and interest groups to attempt reform of the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws during this year’s legislative session.
Significant reform gained early momentum when a bill that would require a criminal conviction before assets could be seized passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it quickly lost much of that momentum due to pushback from law enforcement and district attorneys, and a lack of support from the state’s top officials.
Read the entire article here at yellowhammernews.com
(5/26/18 -- Herb)
US Attorney For Oregon Announced He Will Enforce Federal Cannabis Prohibition
Billy Williams has announced that his office will now actively enforce the federal ban on cannabis within the state. This marks the first cannabis enforcement policy put forward by a US Attorney since the Cole memo was rescinded in January. But while Williams office will now see more cannabis-related cases, priority will be placed on those violate federal trafficking laws as well as the state’s regulations.
Now, as the Beaver State faces a surplus of cannabis which has grown to three times more than the state can consume, Willaims is moving to scale back out of state trafficking among other violations.
“I will not make broad proclamations of blanket immunity from prosecution to those who violate federal law,” Williams wrote. “At the same time, our office’s resources are finite,” he added, echoing a statement made by Sessions in March when the AG admitted to reporters that the DOJ does not have the resources to enforce the federal ban.
As a result, Williams said that his office would resort to measures such as the controversial method of asset forfeiture in which law enforcement seizes property and money on suspicion that they could be connected to a crime. The technique is used in drug cases in which money is confiscated and later used to fund law enforcement operations.
Read the entire article here at herb.co
(5/25/18 -- Des Moines Register)
Iowa Supreme Court ruling spells more trouble for state's controversial forfeiture policy
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday threw up a significant roadblock into law enforcement's efforts to seize cash and other property it suspects is tied to crime.
The court ruled that officers can't force people to answer questions about the seized property as a condition for its return.
The decision also requires courts to decide whether law enforcement properly and legally seized items before granting a claim against a person’s property.
And it ends a practice that allowed prosecutors to strategically drop a forfeiture case just before a court hearing to avoid paying legal fees incurred by the people trying to get their property returned.
Read the entire article here at desmoinesregister.com
(5/25/18 -- Courthouse News service)
Feds Seize Roman-Era Mosaic Smuggled From War-Torn Syria
Heracles lies at the center of federal forfeiture proceedings in Southern California, after an 18-foot, one-ton ancient mosaic depicting the mythological hero smuggled from war-torn Syria was recovered from a home by federal agents.
Read the entire article here at courthousenews.com
(5/24/18 -- MS News)
Pelahatchie's Mayor speaks out about misspent drug seizure funds
Mississippi State Auditor Stacey Pickering says several current and former officials in the Town of Pelahatchie have 30 days to pay back $500,000 in misspent drug forfeiture funds.
The town's mayor Ryshonda Beechem is included in the group and she is speaking out for the first time.
Sitting next to her attorney, Mayor Beechem told the media she had no idea the town's leadership was misspending drug forfeiture funds. While the mayor did admit to signing some checks after being elected back in July. She claims she was told they were for the town's bills.
Earlier this week, State Auditor Stacey Pickering delivered civil demands to more than a dozen current and former Pelahatchie officials. He says instead of them spending $500,000 on police and law enforcement resources, they were spending the drug seizure money on everything from employee salaries to utilities.
Read the entire article here at msnewsnow.com
(5/13/18 -- Herald Chronicle)
Tennessee will require law enforcement to report forfeiture spending
Under a bill signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam on Monday, Tennessee’s law enforcement agencies and drug task forces will finally have to reveal how they spend millions of dollars’ worth of confiscated property. Thanks to the state’s civil forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors can seize and keep cash, cars, and other valuables without ever charging the owner with a crime.
Once property is forfeited to the government, law enforcement can collect up to 100 percent of the proceeds, which provides them with a strong incentive to pursue civil forfeiture. Research by the Institute for Justice found that between 2009 and 2014, Tennessee agencies forfeited almost $86 million in cash. (That figure does not include proceeds from cars, electronics, and other physical property, so the true value of forfeiture funding is even higher.) But where that money went remained a mystery.
Read the entire article here at heraldchronicle.com
(5/22/18 -- Providence Journal)
Cranston, RI coin dealer serving 660-year term challenges asset seizure
The Cranston coin dealer serving 660 years in prison for laundering money for a Colombian drug cartel is seeking the return of gold bars, jewelry, money and other assets, arguing federal authorities seized more property than they are entitled to under the law.
Stephen Saccoccia and his wife, Donna, recently filed separate actions in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island challenging now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Ernest C. Torres’s order that they forfeit more than $136 million in assets as punishment for laundering that sum in a drug lord’s cocaine profits through his businesses.
Saccoccia is asserting that millions of dollars worth of the seized assets are actually “untainted legally obtained” property. Those include the Saccoccias’ home at 2 Brimfield Rd. in Cranston; money from bank and trust accounts; and personal jewelry and collectibles taken from safety deposit boxes in the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg. In addition, they challenge the seizure of 83 gold bars found buried in the backyard and cellar of Saccoccia’s mother’s house.
Read the entire article here at providencejournal.com
(5/22/18 -- WAPT)
Pelahatchie, MS mayor responds after state auditor says drug forfeiture money misspent
Pelahatchie Mayor Ryshonda Beechem's attorney responded Tuesday to a demand from State Auditor Stacey Pickering of repayment of drug forfeiture money investigators said the town misspent.
Agents from the auditor’s office delivered civil demands Monday to several current and former Pelahatchie officials, Pickering said. The demands were issued for $502,363, which includes interest and investigative costs, Pickering said.
Read the entire article here at wapt.com
(5/21/18 -- ACLU)
Uncle Sam Is Helping Missouri Cops Steal From the State’s Public Education Fund
When it comes to the practice of civil asset forfeiture, the state of Missouri has the right idea. State law mandates that 100 percent of proceeds from cash and property forfeitures that result in convictions be used to fund the state’s public schools. That’s a sound idea, but there’s one problem: It isn’t happening.
In 2016, local law enforcement only sent $100,000 to public schools when it seized $6.3 million worth of property. And of that total, 44 percent went to the feds. What accounts for this discrepancy?
Simple: Missouri law enforcement has conspired with the Department of Justice, in defiance of state law, to ensure that the cash goes into their coffers rather than to the school children of Missouri.
Read the entire article here at aclu.org
(5/21/18 -- The New Orleans Advocate)
Feds order asset forfeiture fund frozen in Harahan; police chief told to turn over control of account to city
Harahan Police Chief Tim Walker has turned over control of confiscated drug money to the city after the U.S. Department of Justice found the account was not being properly administered.
Read the entire article here at theadvocate.com
(5/17/18 -- Alabama Public Radio)
Civil Asset Forfeiture a Hot Topic in AG Race
Earlier this month, incumbent Attorney General Steve Marshall called the process a “vital tool for law enforcement” that “needs to continue” while speaking at a candidate forum. His GOP opponents vying for the Attorney General nomination all say that reforms need to be made.
Shay Farley is the Alabama policy counsel for the Southern Poverty Law Center. She says law enforcement officials tend to claim this is an important tool in going after major criminals. But the evidence doesn’t stack up.
“The average forfeiture in Alabama is about $1300. Most of these do not have criminal charges brought against them. In fact, most of the cases where there were criminal charges brought, they were for misdemeanor charges – for possession, for paraphernalia – hardly the big baddies that we need off the street.”
Read the entire article here at apr.org
(5/17/18 -- Progress Times)
Audit reveals Palmview, TX made 'extravagant purchases' with asset forfeiture money
Prepared by city Finance Director Rachel Chapa, the nearly 470-page report documents major accounting problems and potentially improper spending during the past seven years.
Palmview spent federal asset forfeiture funds on “extravagant purchases,” including three high-end trucks, parties and sports tickets.
The Justice Department requires local partners to spend the money for law enforcement purposes. Palmview, though, routinely broke the rules, according to the audit report.
“It’s not an opinion,” City Councilwoman Linda Sarabia said. “It’s black and white. They’re facts.”
Read the entire article here at progresstimes.net
(5/11/18 -- WorldNetDaily)
Texas nurse sues feds to get her cash back
A Texas nurse has launched a court fight against the U.S. government over some $40,000 in cash it confiscated from her as she was preparing to take it to her home country of Nigeria to start a medical clinic for women and children.
Anthonia Nwaorie is being represented by the Institute for Justice, which concedes she apparently violated a rule requiring the government be notified when someone wants to take more than $10,000 in cash out of the country.
It’s not illegal to do that, but the feds demand to know about it.
But Nwaorie didn’t know about the law, and contends that it was more or less concealed from the public.
Read the entire article here at wnd.com
(5/16/18 -- WJAC)
Battle over Cambria County, PA drug forfeiture documents continues in court
A Johnstown man's battle with the Cambria County Attorney's Office over Right-to-Know requests regarding documents pertaining to the county's expenditures of its drug forfeiture fund continued at a hearing Wednesday.
John DeBartola supplied the court with his response after the District Attorney's Office withheld several records he requested pertaining to spending of the drug forfeiture fund.
"I find it sad that these local officials are so power hungry that they want to circumvent the law of our land," DeBartola said in court Wednesday.
Read the entire article here at wjactv.com
(5/16/18 -- The New American)
DOJ’s Stealth Nationalization of Local Police
Under a Department of Justice program known as “Equitable Sharing,” local police are being deputized as federal agents in order to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces, enabling them to bypass their state’s own forfeiture and surveillance laws so they can spy on individuals suspected of terrorism or other crimes falling under federal jurisdiction.
In other words, local police and prosecutors are able to circumvent their own state’s anti-surveillance or forfeiture laws in order to conduct warrantless surveillance or seize private property.
If allowed to continue, the DOJ’s unconstitutional “Equitable Sharing” program may indeed result in replacing local police with a fully federalized national police in the name of “safety” and “security.”
Read the entire article here at thenewamerican.com
(5/16/18 -- KMBC News)
Missouri Cops Cheat Schools Out of Millions
Missouri law enforcement agencies have seized $19 million in the last three years - only 2 percent of that has gone to schools. A state lawmaker, and the Missouri School Board Association say according to state law, that money should actually be going to schools.
In Kansas, authorities can forfeit money or property even if a person hasn’t been convicted of a crime. Missouri laws are stricter. They require a conviction before assets may be forfeited, and, unlike Kansas, the money seized doesn’t stay with law enforcement agencies. It goes to schools, or at least, that’s what the law says.
Law enforcement agencies have found a way around that.
Instead of handling cases locally, forfeiture cases are taken through the U.S. Attorney’s Office – federal court. Under federal law, law enforcement doesn’t need a conviction to seize assets, and law enforcement agencies get to keep what they take.
State law directs any forfeited money to a building or repair fund for state schools, but law enforcement agencies like KCPD are spending it on themselves.
Read the entire article here at kmbc.com
(5/14/18 -- AL.Com)
Alabama's Republican AG candidates argue over whether they are "TRULY Horrible Human Beings" or "Merely Horrible Human Beings"
Alabama's civil asset forfeiture program "needs to continue," remains a "vital tool for law enforcement" and "must be preserved," said Attorney General Steve Marshall.
His comments represent the strongest public statements among those running for Attorney General or Governor regarding a program critics call an abusive violation of Constitutional rights, while supporters say it's an effective crime-fighting tool.
Yet his stance contrasts with two fellow Republicans also vying for the GOP nomination for Attorney General: Alice Martin and Troy King. Both King and Martin are pushing for reforms.
Said Martin: "I do think reform is needed."
Added King: "They should be changed."
Read the entire article here at al.com
(5/14/18 -- WVVA)
WV State Police receive $1 million in civil forfeiture
Federal officials said the West Virginia State Police have received more than $1 million in forfeiture proceeds from a money laundering case involving the First National Bank of Williamson.
U.S. Attorney Mike Stuart and members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation made the announcement on Monday. The bank was ordered to forfeit more than $1.3 million in March 2017 for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The WVSP received a total of $1,087,285.15.
Read the entire article here at wvva.com
(5/14/18 -- AM New York)
NYPD asset seizure data reveals millions in unclaimed cash and property
The NYPD turned over about 160,000 documents showing the money and property it’s seized mainly from arrests, according to an agreement officially reached Monday with the Bronx Defenders.
As part of the settlement, filed on Monday morning, the police department turned over the documents that contain records of cash, cars and cellphones taken from people from July 2016 to June 2017, according to the Bronx Defenders.
The money or property can come from several scenarios, including being held for safekeeping if someone is arrested, or seized as evidence in a case. It can also be taken as a civil forfeiture, or cash that an agency would keep if it was the proceed of a crime.
According to the Bronx Defenders, in 2016 the NYPD kept about $1,500 as a result of civil forfeiture and retained about $6.3 million in unclaimed cash and money made from the sale of property.
Read the entire article here at amny.com
(5/14/18 -- NJ Spotlight)
Public Employees Guilty of Sexual Assault, Harassment Would Forfeit Pensions
Inspired by the nationwide campaign against sexual harassment known as the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in New Jersey are proposing a costly new punishment for elected officials and public workers who use their positions to commit a sexual assault or related offense.
A bill that was easily approved by a state Assembly committee last week would result in the complete loss of a taxpayer-funded pension by any elected official or public worker who commits a sexual assault or related offense that somehow involves their official position.
Read the entire article here at njspotlight.com
(5/13/18 -- The Telegraph)
Authorities attempt to seize money from man found with an alleged 80 grams of cocaine
The forfeiture case involves Williams Croft, 40, of the 1600 block of Clawson St., Alton, who was charged April 26 with two counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. Bail is set at $100,000.
He allegedly sold between one and 15 grams of cocaine to a confidential informant within 1,000 feet of Southern Illinois University Dental School on March 21.
Read the entire article here at thetelegraph.com
(5/12/18 -- Wisconsin State Journal)
Ryan J. Owens: How to keep more people out of prison
Wisconsin’s criminal justice system needs reform. Liberals and conservatives, prosecutors and defenders, all agreed on that at a recent conference hosted by the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership at UW-Madison.
A consensus thundered loudly and clearly when examining civil forfeiture. Wisconsin has no business taking people’s property without due process of law. Civil forfeiture lets authorities seize property from people who have never been formally charged with a crime. The process property owners must go through to reclaim their rightfully held property is onerous and expensive.
After authorities seize your property, the resulting legal proceedings do not follow regular standards of criminal law. Moreover, little data are kept on how much money Wisconsin collects from civil forfeiture, and from whom. Panelists agreed citizens have the right to know how much money gets collected through forfeiture. Speakers on the right and the left advocated for greater protections for property owners, and greater transparency.
Read the entire opinion here at madison.com
(5/11/18 -- The Chicago Tribune)
"Blue" Justice Allows Sex Criminal To Keep $84K Pension
A former high-ranking suburban police officer who is now in prison for a sex crime will continue to receive his $84,000 annual pension.
An attorney for the Lake in the Hills police pension board informed board members on Thursday that they have no legal standing to revoke the pension of former deputy police chief Alan Bokowski.
Bokowski was sentenced in February to 4½ years in the penitentiary following his guilty plea to the criminal sexual assault of a child between the ages of 13 and 17.
Pension board attorney Richard Reimer said revoking Bokowski’s $7,000 monthly pension would not be permissible under the state’s forfeiture law and state law generally requires the cause of forfeiture to be job-related, based on conduct that occurred on duty or through the use of special training or equipment.
Read the entire article here at chicagotribune.com
(5/10/18 -- The Detroit News)
Our Editorial: Get cops out of fencing racket
A bill moving through the state Legislature would get police out of the petty theft racket, but would leave the door open for them to continue engaging in grand larceny. Still, it’s an important step, and the measure should be adopted.
Civil asset forfeiture is an affront to constitutionally protected property rights and the fundamental legal concept of innocent until proven guilty. And yet it is practiced by nearly all of Michigan’s law enforcement agencies and protected by state law.
Read the entire opinion here at detroitnews.com
(5/10/18 -- KETV)
Law agency receives record drug case payout
One Nebraska law agency literally hit the I-80 "drug pipeline" jackpot.
The Lancaster County Sheriff's office recently received $1.372 million as its share of seized money from a drug case worked two years ago.
"It's our largest, no question about it. Our largest single forfeiture," Sheriff Terry Wagner said.
Adding a bit of levity, Wagner laughingly claimed, "If we can't prove a nexus between cash and illegal activity then we don't seize it or it goes back to the owner. We don't just seize money to seize money."
Read the entire article here at ketv.com
(5/10/18 -- KTBS)
Prosecutors move to seize assets of deer camp vandalism suspect
Gary Wilson, the man suspected of committing a string of arsons and vandalisms at deer hunting leases in north Bossier Parish, has lost his freedom, his wife and his son. If prosecutors get their way, he would also lose all his money.
According to insurance fraud charges just filed, Gary Wilson heavily damaged his home in a 2015 vandalism in which paint, diesel and bleach were thrown over the contents, an ax was taken to the refrigerator and family pictures were destroyed. Wood was piled on a table like preparation for a bonfire.
Prosecutor Hugo Holland said forfeiture of the Wilson property is being done to seek restitution for the insurance company and also because of the large amount of resources the Sheriff's Office committed trying to solve the case. The Sheriff's Office is being sued for wrongful arrest by the original suspect.
For years deputies pursued the wrong man: Todd Phillips, a Shreveport business executive who lived in the area. Property damage and arson charges against Phillips were dropped after Wilson's arrest. Authorities now allege Wilson set up Phillips and they have charged him with perjury, accusing him of giving false testimony against Phillips, who spent tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and has sued authorities and Wilson for malicious prosecution.
Read the entire article here at ktbs.com
(5/9/18 -- The Detroit News)
Require a conviction for forfeiture
Everyone knows the phrase “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” But unfortunately that principle does not actually apply to everyone. With one simple reform now working its way through the Michigan Legislature, we can finally fix that injustice. It is time for Michigan to require a criminal conviction for the practice known as civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire opinion here at detroitnews.com
(5/9/18 -- Reason)
Texas Town Caught With Hand in Forfeiture Cookie Jar
A small town in Texas has had to suspend its participation in the Department of Justice's asset forfeiture program while the feds investigate an apparent misappropriation of funds.
Palmview, a suburb of McAllen near the Mexican border, is a small town of less than 6,000. It's hardly a major player in the forfeiture program: It received around $47,000 in 2017 by participating in the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program, which lets local cops team up with the feds for busts and then use the Department of Justice to seize and keep the assets and money of those they arrest. Cities and counties across Texas altogether received around $29 million total last year via the program.
According to local news reports, a city audit found that the funds were being misappropriated and improperly spent. Asset forfeiture funds are supposed to be used to pay policing expenses, but they were being funneled elsewhere to fund other activities, such as trips for non–law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, the town's police chief (who has been fired) has been accused of getting an outside job with a private security company and using city resources (including asset forfeiture funds) to promote the company.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(5/9/18 -- KMBC News)
Law enforcement tool or highway robbery?
Its real name is civil asset forfeiture – it’s how a traffic stop could end with someone losing their life’s savings.
“It’s something to take pride in, and I’m very, very proud of these guys,” says Sheriff Tony Wolf.
The KHP leads the state in asset forfeiture amounts. State and federal records show KHP brings in nearly $2 million every year that way.
Attorney Chris Joseph is on the other side of the issue. He’s working to reform that law. He believes law enforcement agencies find a reason to search cars, and to take property. Joseph, and other critics of civil asset forfeiture, have also criticized law enforcement in Kansas for targeting out-of-state plates.
Sheriff Wolf denies his agency targets out-of-state plates. Records obtained by KMBC 9 News showed in the past three years, 90 percent of the Kansas Highway Patrol’s significant seizures have been vehicles with out-of-state plates.
Read the entire article here at kmbc.com
(5/8/18 -- Michigan News)
House votes to tighten law on civil asset forfeiture in drug cases
The Michigan House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill tightening the rules for assets seized through civil asset forfeiture. The chamber approved it 83-26.
For seized property valued at $50,000 or less, House Bill 4158 would prohibit civil asset forfeitures for drug crimes unless there is a conviction or plea agreement, no one claims the property or the property owner relinquishes the property.
He said he's gotten pushback on the bill from the law enforcement community. He said they stood to benefit from property seizures.
The legislature voted on civil asset forfeiture as part of changes last session. Through that, police reported seizing $15.2 million of assets in 2016. In 10 percent of the cases, the subjects of seizures were never charged with the relevant crime.
Read the entire article here at mlive.com
(5/7/18 -- National Review)
Border Patrol Refuses to Return $41,000 Seized from Woman Who Hoped to Open Medical Clinic
"We stole it far and square, and we're keeping it."
Customs and Border Protections (CBP) seized $41,000 from a Nigerian-born Texas woman in October of last year as she was passing through the Houston airport on her way to start a medical clinic in her home country.
Anthonia Nwaorie, a 59-year-old nurse, was never charged with a crime and CBP never pursued civil-forfeiture proceedings against her. But the agency is nevertheless refusing to return the funds, which Nwaorie spent years saving up, unless she signs a a so-called “hold harmless agreement” forfeiting her right to sue and forcing her to reimburse the government for “costs incurred in the enforcement of any part of this agreement,” according to a report in the Texas Tribune.
The Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based public-interest-law firm, filed a class-action suit last Thursday on Nwaorie’s behalf, challenging the government’s authority to require that a citizen sign away their right to sue before their money is returned.
“We’re representing hundreds or thousands of people all over the country who have had this sort of thing happen to them,” Dan Alban, one of the attorneys litigating the case, told the Tribune. “They were entitled to get their property back…and instead, CBP sent them this letter demanding that they waive all rights to sue and hold [the government] harmless, and if they violate the agreement, pay all the attorney’s fees. And that’s just egregious.”
Read the entire travesty here at nationalreview.com
(5/5/18 -- Daily News-Miner)
Airplane forfeiture sentence reversed by same judge
As punishment for the crime of “importing” alcohol to a dry village, a judge ruled four years ago that a Fairbanks air transport company should forfeit an airplane. That same judge reversed himself this week, ruling that the punishment violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and identical language in the Alaska Constitution, which protects against “excessive fines” and “cruel and unusual punishments.”
Read the entire article here at newsminer.com
(5/4/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
Albuquerque needs to stop violating state civil forfeiture rule
Over three years after Gov. Susana Martinez signed historic legislation that abolished civil forfeiture, the practice continues in Albuquerque. The city has asserted that, as a city, it is not required to follow state law.
That remarkable legal theory is wearing thin: A recent opinion from U.S. District Judge James Browning found that state forfeiture law applies to Albuquerque. In other words, the city is not above the law.
Read the entire opinion here at abqjournal.com
(5/4/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
Institute for Justice asks Supreme Court to take civil forfeiture appeal
The Virginia-based legal organization filed a petition to transfer Jeana M. Horner, et al. v. Terry R. Curry, et al., 49D06-1602-PL-004804 on Thursday after Marion Superior Judge Thomas J. Carroll denied the Institute’s motion for summary judgment in March. The Institute — arguing on behalf of three Indianapolis couples — moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Indiana Code section 34-24-1-4 unconstitutionally allows civil forfeiture proceeds to be diverted to prosecutors’ offices and law enforcement before being deposited into the Common School Fund.
Read the entire article here at theindianalawyer.com
(5/4/18 --The Texas tribune)
The government took $41,000 from this Texan. They never gave it back.
For nearly a decade, Anthonia Nwaorie dreamed of starting a medical clinic in her hometown in Southern Nigeria.
Last October, the 59-year-old nurse was boarding a plane in Houston with medical equipment, supplies, and about $41,000 in cash — which had taken her years to save — when Customs and Border Protection officials stopped her.
“The officer started asking me questions: How much money do you have? How long have you been in the United States?” she remembered. “I felt like a criminal that had just run the red light.”
Nwaorie said she was detained for hours. She missed her flight to Nigeria and the customs officers seized all her money. Lawyers at the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Virginia-based public interest law firm, say her case demonstrates just how abusive the practice of civil forfeiture — which allows the government to take property that is believed to be tied to a crime — can be.
Read the entire article here at texastribune.org
(5/3/18 -- tdtnews.com)
Milam County, Texas, hits the jackpot with $540,000 forfeiture
A Rockdale man who fell asleep in his car on March 26 had a rude awakening when Milam County Sheriff’s Department deputies arrested him.
He had his day in court this week and came out a lot poorer — but Milam County hit the jackpot.
As part of a plea deal, Rock Eanes, 40, was sentenced to one day in the Milam County Jail, ordered to pay court costs and restitution — and to forfeit $540,000 to Milam County.
Reat the entire article here at tdtnews.com
(5/3/18 -- UPMatters)
Due process rights need improvement in Michigan
State Rep. Beau LaFave, along with other members of the House Judiciary Committee, this week voted to protect the due process rights of Michigan citizens.
The legislation requires a criminal conviction before law enforcement officers can seize property using the civil asset forfeiture process.
“The intent of civil asset forfeiture is to prevent criminals from profiting from crime,” said LaFave, of Iron Mountain. “I support that intent entirely, however, the due process rights of totally innocent citizens are disregarded under the current process.”
Read the entire article here at upmatters.com
(5/3/18 -- Montgomery Advertiser)
Policing for profit prevails at Alabama Legislature
Since 2007, the DEA has seized a total of $3.2 billion in cash from people suspected of being involved in the drug trade but never charged with a crime, the Washington Post reports. According to the AP, the inspector general reviewed 100 cases of civil asset forfeiture at random and found only 44 were verifiably connected to an ongoing investigation, responsible for starting a new investigation, or led to arrests or prosecutions. That means that 56% of the time "there was no discernible connection between the seizure and the advancement of law enforcement efforts."
Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws can ruin lives – even the lives of people never found guilty of any crime. Just ask Jamey Vibbert, a Dothan car dealer, former president of the Dothan/Houston County Rotary Club, three-time Ambassador of the Year for the area Chamber of Commerce, and victim of this un-American law. He lost his life savings and his business fighting to clear his name. Even after he was found innocent, he still had to pay a lawyer to help him get his money back – all because of Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow law enforcement to take people’s money without obtaining a conviction or even charging them with a crime.
We examined court records in 1,110 cases in 14 counties, representing 70 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases filed in Alabama in 2015. In 25 percent of cases, the government took a person’s property without even charging them with a crime. In that same year, the government took – and kept – at least $670,000 from people never charged with a crime.
Read the entire opinion here at montgomeryadvertiser.com
(5/2/18 -- The Monitor)
Palmview, Texas, forfeiture program suspended while under review
The city of Palmview’s asset forfeiture program has been suspended by the Department of Justice as it conducts a review of the program.
City Manager Leo Olivares said he received a call last Monday from the DOJ informing him the agency would be conducting a review and the program would be suspended until the review is completed. The city received written confirmation of the suspension Tuesday.
The audit conducted by city Finance Director Rachel Chapa and approved by the city council Tuesday found several deficiencies within the program, according to Olivares.
Among the findings was that the asset forfeiture funds, which are considered federal funds, were being mixed with the city’s general funds, and that the funds were being used for ineligible activities.
Read the entire article here themonitor.com
(5/1/18 -- Bristol Herald Courier)
Case that triggered changes to forfeiture laws settled
A lawsuit that attorneys say prompted lawmakers to reform Arizona's civil asset forfeiture laws has been settled.
The Arizona Capitol Times reports a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit Friday after the parties filed notice of settlement.
The suit was filed in July 2015 on behalf of Rhonda Cox whose truck was seized in 2013 after her son had borrowed it and was arrested.
Cox claimed in the suit against the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and county prosecutors that the seizure violated her constitutional rights because she was not involved in the crime.
Read the entire article here at heraldcourier.com
(4/29/18 -- The Marshall Project)
Cy Vance is New York City’s biggest philanthropist.
That’s thanks to the massive $800 million in forfeiture funds that his office has collected from corporate wrongdoers, mostly banks found to have violated U.S. sanctions. The forfeiture deals are controversial: corporate investigation targets are allowed to avoid prosecution by paying hefty fines, a deal out of reach for lesser defendants. Vance critic James Yates, a former state supreme court judge and legislative counsel, calls the deals “little more than outright bribery.” They’re controversial as well since the D.A. gets to decide how the funds are spent with little public scrutiny. “Given that these are essentially public dollars, more transparency and accountability is warranted,” the city’s Independent Budget Office said in a February report on the funds.
Few question that Vance’s spending has gone for the public good: He’s allocated some $316 million for efforts that include providing cops with tablet computers, cameras for public housing and funding a task force on crime and mental health. And in a gesture that belies criticism that he has been tone-deaf to sex crimes, he has provided millions to tackle the vast backlog of rape-kits sitting untested around the country. Vance pays for so-called “diversion” programs across the city that shift those charged with nonviolent misdemeanors into counseling instead of jail.
Vance signs off on each award. Asked if it isn’t strange to have the county’s top law enforcement officer distributing such immense sums, he offered a patrician-sounding sense of duty: “It is a responsibility and a privilege to steward that money,” he said.
Read the entire article here at themarshallproject.org
(4/28/18 -- Record-Courier)
$14,000 ordered returned to man who left bag at gas station
For nearly nine months, a California man has been hoping to get back nearly $14,000 — in $20 bills — allegedly stolen from him at a gas station in August 2017 by a Portage County resident.
It took a judge’s order on Friday for the victim to hopefully get some resolution, as Portage County Common Pleas Judge Becky Doherty ordered authorities to return the money to the victim within two weeks unless they have a federal court order allowing them to keep it.
However, the money was not being held as evidence by the Portage County Sheriff’s Office, Michniak said, and when he asked where it was, he said he was told the Portage County Drug Task Force allegedly “still believe it’s subject to federal forfeiture,” he said.
Read the entire article here at record-courier.com
(4/27/18 -- Badger Herald)
New Wisconsin law limiting scope of civil forfeiture sets precedent for nation
Earlier this month, Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill into law that will require law enforcement officials to obtain a criminal conviction before taking someone’s cash or property. This law makes Wisconsin the 15th state to enact this legislation.
In cities such as Philadelphia, according to an ACLU study, African Americans make up 71 percent of cash forfeitures without convictions. It’s clear that African Americans are disproportionately targeted in cases involving cash grabs. Philadelphia is merely one of several examples where minorities have the most to lose in civil forfeitures.
Wisconsin has made a significant step toward eradicating this behavior, but as is frequently the case with politics, there’s a catch. While Wisconsin has shifted the burden of proof back to the courts, there remain a few key loopholes. If the property owner fails to challenge the forfeiture in court after a waiting period of nine months, law enforcement officials can permanently obtain assets, regardless of whether a conviction is obtained or not.
Read the entire article here at badgerherald.com
(4/25/18 -- Buffalo Law Journal)
Grand jury loophole diminishes 4th Amendment protections
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In the context of criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment requires a finding of probable cause before an individual’s liberty may be deprived or property seized. Any seizure of property without a sufficient finding of probable cause is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Recent evolutions of government policy relating to criminal and civil forfeitures have changed the manner in which potentially tainted assets are pursued, ramping up the importance and priority of forfeitures to the government.
In the criminal realm, assets are only forfeitable if they were sufficiently related to the crime charged in the indictment. However, the government grasps onto the legal precedent asserting that a forfeiture allegation is merely a notice provision and does not require an independent finding of probable cause to incorporate it within an indictment. This allows the government to include a forfeiture allegation in an indictment without ever establishing that the assets listed were involved in the charged offense.
Read the entire article here at bizjournals.com
(4/25/18 -- Reason)
Chicago Is Trying to Pay Down Its Debt by Impounding Innocent People’s Cars
On June 21, 2016, Chicago police pulled Spencer Byrd over for a broken turn signal. Byrd says his signal wasn't broken, but that detail would soon be the least of his worries. Ever since, Byrd has been trapped in one of the city's most confusing bureaucratic mazes, deprived of his car and his ability to work. He now owes the city thousands of dollars for the pleasure.
Byrd had run afoul of Chicago's aggressive vehicle impound program, which seizes cars and fines owners thousands of dollars for dozens of different offenses. The program impounds cars when the owner beats a criminal case or isn't charged with a crime in the first place. It impounds cars even when the owner isn't even driving, like when a child is borrowing a parent's car.
The city says it is simply enforcing nuisance laws and cracking down on scofflaws. But community activists and civil liberties groups say the laws are predatory, burying guilty and innocent owners alike in debt, regardless of their ability to pay or the effect losing a vehicle will have on their lives.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(4/24/18 -- Elk Grove citizen)
Elk Grove forfeiture bill stalled
Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, authored an assembly bill that would allow Elk Grove law enforcement to confiscate houses where marijuana was illegally grown.
The assembly’s Public Safety Committee on April 17 reviewed Assembly Bill 3208, but they did not vote to advance that proposal to another committee.
Read the entire article here at egcitizen.com
(4/24/18 -- The Ripon Advance)
Bills to protect taxpayers from unjust seizures clears House
Legislation led by U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) to reform Internal Revenue Service (IRS) civil asset forfeiture tools and his other priorities to protect taxpayers cleared the U.S. House last week as part of a larger IRS modernization initiative.
The House on April 18 passed the Taxpayer First Act, H.R. 5444, a key part of a package of legislation designed to revamp the IRS for the first time in more than 20 years – including three measures advocated by Rep. Roskam.
Read the entire article here at riponadvance.com
(4/24/18 -- JDSupra)
Second Circuit Addresses Asset Forfeiture in Insurance Context
In a case arising out of the CityTime scandal, the Second Circuit issued a thoughtful opinion addressing the operation of restitution and asset forfeiture on victims of white-collar crime. The decision, Federal Insurance Company v. United States of America, Nos. 16-2967-op and 16-3402-cr, emphasizes that though restitution and forfeiture are both means for victims to be made whole, they are not subject to the same analysis. Ultimately, the Court (Parker, Lynch, Carney) affirmed the decision denying restitution, but remanded for additional proceedings on forfeiture. The decision is worth a careful read for those representing victims in white-collar criminal matters, and also serves as a road map for how district court judges might approach these issues in the future.
Read the entire article here at jdsupra.com
(4/20/18 -- Jersey Evening Post)
New Jersey laughingly claims it ‘can tackle rogue oligarchs’
Attorney General Robert McRae said that Jersey’s asset forfeiture laws, which were approved by the States last week, could be used as the basis for freezing cash belonging to overseas individuals accused of crimes against humanity, in a similar manner to the Magnitsky Act in the US.
Read the entire article here at jerseyeveningpost.com
(4/20/18 -- Observer)
Seizing People’s Stuff Is Trump’s Favorite Tool
According to the Drug Policy Alliance, New Mexico has the strongest protections against civil asset forfeiture, referred to “policing for profit” by its critics, of any state in the nation. Yet Albuquerque’s car-seizure program only ended this last month, and only after a March 30 ruling from a federal judge forced the city’s hand.
Last summer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked American police and prosecutors, like those in Albuquerque, to ramp up asset forfeitures.
He did this a few months after Trump promised agitated police that he would take care of any pesky lawmakers seeking to curb the practice and that asset forfeitures could continue unabated—the equivalent of telling a roomful of generals to forget Congress and the citizens, and to look underneath their seats for keys to a brand-new F-35.
This shows you the lengths to which government officials will go to cling to asset forfeiture, even if lawmakers and voters are telling them that it’s over, that the citizens are tired of state-sanctioned theft that violates the republic’s founding principles.
Read the entire article here at observer.com
(4/18/18 -- Iowa State Daily)
Civil forfeiture has become corrupt
Imagine this scenario: you’re trying to buy a car on eBay, and the seller would like cash. So, you load up $22,000 of cash in your old car and set off towards the location you’ve agreed on, but before you get there, a police officer pulls you over.
When he hears that you have all this cash in your car, he confiscates it under suspicion of being drug money, despite your eBay-related protests, which you can back up with the transaction report on your computer. Alas, you never see your money again. This sounds ridiculous, right?
On the contrary, not only did this happen to a poor man in Tennessee, but it’s also 100 percent legal. The proper legal name for it is civil forfeiture, and it’s the police’s version of prosecutorial discretion; a power without much public scrutiny that is horrendously easy to abuse
Read the entire opinion here at iowastatedaily.com
(4/18/18 -- The Newspaper)
Utah Supreme Court To Decide Whether Cops Are Violating Forfeiture Ban
Voters in Utah banned state officials from seizing property from people who committed no crime almost two decades ago -- or so they thought. Ever since Initiative B passed with 69 percent of the vote, police have evaded its provisions by seizing cash, turning it over to federal authorities, and then taking a cut of the proceeds in a way that is prohibited under state law. The Utah Supreme Court last week held oral arguments on a roadside seizure case that will decide whether law enforcement has gone too far.
Kyle Savely had his money taken on November 27, 2016, after he was pulled over on Interstate 80 in Summit County for allegedly following someone too closely. That traffic charge was eventually thrown out, but the Utah Highway Patrol officer who stopped Savely called in a drug dog who alerted on his car. There were no drugs, but the officers helped themselves to $500,000 in cash that he was carrying in a Nautica bag.
Savely was never charged with any crime, and Utah law clearly states that the money should have been returned within 75 days if no charges were filed. The highway patrol bypassed that requirement by tipping off the Drug Enforcement Administration which had a federal judge issue an order to take the money.
Read the entire article here at thenewspaper.com
(4/18/18 -- The Inquirer)
New Forfeiture Penalties for hazing likely in Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved harsher penalties for hazing that, if passed by the House and signed by Gov. Wolf, would give the state one of the most comprehensive and toughest laws against the crime in the nation.
The new legislation would make hazing a third-degree felony in the case of serious bodily injury or death, punishable by up to seven years in prison. It also would pave the way for fraternity houses used in hazing to be seized.
No other state has such a forfeiture provision for hazing, according to Hank Nuwer, a hazing expert and professor at Franklin College in Indiana, and few states call the crime a felony.
Read the entire article here at philly.com
(4/17/18 -- Elk Grove News)
Asset Forfeiture Bill For Elk Grove Dies in Assembly
Legislation that would have granted the City of Elk Grove special powers not given to other California municipalities was effectively killed in the California Assembly committee this morning.
After hearing testimony from supporters of the bill and several opponents, the five committee members did not make a motion to vote on the legislation thereby holding it in committee. The move effectively prevents the bill from further legislative consideration.
Read the entre article here at elkgrovenews.net
(4/17/18 -- The New Republic)
Will the U.S.Supreme Court Rein in Civil Forfeiture?
A case from Indiana gives the justices an opportunity to protect Americans from abusive fines and property seizures. The state really wants to take Tyson Timbs’s Land Rover, as punishment for dealing just a few hundred dollars’ worth of drugs. He’s now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let him keep it.
Stories about civil forfeiture injustices are unfortunately common. What sets Timbs’s case apart is his legal argument: that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines should shield his property from confiscation at the state level. If the Supreme Court takes up the case and agrees, the justices could impose some much-needed barriers on state and local governments’ voracious appetites for fees, fines, and forfeitures.
The trial court refused to authorize the seizure. Indiana law only allowed a $10,000 fine for Timbs’s sentence, and the court concluded that seizing a vehicle worth four times as much as that threshold would be “grossly disproportionate” relative to Timbs’s crime. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the decision after their own review of the circumstances. But the Indiana Supreme Court intervened and approved the seizure.
The Excessive Fines Clause is ripe for consideration in the age of mass incarceration. Impoverished Americans often lack the resources to pay off the fines and fees that can come from even a casual brush with the criminal-justice system. In a cruel twist, the inability to pay these costs can result in jail time itself. Keeping oneself out of trouble is also no guarantee of immunity: A 2014 Washington Post investigation, for example, found that police in multiple states use “highway interdiction” to target thousands of motorists for seizures of cash and property.
Read the entire article here at newrepublic.com
(4/16/18 -- Elk Grove News)
Civil Forfeiture Bill Benefiting Elk Grove to Be Heard
The legislation, Assembly Bill 3220, sponsored by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D - Elk Grove) would, if enacted, "specifically authorize the City of Elk Grove to adopt an ordinance authorizing the city to confiscate and seek an order of civil forfeiture of real or personal property for violations of the city’s ordinances. The bill would require the ordinance to provide the owner of the property adequate notice and opportunity to challenge the forfeiture and to ensure that the property seized is reasonable in relation to the ordinance violation."
Elk Grove has been plagued for several years by a proliferation of illegal marijuana grow houses that have tarnished efforts of city leaders to attract employers and high-end retailers to the south Sacramento County suburb. Cooper, who is retired from the Sacramento Sheriff's Department following a 30-year career, served as a council member for 14 years prior to his 2014 election to the California Assembly
Read the entire article here at elkgrovenews.net
(4/14/18 -- Times Free Press)
Tennessee State Rep. Mike Carter's Forfeiture Bill set to pass
The bipartisan civil asset forfeiture bill, officially dubbed the "U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," passed the House 88-0 and the Senate 30-0. It awaits the governor's signature.
Simply, it limits the ability of law enforcement to seize cash, vehicles and other property, especially from individuals who are never charged with a crime or who were not even present (such as a man whose son borrowed his vehicle and used it in the commission of a crime; previously, the man had no right to appear and contest the seizure of his vehicle). It also mandates that the seizing agency of wrongfully seized property must pay the attorney fees, if any, of the property owner.
Carter, on a Facebook post, said the bill "strikes the right balance between protecting the constitutional rights of citizens and making sure our police officers, who put themselves in harm's way every day to protect us, can effectively do their jobs."
Read the entire article here at timesfreepress.com
(4/13/18 -- Dallas News)
70 million-year-old dinosaur skull gets caught in an international forfeiture battle
Dr. James Godwin's victory against the government in the case of a stolen Mongolian dinosaur skull was short lived.
A federal judge in Dallas recently threw out the government's forfeiture lawsuit involving the fossil. To Godwin, a Wichita Falls anesthesiologist and fossil enthusiast, it seemed he might get to keep his prized Tyrannosaurus bataar skull, valued at about $225,000.
But U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor gave government lawyers time to refile their lawsuit, and they did just that, citing a different federal statute — the National Stolen Property Act. The feds maintain that the 70 million-year-old skull that belonged to a relative of Tyrannosaurus rex was among a horde of dinosaur fossils stolen from Mongolia years ago.
Read the entire article here at dallasnews.com
(4/13/18 -- Caller Times)
Nueces County DA Mark Gonzalez announces drug interdiction team
For Texas District Attorney Mark Gonzalez, the unit is about stopping drugs from coming in, money from going out and generating revenue for the department.
He said agents will be actively patroling a corridor of U.S. Highway 77 looking for narcotics and drug money.
Revenue from those seizures can be used to help create more positions for interdiction purposes, as well as allow for the hiring of additional investigators on criminal cases, Gonzalez said.
Read the entire article here at caller.com
(4/12/18 -- Reason)
Three Years After New Mexico Banned Civil Forfeiture, Albuquerque Finally Ends It
Albuquerque tried to ignore strict new state reforms and keep seizing cars, but then it messed with the wrong person.
Albuquerque resident Arlene Harjo's case started out like thousands of others: a seized car, claims of unfairness, and indifference from city officials. But two years later, a federal civil rights lawsuit over the taking of her 2014 Nissan Versa has resulted in the dismantling of Albuquerque's once-lucrative civil asset forfeiture program.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(4/11/18 -- WXYZ Detroit)
Police seize marijuana, $326K in drug money from suspect in Sterling Heights
Police seized a large amount of narcotics and illegal drug money from a collaborated law enforcement effort.
In Kansas, Geary County Sheriff's deputies made a traffic stop of a vehicle that was traveling through their jurisdiction.
Upon their investigation, it was discovered that the vehicle contained 350 pounds of marijuana and was on the way to be sold in Sterling Heights.
A collaborated effort between the Sterling Heights Crime Suppression Unit, Warren Police Department and the Michigan State Police resulted in the arrest of on suspect in Sterling Heights on April 6.
The arrest led to the forfeiture of $326,000 in cash.
Read the entire article here at wxyz.com
(4/12/18 -- NM Political Report)
Keller administration to review pending DWI vehicle seizure lawsuits against the city
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller this week told city police officers to stop the city’s DWI vehicle seizure program. Under existing ordinance, the police department can impound vehicles after DWI arrests, but before the driver has been convicted. Keller called on the city council to permanently change the policy, but there are still pending lawsuits by people who allege the city violated state law and the U.S. Constitution by taking vehicles and then charging owners to release them.
At least two of those cases have been pending for years. In 2016, the Albuquerque Police Department seized Arlene Harjo’s car after arresting her son and charging him with a DWI while driving her vehicle. Harjo’s attorneys argued the city violated her right to due process by taking her car and then requiring her to prove her innocence in a city hearing. They also argue that the city’s vehicle forfeiture program violates a 2015 state law that prohibits state and local police from taking property before a conviction.
Read the entire article here at nmpoliticalreport.com
(4/11/18 -- The Galt Herald)
Federal Authorities raid, seize local marijuana houses
Federal authorities are seizing Galt, Wilton and Herald houses that reportedly contained illegal marijuana growing operations. They were among 100 houses targeted in a sweep operation across the Sacramento region on April 3-4.
Federal agents and local law enforcement officers also searched 74 houses and seized more than 61,000 marijuana plants and 200 kilos of processed marijuana. Investigators determined these operations were connected to organized crime in China and they were operated by human trafficking victims.
Read the entire article here at galtheraldonline.com
(4/10/18 -- Madison-St. Clair Record)
Illinois' Fake Police Sued By 15 Victims
Individuals who served sentences and forfeited cash pursuant to arrests by a fake police squad on Interstate 80 sued the LaSalle County board and former state’s attorney Brian Towne in U.S. district court on April 5.
Plaintiff counsel Patrick Flanagan of Elgin alleged constitutional violations, racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud on the part of Towne and others.
A class action is proposed for all persons with non-Illinois license plates who were stopped by the “state’s attorney’s felony enforcement unit,” or SAFE.
The suit claims that among 918 arrests that SAFE made from 2011 to 2015, only six involved vehicles with Illinois plates, and none of those drivers received a traffic citation other than a warning ticket for minor violations.
“SAFE profited by the illegal corrupt stops on Interstate 80 through the forfeiture of money and property seized during the stops,” Flanagan wrote.
Read the entire article here at madisonrecord.com
(4/4/18 -- The Sacremento Bee)
Chinese crime syndicate’s pot grows lead to seizure of 100 homes
In the largest operation of its kind, federal agents swept across the Sacramento region Tuesday and Wednesday targeting about 75 homes serving as suspected marijuana growing sites that authorities say are operated by a Chinese organized crime syndicate.
The raids, which involved more than 500 federal, state and local agents, hit homes from Elk Grove to Sacramento to rural areas and are aimed at forcing the forfeiture of about 100 homes to the federal government, an effort valued at hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and marijuana.
“This represents one of the largest residential forfeiture efforts in the nation’s history,” the U.S. Justice Department said.
Read the entire article here at sacbee.com
(4/9/18 -- Newsday Long Island)
Suffolk lawmakers: Asset forfeiture reports inadequate
Legislators say county law enforcement agencies have failed to comply with a 2017 law that mandates detailed disclosure of how proceeds from assets confiscated in criminal investigations are spent.
Suffolk Legislator Kara Hahn (D-Setauket), the Democratic majority leader, said all the county law enforcement agencies except the probation department “turned in something that in my mind is not complete and does not meet the requirements of the law. There is absolutely no detail there.” To help bolster transparency, the legislature voted unanimously on March 19 to require quarterly reporting of asset forfeiture spending.
Read the entire article here at newsday.com
(4/9/18 -- Fox 13 Salt Lake)
Did Utah Highway Patrol break the law to seize a half-million dollars?
Kyle Savely is suing the UHP over the 2016 traffic stop. He was pulled over on I-80 in Summit County for following a vehicle too closely. A drug dog was called to the stop and alerted that something was found.
No drugs were seized, but UHP took a bag containing a half-million dollars. It's never returned the money, even though Savely has yet to be charged with anything except for the traffic violation (which he was acquitted of). The UHP handed off the money to the feds because they said there was also an active DEA investigation.
Now, the Utah Supreme Court is considering whether the law was followed.
In 2000, Utah voters passed Initiative B by a nearly 70% margin. It set rules for how police can seize property or cash. But supporters of Savely argue that the UHP tried to circumvent the law.
"There's a lot of skepticism here and it's likely that one government agency tipped off another and they tried to get away with it behind the scenes," said Connor Boyack with Libertas Institute, which filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case.
Read the entire article here at fox13now.com
(4/5/18 -- NewsChannel 5)
Tennessee Lawmakers Pass 'Policing For Profit' Reforms
This week, both the state House and Senate passed legislation that would dramatically reform civil asset forfeiture in Tennessee. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very significant change in civil asset forfeiture," state Rep. Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah, told his colleagues in the House. A multi-year NewsChannel 5 investigation exposed problems with Tennessee's "policing for profit" laws.
The law would create a presumption, for the first time, that cash is legal. Instead of those people having to prove the money was legal, it would be up to the police to prove it wasn't.
Read the entire article here at newschannel5.com
(4/5/18 -- The Washington Post)
Authorities now have to convict you of a crime before they can take your cash
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed into law a forfeiture reform bill last week that will require law enforcement officials to obtain a criminal conviction before permanently taking a person's cash or property, making Wisconsin the 15th state to do so.
Defenders of civil forfeiture, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, maintain that it's a valuable law enforcement tool that allows authorities to seize the ill-gotten gains of criminals who are difficult to apprehend and convict, such as the leaders of international drug cartels.
But the reality of forfeiture is often very different. A Washington Post investigation revealed that police officers routinely seize small amounts of cash during traffic stops under flimsy pretenses. Civil liberties groups have found that forfeiture actions tend to target minority neighborhoods and involve amounts of cash that are “pocket change.”
Read the entire article here at washingtonpost.com
(4/5/18 -- Inlander)
Idaho sets new rules on civil forfeiture
The rules just got a little clearer for what property Idaho police can and cannot take in connection to suspected crime. However, the new civil asset forfeiture rules, recently signed into law by Gov. Butch Otter, do not address what critics argue is the most controversial part of this practice: That the government can take and keep citizens' property and cash without any criminal conviction.
"One thing we did not do is say there has to be criminal conviction in order for assets to be seized," says Idaho Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise. "But there does have to be some connection to criminal activity, even short of a conviction."
Burgoyne, who co-sponsored the bill, does not believe a criminal conviction should be necessary for the government to take a citizen's property, but acknowledges that some involved in crafting the bill disagree.
Read the entire article here at inlander.com
(4/5/18 -- Times Free Press)
Tennessee forfeiture law reform bill on its way to Gov. Haslam
A bill providing new protections for people to regain property and cash seized by Tennessee law enforcement officials is headed to Gov. Bill Haslam's desk after receiving state Senate approval Thursday.
The vote for the bill, sponsored by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, was unanimous.
"This is a rare bill because you had the ACLU on one side and the Beacon Center on the other, and they both agreed on it," Gardenhire told senators.
Read the entire article here at timesfreepress.com
(4/4/18 -- Albuquerque Journal)
Judge to allow lawsuit over car seizure
A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by a woman who had her car seized by the city of Albuquerque after her son was arrested for driving it while intoxicated can move forward.
Read the entire article here at abqjournal.com
(4/4/18 -- Trib Live)
Appellate court rejects woman's claim to return $1.1 million
Lisa M. Saldana-DeLeo had asked Commonwealth Court to overturn a Jefferson County Court's forfeiture ruling that close to $650,000 seized in 2012 out of her Punxsutawney home by state troopers, and another nearly $450,000 seized at a separate home she owns on Bailey Avenue on Mt. Washington were the proceeds of illicit drug-related transactions. Under state's forfeiture asset law, the money was forfeited to law enforcement.
However, the court sided with prosecutors' arguments that the cash was furnished by people in exchange for illegal substances. The panel also noted that she served prison time as a result of the state and federal drug charges from the raids.
Read the entire article here at triblive.com
(4/4/18 -- Tulsa World)
Making the government less larcenous
After two years of stonewalling about its theft of Gerardo Serrano’s 2014 Ford F-250 pickup truck, the government suddenly returned it. It sparkled from having been washed and detailed, bumper to bumper, and it had four new tires and a new battery. The government probably hoped that, mollified by the truck’s sprucing-up, Serrano would let bygones be bygones and go back to Kentucky. This was another mistake by our mistake-prone government.
Assisted by litigators from the Institute for Justice, whose appearance on the West Texas horizon probably panicked the government into pretending to be law-abiding, Serrano wants to make the government less larcenous and more constitutional when it is enriching itself through civil forfeiture.
Read the entire opinion here at tulsaworld.com
(4/4/18 -- Decatur Daily)
Alabama Measures To Track Forfeitures Fail
In the final days of the Alabama Legislature’s 2018 regular session, two measures died that would have done nothing more than gather and disseminate information.
The first was a bill to require tracking how often law enforcement authorities use civil actions to seize a person’s property when criminal activity is suspected. This was nothing more than an attempt to accumulate data on the use of civil asset forfeiture, which is when the government seizes someone’s property before that person has been convicted of any wrongdoing.
The second data-gathering bill was a priority of the Legislative Black Caucus, and it passed the Senate unanimously, 27-0, before the forces of obstruction in the House worked their magic again.
This bill would have required law enforcement officers to collect data on race and traffic stops. The purpose was to see if black motorists, and other minorities, are stopped more often than white motorists for the same type of traffic infractions. In short, the bill sought to find out if black motorists in Alabama are the victims of racial profiling — or not.
Read the entire opinion here at decaturdaily.com
(4/4/48 -- Reason)
Kansas Enacts Asset Forfeiture Transparency
Journalists, civil liberties groups, and regular Kansas citizens will no longer have to file a public records request to see what police are doing with asset forfeiture funds. Republican Gov. Jeff Colyer signed a bill yesterday that will require much greater transparency about how much state and local police collect through asset forfeiture and how they spend it.
H.B. 2459 will require Kansas law enforcement to report the date, location, and value of asset seizures, as well as whether or not criminal charges were filed in conjunction with the seizure. It will also make police departments to open their books and show their forfeiture fund balances, deposits, and expenditures.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(4/3/18 -- The Orange County Register)
Congress needs to stop ‘policing for profit’
For decades, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have been free to seize the property of Americans without so much as bringing criminal charges.
Since many states have asset forfeiture laws that are more restrictive than federal law, the practice allows state and local law enforcement agencies to circumvent state laws designed to prevent “policing for profit” and other abuses of authority.
Read the entire opinion here at ocregister.com
(4/3/18 -- Courthouse News Service)
‘Policing for Profit’ Lawsuit Survives in Albuquerque
A federal judge refused Albuquerque’s request to dismiss a lawsuit that claims the city “polices for profit” by seizing vehicles for civil offenses.
The civil forfeiture program has been just one aspect of unpopular police actions in Albuquerque. The program drew attention in 2014 through a video of the Santa Fe Vehicle Forfeiture Conference, in which attorneys discussed the profitability of the practice.
Public outrage forced the Legislature to pass a Forfeiture Reform Law, House Bill 560, which took effect in July 2015. It bans most forms of civil forfeiture in New Mexico.
But Albuquerque continued doing it and had plans to expand, even after state Senators Lisa Torraco and Daniel Ivey-Soto sued the city in November 2015, after the city approved $2.5 million in new bonds to buy a parking lot to hold the cars the city expects to seize.
Read the entire article here at courthousenews.com
(4/3/18 -- Mankato Free Press)
Time to fix Minnesota's forfeiture loopholes
Imagine your vehicle, camper, boat, jewelry, even cash confiscated and kept by the government even though you were never convicted of a crime.
It’s still happening in Minnesota, despite an attempt to fix the forfeiture law a few years ago.
And now, as a group of legislators attempt to end the government’s taking of property without proper court oversight, the state’s police, county attorney and sheriff’s associations are united in an effort to block reform. Their reasons are as simple as they are embarrassing: they want to keep the flow of cash they get from taking and selling people’s property even though they haven’t been convicted of a crime.
Read the entire opinion here at mankatofreepress.com
(4/2/18 -- The Wichita Eagle)
New law will require police in Kansas to track how they use seized property
In Kansas, police can take your property if they believe it’s connected to a crime without a conviction or charges. Law enforcement often gets to keep the property and decide how to spend the proceeds.
Now, Gov. Jeff Colyer has signed into law a bill that will require police to report what they take and how they use the seized property.
Read the entire article here at kansas.com
(4/2/18 -- Newton Daily News)
Heartsill bill helps hunters recover seized property
Rep. Greg Heartsill, R-Columbia, said feedback from numerous constituents prompted him to draft HF 2251. Similar in scope to the changes made to the state’s civil forfeiture legislation passed last year, the bill offers Iowans who’ve had property seized by the Department of Natural Resources a chance to get their possessions back. In researching the bill, Heartsill said he’s heard from several constituents who are unhappy about how the DNR has handled seized property in the past.
“For anyone who’s had property seized for potential criminal activity without a conviction, it returns their property to them, whether that’s a deer rack, an ATV, a gun, a trap, you name it, anything that’s been seized,” Heartsill said.
Read the entire article here at newtondailynews
(4/2/18 -- National Public Radio)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Priority When Michigan Lawmakers Return
Some Michigan lawmakers want to make it harder for law enforcement to take property involved in a suspected crime. A committee plans to work on the bills after spring break.
They’ll work on the bills – but don’t expect a rush job.
Jim Runestad is chair of the committee the bills are in. He says he and other stakeholders have been working on changes to a series of bills. But changes might not be as aggressive as originally planned.
For example, one bill that would require a criminal conviction before property could be taken might not get the votes to pass.
But Runestad says they’re close on others. Like requiring prosecutor oversight of the property. And requiring officer training before they can seize property.
(4/2/18 -- Western Michingan University)
Lawmakers plan to tackle how law enforcement can take property involved in a crime.
Several bills in a House committee would overhaul the state’s civil asset forfeiture law. Some lawmakers want to require prosecutor oversight of property taken. One bill would require officers go through training on property seizure. Another would prevent local governments from creating their own civil asset forfeiture ordinances. Critics of the current procedure say it lets law enforcement take property from people without due process – since it can be seized before there’s a conviction. Law enforcement has expressed approval of some proposed changes.
(4/2/18 -- Forbes)
Congress Kills Efforts To Undo Sessions's Civil Forfeiture Expansion
Last September, the U.S. House of Representatives approved several amendments to block an infamous civil forfeiture program that had been revived by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Under civil forfeiture, the government can permanently confiscate property even if the owner is never criminally charged. Tellingly, not a single representative voted against the amendments or voiced support for Sessions’ new forfeiture policy.
Yet despite this overwhelming consensus, none of the anti-forfeiture amendments made its way into the final version of the omnibus spending bill President Donald Trump signed last month. (The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment for this story.)
This is just the latest example of how Congress has utterly failed to rein in civil forfeiture, even though forfeiture reform has been endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms and has the backing of 84 percent of Americans.
Read the entire opinion here at forbes.com
(4/1/18 -- National Pain Report)
Who is the DEA Listening To?
Congress gave the DEA the right to civil asset forfeiture law and has done nothing to rein in their activity of seizing assets of people without even charging 85% of them with a crime and then making it extremely difficult to recover their assets
Read the entire article here at nationalpainreport.com
(4/1/18 -- The Spokesman-Review)
Bipartisan reforms passed unanimously and signed into law
Bipartisan reforms to Idaho’s civil forfeiture laws to remove the ability of law enforcement to seize people’s assets and cars even when they’ve not been charged with any crime passed unanimously and were signed into law. Last year, an earlier version of this legislation was vetoed by Gov. Butch Otter.
(3/30/18 -- The Frederick News-Post)
Baltimore police seize millions in cash, but residents rarely get it back
Data presented to the Baltimore City Council this week showed that police keep about 84 percent of the cash they seize from residents, even though conviction rates are much lower.
From 2013 until 2017, Baltimore police seized more than $10.3 million, but only returned about $643,000.
Read the entire article here at fredericknewspost.com
(3/29/18 -- WIZM News Talk)
Police concerned Forfeiture Reform could impact their shakedown racket
La Crosse, Wisconsin police have expressed concern over a measure that changes how property gets seized as part of a criminal investigation.
The new rules would mean things like guns, cars and cash only get forfeited by an accused criminal after a conviction, which could seriously impact their ability to extort profits from the innocent.
Read the entire article here at 1410wizm.com
(3/29/18 -- The Sentinel
Bill Tracker: Providing counsel for seizure of property
Each week The Sentinel will highlight one bill that has not received widespread attention.
In Pennsylvania, when law enforcement believe items are associated with certain criminal acts or have been purchased with the proceeds of those criminal acts, those items can be seized through a process known as civil asset forfeiture.
Sen. Sharif Street, D-Philadelphia, has introduced a bill that would guarantee legal counsel in some civil asset forfeiture cases.
Senate bill 941 would require counties to appoint legal counsel for anyone who has standing to contest a civil asset forfeiture case but does not have the money to hire an attorney and the property being seized is real property, like a home or land.
Read the entire article here at cumberlink.com
(3/29/18 -- Miami Herald)
Alabama lives down to its already abysmally low standards and refuses to pass Forfeiture Reform
Alabama lawmakers ended the 2018 legislative session on Thursday. Here's a look at one of the proposals that failed this year.
CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE - The bill would have tracked how often law enforcement authorities use civil actions to seize a person's property when criminal activity is suspected. An earlier version of the bill also failed that would have required a criminal conviction to seize property.
Read the entire article here at miamiherald.com
(3/28/18 -- The National Law Journal)
Lawyer who made a bundle off of dodgy forfeiture "contingency fees" sent to defend Trump against treason charges
An Atlanta attorney’s stock on President Donald Trump’s legal team appears to be rising, even as several high-powered Washington, D.C., lawyers have passed on joining the president’s lineup.
Andrew Ekonomou, a former prosecutor now working in private practice, will take on a more prominent role in Trump’s representation, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow told Reuters late Tuesday. Ekonomou has worked as senior counsel at Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice.
Read the entire article here at law.com
(3/28/18 -- The Minnesota Lawyer)
Law enforcement opposes forfeiture overhaul
Unsurprisingly to anyone who is not totally clueless, legislation to transform Minnesota's civil forfeitures has hit stiff headwinds, with unified opposition from the state’s county attorneys and local law enforcers.
House File 3725 comes from chief author Rep. Jim Knoblach, R-St. Cloud. He has 15 co-authors, including six other Republicans. At 33 pages plus appendix, it is long and complex — but its core aim is simple.
It would require that a criminal conviction be on the books before a defendant’s property can be seized and sold off.
Net proceeds from forfeitures totaled $7.4 million statewide in 2016, the report states, with each netting an average $1,696. Knoblach said 94 percent of all seizures involved property worth less than $5,000 in 2016.
“Such amounts are so low that there is no incentive to hire an attorney,” Knoblach said. “Yet the loss of this property, such as a car, can be a life-changing occurrence for a low-income person.”
But representatives from the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association disagreed. They stood as a bloc opposing the legislation.
Read the entire article here at minnlawyer.com
(3/25/18 -- JDSupra)
Civil Forfeiture: Can the Government Really Seize and Take Ownership of My Company’s Assets?
In 2017, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reported more than $8.2 billion held in its forfeited-assets fund, which is a $600 million increase from the $7.6 billion in the fund in 2016. The cases brought by the government in 2017 show the government’s intent to continue aggressive use of civil asset forfeiture.
Civil asset forfeiture can raise a number of issues for a company, such as potential exposure for aiding and abetting a crime (including money laundering or obstruction of justice), possible conflicts of interest (particularly when an internal investigation into an investor or executive needs to occur), waiver of the attorney-client privilege (especially when communicating with suspected individuals or the government), or spoliation of evidence (notably more likely where action is not promptly taken by independent counsel to preserve, collect, and analyze relevant data).
Read the entire article here at jdsupra.com
(3/25/18 -- Lawrence Journal-World)
Editorial: Change the law on seizing assets
Kansas lawmakers were right to overhaul laws regarding the seizure and liquidation of assets by law enforcement.
House bill 2459, approved by the House and Senate, would require law enforcement to provide greater transparency and information regarding seizures and liquidation. The bill is awaiting Gov. Jeff Colyer’s signature to become law.
Under current law, law enforcement agencies can seize cash, vehicles, property and other assets of a criminal suspect if officers believe the assets are proceeds of illegal activity or were used in the commission of a crime. Once property is seized, agencies can petition to have those assets forfeited and turned over to the agency. Generally, law enforcement agencies sell the seized assets for specific law enforcement purposes.
But as a 2016 report by the Legislative Post Audit Division showed, the program’s current structure allows for broad discretion. The report showed some law enforcement agencies were not complying with reporting requirements about their seizure activities or not following restrictions on how the proceeds can be used.
Read the entire opinion here at ljworld.com
(3/23/18 -- The Frederick News-Post)
Report recommends reforms to Maryland's criminal justice system
A new report examines the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on the poor and suggests sweeping reforms to lessen it.
The Job Opportunities Task Force, a statewide nonprofit that aims to help low-wage workers advance, presented its 92-page report Friday at a panel featuring Frederick County Sen. Michael Hough (R-District 4).
Taking on poverty requires policy change, said author Wes Moore, because current policies have made it easy to predict a child’s success based on their ZIP code. A child growing up in poverty is more likely to live in an area with limited transportation, poorly equipped schools and fewer food resources, Moore said, a problem that perpetuates itself.
“The problem with poverty isn’t just that it’s there. The problem with poverty is that it’s generational, it’s often persistent and it’s predictable,” he said.
In an attempt to address those systemic concerns, the group recommended abolishing or raising the bar for civil forfeiture, the process by which law enforcement can seize cash and property without a warrant or conviction. The law was intended to tie the hands of dangerous criminal enterprises, but the study asserted that it had increasingly been used to seize the property of the poor.
Read the entire article here at fredericknewspost.com
(3/23/18 -- The Daily Signal)
Tennessee takes a first step toward reforming the state’s civil forfeiture laws.
Last week, Tennessee’s House Criminal Justice Committee cleared the bill (HB 2021), which proposes modest reforms to the state’s forfeiture laws. Meanwhile, companion legislation has reached the floor of the state Senate.
HB 2021 takes a modest approach. The bill would require that the state hold a forfeiture warrant hearing within 45 days, and that notice of the hearing be mailed to property owners within five days of a seizure.
Property owners, as well as the individuals in possession of the property at the time of the seizure—a son driving his parent’s car, for example—would have a right to testify as to “why no probable cause exists to issue a forfeiture warrant.”
Read the entire article here at dailysignal.com
(3/20/18 -- Vox)
Wyoming bans practice that police used to take innocent man’s $91,800
The Institute for Justice, an advocacy group that works against wrongful police seizures of cash and property, particularly civil forfeiture, represented Phil Parhamovich of Wisconsin, helping him get his money back from Wyoming law enforcement at a court hearing just hours after Vox’s story was published.
Parhamovich was stopped in March 2017 while traveling on I-80 in Wyoming during a concert tour with his band, the Dirt Brothers. Parhamovich, who has no criminal record, was not accused of or charged with a serious crime; he only got a $25 ticket for improperly wearing his seat belt and a warning for “lane use.”
But Wyoming law enforcement officers found and eventually seized the $91,800 in cash, as it was hidden in a speaker cabinet — by getting Parhamovich, under what he says was duress, to sign away his interest in the money through a waiver. According to Parhamovich, police pushed him to sign the waiver after he said the money was not his, following aggressive questioning that he said made him fear that carrying that much cash is illegal. (It is not.)
The new law, which takes effect on July 1, bans officers from getting people to sign waivers that give up their rights to property, including cash, without a hearing and without establishing probable cause. Any waivers in violation of the law are declared “null and void.”
Read the entire article here at vox.com
(3/17/18 -- U.S.News)
Alabama Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Calls for Transparency
Alabama lawmakers are trying to reform the controversial legal process of civil asset forfeiture that allows police to seize property they have reason to believe was criminally gained, even when the owner isn't yet charged with a crime.
When Opelika police officer Benjamin Carswell pulled over Daryl Gray for following too closely in August 2014, Carswell found $32,660 in the vehicle. Gray told Carswell he was on his way to buy a car, but the large amount triggered suspicion.
The officer seized the cash and handed it over to the Drug Enforcement Administration less than a month later. After two months, Daryl Gray filed a complaint in court through his attorney Joe Reed. A local judge ruled a year later that his court couldn't decide on the case because the federal government kept the cash.
Gray didn't get his money back and was never charged with a crime.
The law center and Alabama Appleseed, also an advocacy organization, found that property owners were never charged with a crime in a quarter of more than 1,000 civil asset forfeitures in 2015.
Read the entire article here at usnews.com
(3/16/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
Constitutional Challenge to Civil Forfeiture Proceeds Disbursement Goes Down In Flames
Common School Fund gets the short end as Marion Superior Judge Thomas Carroll rules that sticky-fingered cops get to keep it all.
Read the entire article here at theindianalawyer.com
(3/16/18 -- KRGV)
Puppethead Attorney Rene Flores Explains How Asset Forfeiture Laws Between Federal and State Agencies Work
Flores said raids are just the beginning of a long judicial process for the person being arrested. But the things they used to facilitate the crime also go through a process.
Read the entire article here at krgv.com
(3/16/18 -- Independant Reporter)
Our Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmare
Edward Krassenstein and Brian Krassenstein were victims of civil asset forfeiture in the United States in 2016. They have decided to tell their full story for two reasons: 1) To convince our representatives in Congress that such laws, which are currently being praised and possibly expanded upon by current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, are unjust and 2) To set the record straight after the ordeal they and their families have had to go through.
7:02 A.M, September 20th, 2016, a moment we will never forget. The knock at the door still echoes in my head and the very thought of what happened next gives us both anxiety to this day.
As I answered the door, wearing nothing but my gym shorts, with my 8-month pregnant wife and dog following behind, two police officers asked me to step outside. At the exact same time, 6 houses down at my twin brother Ed Krassenstein’s residence, the exact same script was playing out. Ed, his 4-month pregnant wife and their 3-year-old son were being escorted out of their home by men and women with assault rifles.
Read the entire article here at ir.net
(3/16/18 -- Michigan Radio)
Dem candidates for Michigan AG on civil asset forfeiture
The Democrats running for state Attorney General represent two wings of the party.
We asked each of the candidates about asset forfeiture.
“There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren’t even alleged to have done something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup with Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (Hear the complete Stateside interview with Skorup here.)
Groups as politically disparate as the Mackinac Center and the American Civil Liberties Union-Michigan have argued for legislation to restrict civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at michiganradio.org
(3/13/18 -- Reason)
There Ought Not Be a Law
The world is an imperfect place, but laws tend to make things worse, not better.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wants limits on virtual currencies, like Bitcoin, that help people keep their financial lives private from folks like him. Senator Dianne Feinstein wants government regulation of political speech by foreign agents—or maybe just by people with whom she disagrees. Gun control activists want more restrictions with which to threaten peaceful gun owners so that violent predators who break laws will have more things to ignore.
If ever there was a "there oughta be a law moment," we're living in it. At least, we're living in one of all too many such moments. Because people are forever looking to the law as the solution to the ills they perceive in the world around them—often only to spackle over the failures of the previous round of laws. In the process, they're forever forgetting that laws are usually nothing more than codified prejudices, imposed against resistant populations, by sometimes incompetent and often corrupt enforcers.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(3/10/18 -- Florida Record)
Appeals court remands drug forfeiture trial court for lack of evidentiary hearing
A recent case coming before Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal illustrates what can happen when legal processes are not carried out in a universal and systematic way with regard to each party's rights.
Read the entire article here at flarecord.com
(3/10/18 -- Dothan Eagle)
Unraveling illogical rationale for civil asset forfeiture
I just read the self-serving article about civil asset forfeiture, a process whereby the government takes your money and you get to spend your money in civil court proving your money was innocent (“Civil asset forfeiture reform would gut an effective crime-fighting tool,” by Calhoun County District Attorney Brian McVeigh and Coffee County Sheriff Dave Sutton, Feb. 17). Their circular logic justifying this would have almost been humorous if it weren't so sad and serious.
Read the entire commentary here at dothaneagle.com
(3/9/18 -- The Blaze)
FBI employee stole $160,000 by exploiting access to civil asset forfeiture unit
An FBI paralegal specialist pled guilty on March 7 to embezzling $159,821.90 from the FBI by exploiting her access to the San Diego division’s Asset Forfeiture Unit.
According to the Department of Justice’s official statement, the employee, Lynn M. Morris, “admitted that to convert government funds to her own use, she used her knowledge and position within the FBI to withdraw cash from the AFU’s account and deposited portions of the stolen proceeds into her personal checking account.” The theft occurred between July 2014 and November 2016.
Read the entire articles here at theblaze.com and dailycaller.com
(3/8/18 -- Lexocology)
What Is the Significance of the DOJ's Change in Marijuana Enforcement Policies?
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a shift in its policies for enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where marijuana has been decriminalized or legalized. Notwithstanding this shift, however, the DOJ is unlikely to begin prosecuting marijuana growers and distributors who are operating in compliance with state law. So where will the feds go now? The DOJ will likely prosecute the most egregious violators of state law which means that the stakes are higher for those individuals and companies. The worst offenders of the state regimes now face not only state penalties, but the risk of enforcement by federal authorities, who have more investigative resources and can seek much more extensive and severe penalties.
Read the entire article here at lexology.com
(3/8/18 -- UPMatters.com)
Legislators call for oversight in civil asset forfeiture process
State Reps. Jim Runestad of White Lake Township, Gary Glenn of Williams Township, and Beau LaFave of Iron Mountain, have introduced a package of bills to bring more oversight and transparency to Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture process.
Runestad, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored the first bill in the package, which requires the county prosecuting attorney to review and obtain a court order for all forfeitures. If the forfeiture is not approved or a court order is not obtained, the seizing agency is required to return the property unless the property is harmful to the public or required to be destroyed.
Glenn’s bill requires Michigan law enforcement officers to complete training designed to assist in lawful property seizure that may be subject to forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at upmatters.com
(3/8/18 -- The American Spectator)
Jeff Sessions Promotes Government Thievery
Attorney General Jeff Sessions places so much trust in the noble motives of government bureaucrats that he wants them to protect their powers to take your cars, cash, homes, and other property simply on their say-so. Cops don’t need to convict you of anything — they can simply take your property if they suspect it has been used in any sort of crime. And they can use the money to buy fancy new vehicles for the SWAT team or to remodel the office.
The process is known as civil asset forfeiture, and it’s one of the most obnoxious and un-American policies imaginable. Remember those old Southern speed traps, where police agencies build their budgets off of unsuspecting out-of-staters driving a few miles over the speed limit? Well, asset forfeiture puts those second-rate operations to shame.
Read the entire article here at spectator.org
(3/8/18 -- LEAP)
Legal Advice for Life During the Rule of Jeff Sessions
On Jan. 4, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a new memo on marijuana-law enforcement that has left many people in legal states confused or worried. The memo rescinded the 2013 Cole Memo, which instructed federal prosecutors to consider their limited resources when contemplating going after sales or cultivation that were legal under state law. Instead, Sessions promised “a return to the rule of law” and “directs all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities.”
In practice, this means that each U.S. Attorney in charge of one of the nation’s 94 judicial districts can set their own policies on marijuana prosecution, ranging from hands-off to aggressive—opening the way to a crackdown on recreational cannabis in the nine jurisdictions where it has been legalized, eight states and Washington, D.C.
Read the entire article here at freedomleaf.com
(3/7/18 -- The Daily Caller)
Alabama One Step Closer To Limiting Civil Forfeiture – But It May Not Matter
Alabama lawmakers passed their ban through a state Senate committee Tuesday under the impression they had the authority to ban civil forfeiture in their state. New Hampshire passed a bill similar to Alabama’s in 2016, but state and local police are still managing to take property without a criminal conviction.
The federal equitable sharing program, which allows state and local police to partner with federal authorities when making forfeitures, effectively ignores state-level limitations.
“The government ought to be required to prove that criminal conviction before being able to seize stuff,” Republican state Sen. Arthur Orr told the Heartland Institute. “The idea that the government can take a citizen’s property without a criminal conviction does not sit well with most people that I discussed this issue with.”
Read the entire article here at dailycaller.com
(3/7/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
Alabama Senate Committee Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill
The Alabama state Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill to restrict the ability of local and state police to take ownership of citizens’ property without a criminal conviction.
If Senate Bill 213 (S.B. 213) is approved by the Alabama Legislature and signed into law, the state would become the fourth to require a criminal conviction before prosecutors could take ownership of assets or property. The bill would also require the state to create a publicly available database tracking forfeiture actions.
The committee passed S.B 213 by a 7–6 vote on February 20. A vote by the full Senate has not yet been scheduled.
Read the entire article here at heartland.org
(3/7/18 -- The Hill)
Civil asset forfeiture reform is sweeping the nation
In concept, civil asset forfeiture is supposed to punish criminals — especially drug dealers — by taking the proceeds of illegal activity. But in practice, innocent citizens across the country are losing their property, typically without the need for law enforcement to prove any wrongdoing. The Institute for Justice, a leading group pushing forfeiture reform, has represented grocers whose savings have been forfeited to the police, a Burmese Christian rock band, second-generation hotel owners and others. All these parties suffered the loss of their assets; none were actually charged with a crime.
The dispute largely pits advocates of criminal justice reform — both conservative and liberal groups — and harmed citizens against prosecutors and law enforcement. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the federal government has also increasingly been an obstacle to reform.
Read the entire article here at thehill.com
(3/6/18 -- Reason)
New Hampshire Police Bypass State Law, Keep Taking People's Stuff
In theory, New Hampshire has reformed its asset forfeiture laws. The state passed a bill in June 2016 to keep police from seizing and keeping people's property unless those people have been convicted of a crime.
And yet New Hampshire Public Radio reports this week that the state's cops are still trying to keep stuff seized from people who have been accused but not actually convicting of criminal behavior.
The U.S. Justice Department's "Equitable Sharing" program allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with the feds for busts, then funnel the forfeiture through the looser federal program, which doesn't require convictions, back into the local police budgets. Doing this allows them to skirt any state-level restrictions on asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(3/5/18 -- The New American)
Civil and Criminal Asset Forfeiture Attacked on Grounds of “Excessive Fines”
A case in Indiana is expected to land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court soon: the issue of civil or criminal asset forfeiture (CAF) and “excessive fines.”
The case in Indiana involves Tyson Timbs and his sale of four grams of heroin to an undercover law officer. He paid a fine of $1,200 and served a year of house arrest.
But then, his truck, worth about $40,000 was confiscated under the idea that it was used to facilitate the drug deal. The truck, a Land Rover LR2, can now be used instead by local police.
Read the entire article here at thenewamerican.com
(3/5/18 -- New Hampshire Public Radio)
Loophole allows state and local law enforcement to bypass state policy set by NH legislature
In 2016, New Hampshire lawmakers tightened its statute. The new rules only permit forfeitures after a person is arrested, charged and found guilty of a crime. In essence, civil forfeiture was banned, allowing for only criminal forfeiture cases to proceed.
New Hampshire’s new rules, though, don’t apply to federal civil asset forfeiture cases.
In practice, that means all a state trooper or local cop needs to do is call in federal partners, such as the FBI or Homeland Security, and have them seize the money, even if there isn’t an arrest and conviction.
Since 2010, an NHPR analysis found that New Hampshire law enforcement departments received nearly $10.5 million through what’s called the federal Equitable Sharing Program. As you’d expect, bigger agencies including the Manchester Police Department and N.H. State Police receive large payouts.
Read the entire article here at nhpr.org
(3/4/18 -- Times Free Press)
Carter, Gardenhire bill imposes new rules on civil asset forfeiture
Tennessee law enforcement's power to seize cash, vehicles and other property from suspects never actually charged with a crime would face new restrictions under legislation moving in the General Assembly.
House Civil Justice Subcommittee members last week approved the measure, sponsored by the panel's chairman, Rep. Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah. The bill is named after former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, who helped Carter and Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, the Senate sponsor, shape the bill.
Read the entire article here at timesfreepress.com
(3/2/18 -- Andover Leader)
Kansas legislature considers forfeiture reform
Early on in Judiciary Committee, we heard testimony on HB 2459, which makes changes to the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act. This act was based on recommendations from the findings of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee. It makes several changes to the Civil Asset Forfeiture code in Kansas. I didn’t know much about this before this bill was introduced into our committee. I’ve done much research since then in order to better understand the situation. HB 2459 makes needed changes, but there’s still work to be done! It’s now been passed out of the House and is being discussed in the Senate.
Read the entire article here at andoverleader.com
(3/2/1/ -- WDJT)
Wyoming law enforcement forced to return $92K it took from Wisconsin man in traffic stop
Musician Phil Parhamovich was traveling back to Wisconsin from a gig. Parhamovich was in Laramie County, Wyoming when he was stopped by Wyoming Highway Patrol for not wearing a seatbelt. Parhamovich said they started asking him questions like if he had money or illegal substances in his vehicle. Parhamovich said they started to search his car without permission.
"I felt powerless. What do you say to a policeman doing what he wants to do?" Parhamovich said.
Read the entire article here at cbs58.com
(3/1/18 -- The Blaze)
NRA fires back at Trump’s endorsement of civil asset forfeiture for guns
NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told The Hill in a Wednesday statement that the organization does not agree with Trump’s proposals.
“While today’s meeting made for great TV, the gun control proposals discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our children safe,” Baker said. “Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic, our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies.”
Read the entire article here at theblaze.com
(2/28/18 -- The Blaze)
Trump proposes Civil Assets Forfeiture Program for firearms
In a stunning meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, Trump declared that he had told key NRA members (including Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox) during a Sunday lunch that “we’ve got to stop this nonsense.” Trump seemed to propose a measure that would allow local law enforcement to confiscate guns from citizens in the absence of a criminal conviction, flatly ruled out any legislation that included nationwide concealed carry, and blasted senators who opposed his proposals for being “petrified of the NRA.”
Read the entire article here at theblaze.com
(2/28/18 -- Las Vegas Now)
Civil Asset Forfeitures are up in Nevada
A controversial law enforcement practice covered extensively by the I-Team may have received a boost from the federal government.
Potential abuses of the Civil Asset Forfeiture process has been documented in the silver state in recent years. One roadside seizure case made it to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, which denied appeals by the federal government to keep money that was confiscated during what justices upheld as unconstitutional coordinated traffic stops along I-80 near Elko.
Read the entire article here at lasvegasnow.com
(2/27/18 -- Huron Daily Tribune)
Forfeiture Reform bill is currently being reviewed by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee
Introduced this month by State Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, House Bill 4158 would require that a person must first be convicted of a crime before having their property forfeited. Lucido contends the bill’s passage would affect hundreds of people annually.
Read the entire article here at michigansthumb.com
(2/26/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
Washington State Seeks to improve it's "D-" grade
The Washington State Legislature is now considering a series of bills that would add new limits and transparency standards to the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
Another massive problem with Washington’s forfeiture laws is related to how proceeds are spent. Under current law, Washington State law enforcement agencies may retain up to 90 percent of forfeiture proceeds. This gives these agencies an incentive to seize, as much of the funds seized can be used to benefit their departments. Further, while the state does require quarterly reports on what has been seized, the details are both slim and difficult for the public to find.
Each of the three main bills being considered would address one of these issues.
Read the entire article here at heartland.org
(2/25/18 -- Magic Valley)
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” has been debased by civil asset forfeiture laws.
Idaho lawmakers took a step toward rectifying the blatantly un-American practice this week. House members on Wednesday unanimously approved legislation that scales back when and what assets police officers can seize, and streamlined the process of reporting asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at magicvalley.com
(2/22/18 -- The Topeka Capital-Journal)
Kansas Bill supporters contend the measure still doesn’t go far enough
A bill was advanced this week by the Kansas House attempting to amend forfeiture law in Kansas to help innocent people regain assets in a timely manner. Too often, the current situation prompts those attempting to regain property to spend unnecessary time and money on legal expenses.
While the bill, which still requires final action from the House, attempts to set more stringent requirements for the rightful return of seized property, other states ban law enforcement agencies from seizing property from those who have not been convicted of crimes.
Read the entire article here at cjonline.com
(2/23/18 -- The Orange Leader)
Vidor, Texas Police Chief Rod Carroll says shaking down tourists is way to pay for his department's expenses
“Agencies all along Interstate Highway 10 corridor are making substantial seizures. There are millions of dollars traveling along the I-10 corridor through our city. It’s possible we could use seizure funds to support our department,” Carroll said. “How much is speculative at this point.”
In 1989, Texas passed civil forfeiture laws empowering law enforcement to seize assets from criminals. According to reports since then, law enforcement in Texas has seized not only cars, televisions, wallets and other valuables from known or suspected criminals but there has also been an increase in instances of citizens losing their property who were not involved in criminal activity, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian think tank.
Read entire article here at orangeleader.com
(2/22/18 -- MacIver Institute)
It’s been a big week for liberty and limited government in the Wisconsin Legislature
Sen. David Craig's bill reining in law enforcement power to seize assets from individuals not charged or convicted of a crime, landed two huge victories this week. The legislation, which would demand a conviction before police could keep or sell seized property, is considered by some criminal justice watchers to be the strongest reform to a controversial law that has raised serious constitutional concerns.
Amended in a deal with the law enforcement community, the reform measure would require police to track forfeitures in a public database and it requires law enforcement to pay legal expenses in the most egregious cases of civil asset forfeiture abuse.
Read the entire article here at maciverinstitute.com
(2/21/18 -- Idaho Statesman)
Idaho's House has cleared a proposal designed to rein in when police can take a citizen's property
House members on Wednesday unanimously approved legislation forbidding police officers from seizing cash or property simply because it was in close proximity to an illegal substance. It would also ban seizing vehicles unless they are in connection with trafficking offenses, while creating reporting requirements for forfeited property.
Read the entire article here at idahostatesman.com
(2/21/18 -- The Times Herald)
Michigan needs to reform its civil forfeiture laws and has again provided the evidence to prove it
The latest asset forfeiture report compiled by the Michigan State Police, for the year 2016, reports that police agencies in the state seized more than $12 million in cash and property from, as the report says, “drug traffickers and other criminal organizations when that property is obtained through illegal activity.”
Except 700 people whose property was taken from them were not guilty of any crimes. More than 500 of them were never even charged with a crime. Another 196 were charged and later found innocent at trial - yet the police agencies that seized their assets kept them anyway.
Read the entire article here at thetimesherald.com
(2/21/18 -- Lawrence Journal-World)
Kansas House advances major reform of civil asset forfeiture law
The Kansas House gave first-round approval Wednesday to a bill enacting the first major reforms of the state's civil asset forfeiture law in more than 20 years.
The House voted to advance the bill on a unanimous voice vote, despite concerns by some that the reforms don't go far enough.
Rep. Gail Finney, D-Wichita, who has pushed for reform legislation for the past four years, said many individuals would still have a difficult time challenging the seizure and forfeiture of their assets.
"This puts a heavy weight on citizens because sometimes they don't have the resources to fight," she said during debate on the bill.
In 2016, Finney spearheaded a request for a Legislative Post Audit investigation of the state's civil asset forfeiture policies.
Among other things, that investigation revealed that law enforcement agencies were not properly tracking forfeiture proceeds and that some local law enforcement agencies were not complying with a state requirement for detailed reporting of assets that are seized and forfeited and an accounting of how the proceeds of those forfeitures are being spent.
Following that report, the Kansas Judicial Council formed an advisory committee to conduct a deeper study of the state's laws and policies and to make recommendations for changes. Those recommendations became the framework for the House bill.
Read the entire article here at www2.ljworld.com
(2/21/18 -- The News-Gazette)
Illinois Supreme Court's motorcycle forfeiture ruling full of negatives
Does "no" mean "no"? In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court majority's answer to that question was "no." In a case that has nothing to do with sex, dissenting Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier rebuked his colleagues for their conclusion.
"'No' means 'no,' and Illinois long ago rejected the notion that 'voluntary submission by a female who still has the power to resist, no matter how reluctantly yielded, amounts to her consent to the act.' The majority's opinion takes us backward to a time when some thought otherwise. I will not go there with them. The owner acquiesced. She did not consent," Karmeier wrote.
The case involved forfeiture law, and this specific dispute concerns a motorcycle that belonged — with emphasis on the word "belonged" — to Petra Henderson. If the high court's ruling stands, the Robinson Police Department will sell it and pocket the proceeds.
Read the entire article here at www.news-gazette.com
(2/20/18 -- Dothan Eagle)
Poking holes in the pro-forfeiture argument
The high sheriff of Coffee County is pillaging the people again. In Sheriff Dave Sutton's Sunday column in the Eagle, he attempts to frighten the people with more crime if our legislators end the practice of civil forfeiture. He claims a false narrative gives forfeiture bad press and states it is only used against "criminals" -- but later in the article he bemoans that the new law would actually require a conviction of crime to keep the booty. Pick a story, but you aren't a criminal without a conviction, so it must be used on suspects.
This opinion piece was mysteriously removed by The Dothan Eagle while we were posting it.
(2/20/18 -- Wisconsin Public Radio)
Wisconsin Senate Passes Bill On Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
The plan by Sen. Dave Craig, R-Big Bend, would, for example, put a time limit on how long police can hold property before someone is charged and reduce the amount of money police can keep when they sell seized property.
Read the entire article here at www.wpr.org
(2/19/18 -- 93.1FM)
Civil Forfeiture Reform Bill Could Go to Indiana Governor For Approval by Week's End
The Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council and Attorney General Curtis Hill's office are endorsing the measure. They say it creates appropriate protections while preserving what they call a critical tool for paying the costs of long and intensive investigations. Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry says the reforms will focus forfeiture cases on the major drug rings it was intended for -- he says the procedural requirements mean it won't be worth the time and effort to confiscate somebody's car.
Read the entire article here at www.wibc.com
(2/19/18 -- Charleston Gazette-Mail)
West Virginia house committee axes bill to stop property forfeitures
The House Judiciary Committee on Monday axed House Bill 4615 that would have stopped law enforcement officers from claiminig ownership of property seized from criminal suspects without convicting them of a crime.
First thing Monday morning, House Judiciary Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer, announced the bill would be sent to an interim committee after the legislative session for review, effectively burying it for 2018.
Chad Barker, the current chief deputy of the Boone County Sheriff’s Office, said the bill would hamstring police officers’ efforts to cut down on drug trafficking through the state, although he said he had not actually read the bill.
Read the entire article here at wvgazettemail.com
(2/19/18 -- Personal Liberty)
Alabama Sheriffs, D.A.s Admit Forfeiture Is Theft
In response to the Alabama legislature’s efforts to protect residents from unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture, organizations representing sheriffs and district attorneys in the state penned a strikingly honest op-ed asking Alabamians to respect their right to steal property without convictions.
Read the entire article here at personalliberty.com
(2/18/18 -- Times Daily)
State law enforcement officials whine about forfeiture reform
Local district attorneys and law enforcement officers are joining with others throughout the state to voice their concerns over a proposal that would change civil forfeitures in the state.
Senate Bill 213, which was introduced by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, in late January, would change the process known as civil asset forfeiture. It has gained opposition from the Alabama Sheriff’s Association and the Alabama District Attorney’s Association.
The bill would prevent prosecutors from condemning and seizing property purchased from criminal activity proceeds unless the person has been convicted of a crime.
Read the entire article here at timesdaily.com
(2/15/18 -- The Village Voice)
Manhattan D.A. Cy Vance Has a $734 Million Slush Fund of Forfeiture Cash
The Manhattan district attorney’s office is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in “off-budget” funds obtained through asset forfeiture, the majority of which fall under a state law with minimal transparency, according to a new report from the Independent Budget Office. As a result, the historic windfall is not flowing through typical budget channels, and is instead allocated at the discretion of a lone prosecutor: Cy Vance.
Read the entire article here at villagevoice.com
(2/15/18 -- Pontiac Daily Leader)
Forfeiture law change could hit city pocketbooks
Chenoa Police Chief Travis Cornwall noted that his department was in possession of two seized vehicles that the police would try and sell. He added, however, that it was the last occasion that the city would be able to sell such assets itself, given the passage last year of House Bill 303, the civil asset forfeiture reform legislation signed into law by Gov. Bruce Rauner set to go into effect July 1.
At Monday night’s meeting, Cornwall declined to opine on the new law, but noted that the department would in the future receive only 65 percent of the proceeds, as opposed to receiving all monies related to the sale previously.
Read the entire article here at pontiacdailyleader.com
(2/15/18 -- BPT Online)
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana collected $14,869,623 through civil, criminal and asset forfeiture actions in fiscal year 2017
Overall, the Justice Department collected more than $15 billion in civil and criminal actions in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017.
Read the entire article here at bossierpress.com
(2/15/18 -- The Beacon-News)
Kane County Illinois is paying $50,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by three people in a car improperly detained by a Kane County sergeant who's running for sheriff.
An Illinois appeals court ruled in October that Kane County Sgt. Ronald Hain improperly prolonged a 2015 traffic stop from which authorities seized a car and more than $8,000 cash after finding heroin, marijuana and two guns inside.
Jessica Johnson, Derek Paddy and Leo Cook accepted the settlement with each side bearing its own costs and attorney fees, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by The Beacon-News. The $50,000 was to be made payable to all three, along with the Chicago-based Blake Horwitz Law Firm through which they filed the suit.
Read the entire article at chicagotribune.com
(2/14/18 -AM New York)
NYC district attorney offices see windfall in seized assets
In a briefing report issued Wednesday, the IBO, a publicly funded agency tasked with giving independent information about the city budget, noted that the Manhattan district attorney’s office had more than $730 million in federal- and state- forfeited funds on hand at the end of June 2017, an amount far exceeding its city-funded budget of about $125 million.
Read the entire article here at amny.com
(2/14/18 -- Bristol Herald Courier)
Senate committee votes to end civil forfeiture by police
A proposal before Alabama lawmakers could prevent prosecutors from seizing property for suspected criminal activity unless the person has been convicted of a crime.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill to change the process known as civil asset forfeiture. Senators said they expect additional negotiations on the bill before a floor vote.
Shay Farley of the Southern Poverty Law Center said requiring a conviction would end a "backwards policy of guilty until proven innocent."
Read the entire article here at heraldcourier.com
(2/14/18 -- Yellowhammer)
Liberals didn’t write Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture reform bill
We keep hearing that the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote the bill to reform Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture law.
But that’s not accurate.
The bill was introduced in the current session of the State Legislature by staunch conservatives State Senator Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, and State Representative Arnold Mooney, R-Birmingham.
Read the entire article here at yellowhammer.com
(2/14/18 -- The New York Law Journal)
The New York City government has reached a settlement with plaintiffs attorneys in a suit challenging the police department’s retention of seized cash and property
The plaintiffs, who are represented by The Bronx Defenders and attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner, alleged in a proposed class action suit filed in 2016 that the New York City Police Department engaged in an unconstitutional practice of withholding property it seized in criminal cases after the cases were closed.
Under the terms of the settlement, the NYPD has agreed to issue vouchers to defendants in criminal proceedings for property seized by the time of their arraignment and not seize personal property such as proof of an arrestee’s identity except in special circumstances.
Read the entire article here at newyorklawjournal.com
(2/13/18 -- Reason)
Alabama Prosecutor, Sheriff Threaten to Put More People in Prison in Order to Keep Seizing Massive Amounts of Property
On Monday, the head of the Alabama District Attorney's Association and the Alabama Sheriffs Association teamed up with an op-ed that urges against reforms to asset forfeiture. Much of the commentary is similar to other misleading defenses of civil asset forfeiture that we've seen. The commentary insists that "Law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture only to go after criminals, and state law already guarantees a process that is clear and fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court. State law also provides built-in safeguards that protect the property of those who have committed no crime."
The commentary here completely, deliberately ignores that because this process takes place in a "civil" system, challenging forfeiture requires people to pay for attorneys themselves. Yet, a good half of the forfeiture cases analyzed by a report put the total value of the seizure at less than $1,500, making the prospect of hiring an attorney to fight back a difficult proposition. And the commentary fails to note that the legal standard to seize somebody's property in a civil system is a threshold far lower than getting them convicted of a crime. The system is purposefully designed to be able to take somebody's stuff without actually proving that they are "criminals."
Read the entire article here at reason.com
(2/13/18 -- Michigan Radio)
Former Police Chief keeps straight face while claiming Michigan’s current civil asset forfeiture laws are working well
His pants failing to catch on fire, the executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, Bob Stevenson, explained how Michigan police seize property under that law, why it is important to be able to seize property without a conviction, and how police funding is tied to civil asset forfeiture.
Read the entire article here at MichiganRadio.org
(2/12/18 -- The Daily Caller)
Jeff Sessions has been a staunch advocate for civil forfeiture throughout his tenure, issuing new policy guidelines in July encouraging law enforcement officers to make more forfeitures.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions propped up civil asset forfeiture Monday, claiming the program is a “key tool” that allows law enforcement officers to effectively fight the drug war.
Federal authorities took more than $4 billion through forfeiture in 2015, and most states allow departments to keep the vast majority – if not all – of the proceeds from the forfeitures they make, creating a worrying incentive. North Dakota and Massachusetts are tied for the worst states in the U.S. on civil forfeiture, according to a study from the Institute for Justice (IJ). Both received an “F” from the group on the issue, but the rest of the country isn’t much better — a full 21 states are tied at “D-.”
Read the entire article hear at DC.com
(2/12/18 -- The Daily Sentinel)
Rep. Leslie Herod had no trouble getting her bill addressing civil asset forfeitures out of a House committee Monday.
Last year, Herod and other bill sponsors said a law was needed to ensure that law enforcement aren't using civil forfeiture laws to pad their budgets rather than as a tool to make it harder for organized criminals to continue to operate, as has been the case elsewhere in the nation.
Under last year's bill, local law enforcement would be barred from receiving proceeds from such forfeitures, which come from property taken from suspected or convicted criminals, but only those that are part of a joint seizure with federal law enforcement that amount to less than $50,000 each.
Read the entire article here at DailySentinel.com
(2/11/18 -- Traverse City Record Eagle)
House Bill 4158 — introduced this month by Republican state Rep. Peter Lucido — would safeguard residents from court-ordered property seizures unless they’ve been convicted of a crime.
“We have people that get their property taken by police who are not detached, neutral magistrates or judges,” Lucido said. “That’s violation of property rights 101. … It’s called due process under the Fourth amendment and the 14th amendment.”
Read the entire article here at RecordEagle.com
(2/9/18 -- Dothan Eagle)
Jamey Vibbert's case is being used to change Alabama law.
Vibbert’s case is being used by advocates of civil asset forfeiture reform to push for a bill that would change the rules concerning assets seized by law enforcement agencies. Alabama State Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and state Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Birmingham) are sponsoring a bill to eliminate civil forfeiture in the absence of a criminal conviction. If the bill passes, property can still be seized, but only after a criminal conviction.
Jamey Vibbert estimates that fighting a bogus criminal charge and recovering $25,000 seized in a civil forfeiture cost him about $300,000 in attorney’s fees, bail and lost business.
Read the entire article here at DothanEagle.com
(2/9/18 -- Cadillac News)
Michigan's civil asset forfeiture laws are an oppressive affront to your property rights.
Representative Lucido introduced H.B. 4158 to require conviction for property forfeiture. It would prohibit property associated with a suspected crime from forfeiture unless an individual is actually convicted. The bill would also prohibit officials from requiring a person to negotiate for return of their property.
Read the entire article here at CadillacNews.com
(2/7/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
The Indiana Senate has approved a bill that would reform many aspects of Indiana’s civil forfeiture framework
Though civil forfeiture reform has been a topic of discussion throughout Indiana’s judiciary since at least 2016 — when the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit challenging Marion County’s forfeiture procedure — Indianapolis forfeiture attorney Todd Ess said this year’s legislative push for additional due process protections came from another source of judicial pressure.
An August ruling in Leroy Washington v. Marion County Prosecutor, et al., 1:16-cv-02980 struck down parts of Indiana’s civil forfeiture framework as unconstitutional. Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana cited the lack of a “post-seizure, pre-forfeiture hearing” for defendants, an absence she said violated Fifth and 14th Amendment due process protections.
“Washington obviously made it something that needed to be addressed sooner rather than later,” said Jeff Cardella, the attorney who successfully argued the Washington case.
Read the entire article here at The Indiana Lawyer.com
(2/7/18 -- AL.com)
Ex-Alabama DA chimes in on Forfeiture Reform
Kenyen Brown spent eight years as a U.S. Attorney with the Southern District of Alabama before retiring in 2017. He's currently a partner of Maynard, Cooper, and Gale based in Mobile, Alabama. He is now a speaker for the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit group of prosecutors, judges, police, and other criminal justice professionals who use their expertise to advance public safety solutions.
Read the entire article here at AL.com
(2/7/18 -- Law 360)
Chicago rolling in forfeiture dough
Forfeiture totals in the Northern District of Illinois neared $75 million for the past fiscal year, up 24 percent from the year before, according to figures released Wednesday by U.S. Attorney John Lausch.
The office collected $29.7 million in criminal actions, $28.7 million in civil actions and $16.07 million in asset forfeiture actions for fiscal year 2017 spanning Oct. 1, 2016, through Sept. 30, 2017, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. That total of $74.47 million was 24.3 percent higher than the $59.9 million collected in fiscal 2016 and 49 percent ahead of the $50 million collected in 2015.
Read the entire article here at Law 360
(2/5/18 -- SunSentinel)
Fort Lauderdale Police Department employee pleads guilty to stealing $310,000 from Forfeiture Fund.
Gerard Brady is headed to federal prison next month after he admitted he stole more than $310,000 in cash from the agency’s forfeiture program between late 2012 and 2016.
The former civilian employee, whose annual salary was $48,900, resigned last year several months after he was caught.
Read the entire article here at The SunSentinel
(2/5/18 -- HistoricCity News)
Florida Sheriff caught with hand in Forfeiture Funds cookie jar
St Johns County Sheriff David B. Shoar has apparently attempted to misappropriate $10,000.00 in public funds making a material misstatement that the use of those funds by a third-party organization complies with the requirements of state law. To further conceal the misappropriation sought by the sheriff, the request appears only on the “consent agenda”; recommended by administrative staff for approval without public comment or board discussion.
The Sheriff’s Office is requesting an expenditure from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund in the amount of $10,000.00 to support a local and non-profit organization whose board of directors largely consists of Shoar’s political campaign supporters, financial contributors, and cronies from his past relationship with the Florida National Guard. They are NOT a law enforcement agency or perform a law enforcement mission for the community.
Read the entire article here at HistoricCity News
(2/4/18 -- Indy Star)
The Indiana Senate unanimously passes a civil forfeiture bill
Indiana could dramatically reduce the length of time law enforcement officials hold onto alleged criminals' seized personal property as early as July 2018. The bill — now headed to the House — is welcome news to many libertarians and civil rights activists, who say unfettered forfeiture laws lead to abuses of private property rights.
Even law enforcement officials, including Marion County prosecutor Terry Curry, who have traditionally resisted forfeiture reform, support the bill that passed through the Senate this week.
Read the entire article here at The Indy Star
(2/3/18 -- Hays Post)
Kansas considers Civil Forfeiture reform
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 2459. This bill makes changes to the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act (KSASFA). During the 2017 Session, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees requested that the Judicial Council study the topic of civil asset forfeiture. The Judicial Council set up an Advisory Committee to study civil asset forfeiture legislation.
The Advisory Committee recommended changes noting “The Committee, comprised of both proponents and opponents of civil asset forfeiture reform, worked together to reach agreement on the KSASFA amendments discussed above.”
(2/3/18 -- The Detroit News)
Michigan Forfeiture Law Reform finally gains traction
The Michigan Legislature is considering a bill that would protect the property of state citizens from police seizure and forfeiture — unless the individual in question has been convicted of a crime. That’s an important distinction and one that would add this state to a growing number of others that have passed these protections.
Read the entire article here at The Detroit News
(2/2/18 -- The Daily Caller)
Illinois Cops Seize $128,000 With No Criminal Charges or Defendant Notification
Illinois lived down to its "D-" grade when Illinois police confiscated $128,000 in a brief civil forfeiture hearing Thursday where the property owner was not present, nor had he been charged with a crime.
Galesburg police officer Mike Ingles testified that the money, confiscated from 21-year-old Deshawn Oliver on Jan. 23, was almost certainly drug money, according to the Galesburg Register-Mail.
Oliver explained the cash at the time by saying it was his life savings, but Detective Lane Mings testified that Oliver’s work history didn’t line up with that story. Ming admitted that police had recently confiscated and returned sums of $60,000 and $100,000 following unwarranted forfeitures, but he argued the department took these cases very seriously.
Read the entire article here at The Daily Caller News Foundation
(1/29/18 -- The Post Register)
The Idaho House Judiciary and Rules Committee printed a bill Monday that would rein in the use of civil asset forfeiture.
It would also prevent seizure of large quantities of cash unless there is other evidence of criminal activity. The possession of large amounts of cash, in and of itself, wouldn’t be a sufficient basis for police to seize it.
The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Steven Harris, R-Meridian, is substantially similar to a 2017 bill that passed BOTH the House and Senate unanimously during the 2017 session but was vetoed by Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter.
The bill would also require law enforcement agencies to make annual reports outlining what property it has seized each year, including what specific property was seized, what crime the individual whose property was seized was charged with and whether they were convicted, and whether the property was returned or kept by law enforcement.
Read the entire article here at The Register Post
(1/26/18 -- The Indiana Lawyer)
The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday passed Senate Bill 99, the civil forfeiture reform legislation born of the Interim Study Committee on Courts and the Judiciary.
Clearing its first hurdle in the Indiana statehouse, the bill would expedite civil forfeiture proceedings by requiring prosecutors to file a forfeiture action within 21 days of receiving a demand for return from the owner, or within 90 days if no demand is made. That’s a significant reduction from current law, which allows prosecutors to wait 90 days if the owner demands a return, and 180 days if not.
The 17-member Senate Judiciary Committee studied the issue over the course of three meetings last year, guided by a Southern District ruling that struck down parts of the state’s civil forfeiture process as unconstitutional.
The only person to speak in total opposition to SB 99 was Sam Gedge, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who found both practical and constitutional defects in the bill.
From a practical standpoint, Gedge said allowing law enforcement entities to collect from the civil forfeiture proceedings would create an incentive for officers to conduct seizures on low-level offenses.
Read the entire article here at Indiana Lawyer.com
(1/24/18 -- Banner Graphic)
A bill reforming Indiana's civil forfeiture laws has passed out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 7-0, District 37 State Sen. Rodric Bray (R-Martinsville) reported Wednesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union ofAuthored by Sen. Bray, who represents all of the southern half of Putnam County as far north as the south side of Washington Street in Greencastle, Senate Bill 99 establishes a probable cause requirement for all forfeiture cases and sets up a process for innocent property owners to get their property back if it was seized while in another person's possession.
Read the entire article here at Banner Graphic
(1/24/18 -- Tennessean)
Mt. Juliet Police Department seize disabled military veteran's car, lie about it, and are forced to return it.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee filed a complaint with the Tennessee Department of Safety that claimed taking the vehicle without a search or forfeiture warrant violated Lewis Cain's Fourth Amendment rights. The ACLU-TN also claimed police purposefully misrepresented Cain's son as the owner of the car in reports. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security have dismissed the claim of forfeiture against Cain’s vehicle that has been returned, according to the ACLU-TN.
Read the entire article here at Tennessean.com
(1/24/18 -- Forbes)
The FAIR Act
If the FAIR Act (SB 213) becomes law, Alabama would be just the fourth state to eliminate civil forfeiture, following the lead of Nebraska, New Mexico and North Carolina. In addition, the bill takes direct aim at a federal forfeiture program that was revitalized by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who previously represented the state as U.S. Senator.
Read Alabama's pending Forfeiture Accountability and Integrity Reform (FAIR) Act here.
(1/23/18 -- Cape Gazette)
Delaware gets a "D-" in civil asset forfeiture seizures
"The burden of proof should be on the state," says State Senator Colin Bonini.
A bill to standardize civil asset forfeiture across all crimes and simplify procedures is pending before the Delaware General Assembly. The bill's synopsis reads: "Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets - often without so much as charging you with a crime."
Although Delaware police departments are supposed to tell the state auditor how they're spending money in that fund, there are no records of any such disclosures in recent years.
One petition for return of property states that police seized $1,000 from a New Castle man's tax return as "drug money" based SOLELY on the way the money was STACKED.
However, critics are saying that one notable defect in Sen. Bonini's bill is that law enforcement is not prevented from impounding private property before conviction. Here's more from the bill's synopsis: "This Act does not change the authority of law enforcement to seize property suspected of being associated with crime..." Note that the word "suspected" and not convicted is used.
Read the entire article here at capegazette.com
(1/22/18 -- Cincinnati.com)
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters uses forfeiture proceeds for his own personal expenses
$15,000 on briefcases for his lawyers, $61,000 for parking and $14,600 for furniture between January 2015 and September 2017
On Monday, State Senator Cecil Thomas called out Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters for failing to disburse money confiscated as a result of criminal activity to the county's Heroin Coalition Task Force, instead using the Law Enforcement Trust Fund to pay for his own, personal office expenses. It wasn't illegal--the law currently allows these funds to be used in ways the custodian “determines to be appropriate,” Thomas merely feels that spending $61,000 on parking to be a misuse of the fund's intended purpose.
Read the entire article here at cincinnati.com
(1/19/18 -- Forbes)
The “Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding for Marijuana Suppression Act” re-introduced in Congress
Multiple bills currently pending on the Hill would defund or eliminate many federal civil forfeiture programs.
In a move surprisingly supported by both parties, Reps. Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Justin Amash (R-MI) re-introduced HR 4816, the “Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding for Marijuana Suppression Act” on Wednesday, Jan. 17. The bill would ban the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from using ANY federal forfeiture funds to support its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. Michigan Republican Amash stated: “Civil asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional practice whereby the government takes people’s property without due process. The DEA’s use of proceeds acquired through civil asset forfeiture to expand marijuana enforcement—a state-level issue—makes the already unacceptable practice even worse.” The program has been responsible for nearly 30,000 arrests and for the seizure of more than $165 million worth of property nationwide, even in states that have legalized the plant for recreational use.
In September, 2017, as part of a massive appropriations bill, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted three amendments that would cut off funds for an immensely unpopular forfeiture program revitalized by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Read the entire article here at forbes.com
(1/19/18 -- The Heartland Institute)
ALABAMA WORKING TO REFORM ITS CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS
Analysts at the nonpartisan Institute for Justice have given the State of Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws a grade of D-
Since 2014, 24 states have comprehensively reformed their forfeiture laws, with 14 states now requiring a criminal conviction before assets are seized.
These problems are compounded by the fact there is no way to measure the extent to which Alabama’s law enforcement agencies use civil forfeiture, because Alabama law does not require law enforcement agencies to track or publicly report their forfeitures or expenditures.
Fortunately, Alabama is also now considering major reforms to its civil asset forfeiture laws that would address many of these issues. The Alabama Forfeiture Accountability and Integrity Reform (FAIR) Act would both require a conviction before property can be seized and the creation of a case tracking system and searchable public website that would include information about property seized and forfeited under state law, finally bringing accountability and transparency to the law.
Read the entire article here at The Heartland Institute
(1/19/18 -- Record Eagle)
“When they raided this house at 2 a.m. I must’ve heard it ten times: Where’s all the money? … That’s all they were here for. That’s all their motivation: Money. It’s always money.”
Traverse City man looks to the future after prosecutor's agree to dismiss forfeiture suit against him.
Ken Murray, 66, years ago embarked on a legal battle spanning three counties after he sought to defend operations at his three, local marijuana dispensaries. Most of the criminal charges levied against him were dismissed. Those that stuck netted him a single day in jail; credit for time served.
Kalkaska County Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ross Holec said the string of felony charges levied against Murray were never intended to net a conviction. They simply wanted to close up “Magic Buds” on Cedar Street and prevent Murray from opening additional dispensaries, he said.
Read the entire article here at Traverse City Record eagle
(1/11/18 -- Charleston Gazette-Mail)
Two groups form an unlikely fellowship to push for change
Members of Americans for Prosperity and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia issued a news release Wednesday detailing a joint letter they wrote to lawmakers, asking them to run legislation that would, among other provisions, require a criminal conviction before agencies can file for what’s known as civil asset forfeiture.
“Ensuring that West Virginians’ constitutional rights to due process and property are upheld is not a partisan issue. It is shocking for many to learn that the state can keep the property of an individual who has done nothing wrong,” said Jason Huffman, state director of Americans for Prosperity.
Read the entire article here at The Charleston Gazette-Mail
(12/29/17 -- Fosters.com)
New Hampshire Attorney General flouts state's Forfeiture Reform law
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire argues the AG’s forfeiture petition is “not in compliance” with a recent civil forfeiture law revision
A civil forfeiture claim has been filed against a Rochester man, alleging $2300 found on him during a search was drug money, even though no criminal charges have been filed. Assistant AG Jesse O’Neill’s petition states that while Michael Demeritt had claimed the cash was from gambling and could prove it through tax records, he did not produce any. Demeritt said he first contacted Rochester police some days after the seizure to show his proof, but he said he was told the case was now with the AG’s office. Demeritt said he made multiple calls and even drove to the AG’s office in Concord earlier this month to show his tax documents, but wasn’t able to see anyone and hasn’t received a return phone call.
Read the entire article here at fosters.com
(12/25/17 -- Des Moines Register)
Iowa authorities had to return all $167,840 seized after identity theft case.
"We’re seeing a lot of cases where the search — particularly vehicle searches — are done unlawfully," said Dean Stowers, attorney for Anderson's civil forfeiture case. "They then result in the forfeiture cases not being sustainable."
It started last fall, when a hotel employee allowed a computer to auto-fill information about a new guest.
The next morning, Polk County dispatchers received a call from an Iowa Department of Public Safety agent, saying his credit card had been fraudulently used at a hotel in Ankeny.
What followed was what was ultimately determined to be an unlawful search and the civil seizure of $167,840 — money that had to be returned with interest because of slip-ups by authorities.
Read the entire article here at The Des Moines Register
(9/12/2017--The Intercept)
IN SURPRISE VOTE, HOUSE PASSES AMENDMENT TO RESTRICT ASSET FORFEITURE
House to Sessions: “No Dice”
In a surprising turnaround, on September 12, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will result in a roll back of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s attempted expansion of asset forfeiture.
A bipartisan group sponsored Amendment No. 126, led by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. and joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
The amendment rolls back Sessions’s attepted elimination of the Obama-era reforms.
Overwhelming support for the amendment was shown by passing simply by a voice vote.
When asked for comment, well-known Forfeiture Attorney Brenda Grantland said: “It’s too bad the Holder policies they are reinstating only dealt with federal adoption and had loopholes that allowed cops to easily get around the policy change by adding a federal agent to their task forces, but, it’s a start.”
Read more about the amendment here:
FEAR's own Jeff Cardella had a hand in this landmark forfeiture decision in Indiana:
www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44576-district-court-strikes-part-of-states-civil-forfeiture-law
(07/23/2017 BrendaGrantland.com blog)
What you need to know about AG Sessions’ new forfeiture policy
On July 19, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new forfeiture policy regarding federal adoptions, the process which allows state and local police to seize property and turn it over to the feds for forfeture under federal law, in exchange for up to 80% of the forfeiture proceeds. Once again most of the journalists who wrote about it got it wrong. Sessions' order does repeal the policy order issued by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2015, but that's not a big deal because Holder's order contained loopholes that allowed police to easily get around the policy change. The press acted as if this was a horrible expansion of forfeiture, but they apparently didn't read the policy directive which contained the details of how the policy would be implemented. It contains some suprisingly good features which limit federal adoptions - especially seizures of cash. Read what they really do, and download the order and policy directive from Brenda's blo.
(04/12/2017 AZ Central)
Governor signs bill to tighten rules on asset seizures by law enforcement
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday signed sweeping legislation that will reform the state’s civil-asset forfeiture policies, expanding oversight on spending and ratcheting up the burden of proof required for police to seize property.
(04/07/2017 Hit & Run Blog)
Idaho Governor Flips Off Libertarians With Both Hands, Vetoes Asset Forfeiture AND Licensing Reforms
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter gave the double bird salute on Thursday, vetoing a pair of bills that would have reformed civil asset forfeiture laws in his state and made it easier for Idahoans to practice cosmetology without a state-issued license.
(01/04/2017 Michigan House Republicans)
Rep. Lucido civil asset forfeiture reform bill signed into law
Reforms continue to the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws as legislation authored by Rep. Peter Lucido was signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder today.
(12/29/17 -- Fosters.com)
New Hampshire Attorney General flouts state's Forfeiture Reform law
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire argues the AG’s forfeiture petition is “not in compliance” with a recent civil forfeiture law revision
A civil forfeiture claim has been filed against a Rochester man, alleging $2300 found on him during a search was drug money, even though no criminal charges have been filed. Assistant AG Jesse O’Neill’s petition states that while Michael Demeritt had claimed the cash was from gambling and could prove it through tax records, he did not produce any. Demeritt said he first contacted Rochester police some days after the seizure to show his proof, but he said he was told the case was now with the AG’s office. Demeritt said he made multiple calls and even drove to the AG’s office in Concord earlier this month to show his tax documents, but wasn’t able to see anyone and hasn’t received a return phone call.
Read the entire article here at fosters.com
(12/25/17 -- Des Moines Register)
Iowa authorities had to return all $167,840 seized after identity theft case.
"We’re seeing a lot of cases where the search — particularly vehicle searches — are done unlawfully," said Dean Stowers, attorney for Anderson's civil forfeiture case. "They then result in the forfeiture cases not being sustainable."
It started last fall, when a hotel employee allowed a computer to auto-fill information about a new guest.
The next morning, Polk County dispatchers received a call from an Iowa Department of Public Safety agent, saying his credit card had been fraudulently used at a hotel in Ankeny.
What followed was what was ultimately determined to be an unlawful search and the civil seizure of $167,840 — money that had to be returned with interest because of slip-ups by authorities.
Read the entire article here at The Des Moines Register
(9/12/2017--The Intercept)
IN SURPRISE VOTE, HOUSE PASSES AMENDMENT TO RESTRICT ASSET FORFEITURE
House to Sessions: “No Dice”
In a surprising turnaround, on September 12, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will result in a roll back of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s attempted expansion of asset forfeiture.
A bipartisan group sponsored Amendment No. 126, led by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. and joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
The amendment rolls back Sessions’s attepted elimination of the Obama-era reforms.
Overwhelming support for the amendment was shown by passing simply by a voice vote.
When asked for comment, well-known Forfeiture Attorney Brenda Grantland said: “It’s too bad the Holder policies they are reinstating only dealt with federal adoption and had loopholes that allowed cops to easily get around the policy change by adding a federal agent to their task forces, but, it’s a start.”
Read more about the amendment here:
FEAR's own Jeff Cardella had a hand in this landmark forfeiture decision in Indiana:
www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44576-district-court-strikes-part-of-states-civil-forfeiture-law
(07/23/2017 BrendaGrantland.com blog)
What you need to know about AG Sessions’ new forfeiture policy
On July 19, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new forfeiture policy regarding federal adoptions, the process which allows state and local police to seize property and turn it over to the feds for forfeture under federal law, in exchange for up to 80% of the forfeiture proceeds. Once again most of the journalists who wrote about it got it wrong. Sessions' order does repeal the policy order issued by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2015, but that's not a big deal because Holder's order contained loopholes that allowed police to easily get around the policy change. The press acted as if this was a horrible expansion of forfeiture, but they apparently didn't read the policy directive which contained the details of how the policy would be implemented. It contains some suprisingly good features which limit federal adoptions - especially seizures of cash. Read what they really do, and download the order and policy directive from Brenda's blo.
(04/12/2017 AZ Central)
Governor signs bill to tighten rules on asset seizures by law enforcement
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday signed sweeping legislation that will reform the state’s civil-asset forfeiture policies, expanding oversight on spending and ratcheting up the burden of proof required for police to seize property.
(04/07/2017 Hit & Run Blog)
Idaho Governor Flips Off Libertarians With Both Hands, Vetoes Asset Forfeiture AND Licensing Reforms
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter gave the double bird salute on Thursday, vetoing a pair of bills that would have reformed civil asset forfeiture laws in his state and made it easier for Idahoans to practice cosmetology without a state-issued license.
(01/04/2017 Michigan House Republicans)
Rep. Lucido civil asset forfeiture reform bill signed into law
Reforms continue to the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws as legislation authored by Rep. Peter Lucido was signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder today.
(12/28/2016 World News Daily)
Ohio joins 17 others in reining in asset forfeiture
A move to provide greater protections for Americans’ private-property rights is gaining momentum, with the signing by Gov. John Kasich in Ohio of a new law that requires that criminal charges be filed before police can take an individuals’ assets.
(12/24/16 The Hill)
Texas Lawmakers Want to Make It Harder for the State to Take Stuff From People
When the 85th Biennial Texas Legislative Session convenes in January, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are going to wade into the issue once more to see if they can get some sort of civil asset forfeiture reform through the legislative process
George Will presses Sessions on civil forfeiture
Because of Sessions' support of the process, Will wrote that "the Senate Judiciary Committee might want to discuss all this when considering the nominee to be the next attorney general, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions."
(12/22/16 Washington Post, The Watch)
Albuquerque concedes forfeiture was illegal, continues with illegal forfeitures
Somehow, Albuquerque didn’t get the message. There’s ample evidence that the city simply chose to ignore the law and continued with the seizures.
(12/20/16 Reason.com, Hit & Run Blog)
Want to Stop Asset Forfeiture Abuse? Teach Americans That It Happens.
Americans really, really don't like it when police seize citizens' property and keep it for themselves, especially when the authorities have not proven guilt. That's the latest data from a new poll from the Cato Institute (and YouGov) examining attitudes about police. Cato notes that a full 84 percent of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture.
(12/13/16 TechDirt)
Ohio Legislature Passes Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill That Removes Lots Of Bad Incentives
The bill passed both the Ohio senate and house by wide margins, despite opposition from law enforcement groups. If it is signed by Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Ohio will join 17 other states in recent years that has overhauled their civil asset forfeiture laws in response to media investigations and reports from civil liberties groups that revealed shocking numbers of people who've had their cash, cars, and even homes seized.
11/16/2016 Red State
Nebraska Strikes A Blow For Liberty; Bans Civil Asset Forfeiture
Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a bill on Tuesday that eliminates civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize and keep property without filing charges or securing criminal convictions. The bill, LB 1106, passed the unicameral legislature last week by a vote of 38 to 8.
(11/16/16 Tech Dirt)
In Rare Win, Man Arrested On Bogus Drug Charges Gets Everything Back, Including $150,000 The Government Really Didn't Want To Give Up
Here's a pretty encouraging story about fighting asset forfeiture and winning. The convoluted laws surrounding marijuana use are being exploited by California cops as revenue streams. A raid of a legal cannabis collective resulted in a whole lot of forfeited assets.
(10/6/16 TechDirt)
California Enacts Senate Bill 443, a civil asset reform measure
On 9/29/2016 California Governor Jerry Brown signed the California forfeiture reform bill SB 443 into law! Among other things it requires a conviction for most civil forfeitures. See Isaac Safier's article about it in the Legislation and Lobbying section of the FEAR website.
(8/23/16 Heritage.org)
An Overview of Recent State-Level Forfeiture Reforms
The message is clear: outside the law enforcement community, there is little support for the forfeiture status quo.
(4/25/2016 Hot Air)
Oklahoma police seize money intended for Christian school, orphanage
The Washington Post has a worthwhile story today about civil asset forfeiture laws being abused to in Oklahoma by the police to seize money destined for a Christian school and an orphanage. The story involves a man named Eh Wah who the Post describes as, “a refugee from Burma who became a U.S. citizen more than a decade ago.”
UPDATE: On Monday afternoon, Muskogee County District Attorney Orvil Loge dropped both the civil and criminal charges against Eh Wah. In an interview with The Washington Post, Loge said "I looked at the case and met with the officers, and determined that we would not be able to meet the burden of proof in the criminal case and in the civil case." Loge said a check for the full amount of money taken from Eh Wah will be mailed to Eh Wah's lawyers as soon as possible.
(4/25/2016 Union-Bulletin.com)
Nebraska sends right message in curbing asset forfeitures
Taking property from those not convicted of a crime is wrong. But, to this point, most states allow it.
In the past two years, as the public has wisely been growing uneasy about the practice, six states — Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico and Vermont — have mandated a conviction is necessary to seize cash and property.
Now Nebraska has taken a stand — its new law mandates authorities obtain a criminal conviction before seizing belongings.
The legislation, in the wake of the Justice Department’s move, is being praised as a major victory for the rights of the people.
(4/21/2016 Heartland.org)
Alaska Lawmaker Offers Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill
An Alaska state lawmaker is proposing new legal protections for the state’s residents by requiring local and state law enforcement agencies to obtain a criminal conviction before the government can confiscate an individual’s cash or property.
(4/20/2016 San Diego Union Tribune)
Seized assets under scrutiny
Public officials collect and spend billions of dollars per year under the federal asset-forfeiture program, which allows local law-enforcement agencies to keep a portion of whatever cash or property they confiscate as proceeds of suspected criminal activity.
State law requires a conviction in an underlying criminal case before the government can keep assets valued below $25,000. But for larger amounts, no criminal conviction is needed for the government to keep the assets — on the theory that larger stacks of cash are more likely to be the proceeds of illicit activity.
(4/20/2016 Star Telegram)
Here’s a path toward fixing problems of civil asset forfeiture
Does anyone think it’s fair for the government to take your property when you’re not convicted of a crime?
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize an individual’s property (including cash), often without charging that person with a crime.
It’s then up to the individual to prove the item’s innocence, often at significant personal expense.
Last year, the government used civil forfeiture to take from individuals more assets than were taken in all burglaries nationwide.
(4/19/2016 The Maui News)
Lawmakers: Civil asset forfeiture unit needs oversight
HONOLULU - Hawaii lawmakers want to know how often police are seizing people's property and what happens with money they make from selling it.
Right now, law enforcement can take Hawaii residents' property without a conviction or arrest as long as it's tied to a crime. Then, they can sell it and keep the profits.
But lawmakers say that can promote abuse of the state's civil asset forfeiture law. In response, they're considering a resolution to ask for an audit to figure out how law enforcement and prosecutors are using money made from selling seized property. It would also examine how many times property was seized in cases where there weren't convictions.
(4/18/2016 Decendents of Liberty Press)
No Greater Tyranny
What had this dangerous man done? He’d run afoul of the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), authorized by the Patriot Act to “safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security,” by trading electronic bitcoins without having filed a business license.
(4/12/2016 MississippiWatchdog.org)
Poll: Mississippians support civil asset forfeiture reform
A poll commissioned by the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy shows Mississippians overwhelmingly disapprove of civil asset forfeiture, with 88 percent opposed to allowing police to seize and permanently take away property from people who weren’t convicted of a crime.
(4/10/2016 Midland Daily News)
Forfeiture laws threaten property in Michigan
James Madison declared way back in 1792 that in America “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort ...(and)...to secure to every man whatever is his own.” That was then.
Today, according to a new Institute for Justice (IJ) report titled “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, 2nd Edition,” “Civil forfeiture threatens the constitutional rights of all Americans. Using civil forfeiture, the government can take your home, business, cash, car and other property on the mere suspicion that it is somehow connected to criminal activity — and without ever convicting, or even charging, you with a crime.”
The report goes on to say, “Property owners in Michigan have much to fear from the state’s civil forfeiture laws.”
(4/7/2016 Americans for Tax Reform)
Americans for Tax Reform Endorses California’s Property Rights Bill
Today, Americans for Tax Reform endorsed California’s Senate Bill 443. California currently protects against abuses of the asset forfeiture system, but leaves open a massive loophole which is consistently exploited.
Civil asset forfeiture is a practice used by law enforcement to confiscate the property of individuals they deem guilty of a crime. In many cases, there is no warrant, conviction, or due process. The confiscating agency then keeps the proceeds and the property owner is left with little recourse. Though California has in-state protections against this abuse, local agencies can still go around these protections by teaming up with federal authorities and use their own less stringent standards while still keeping up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
SB 443 would close that loophole by, among other things, requiring an underlying conviction before local police can receive proceeds from the federal government’s fund. See the entire letter here.
(4/6/2016 Associated Press)
Delaware lawmakers seek to eliminate civil forfeiture
DOVER, Del. (AP) - A bipartisan group of Delaware lawmakers is introducing legislation to eliminate the practice of seizing property thought to be associated with criminal activity, even if the property owner has not been convicted, or even arrested, for a crime.
While sponsors of the Senate bill say there is no evidence that Delaware law enforcement agencies are abusing such civil forfeiture laws, the process through which police agencies receive the proceeds of property that is seized and sold is shrouded in secrecy.
(4/6/2016 JDSupra Business Advisor)
You Can Pay Your Lawyer: Supreme Court Recognizes Limits on Pretrial Asset Restraints
Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Luis v. United States, the government could freeze a criminal defendant’s assets before trial even if they bore no connection to the alleged crimes. With the ruling, if the restraint prevents the defendant from paying for counsel, it violates the Sixth Amendment.
(4/6/2016 The Daily Signal)
Grand Jury Indicts Sheriff for Wrongly Taking $10,000 From Traffic Stop
A multi-county grand jury has indicted Oklahoma Sheriff Bob Colbert and Captain Jeffrey Gragg on three felony counts of bribery and extortion and recommended that Colbert be removed from office. The sheriff, according to the indictment, conspired with a captain in his office to extort $10,000 from a driver arrested on suspicion of possessing drug proceeds. It’s a development that could reshape the caustic fight to reform civil asset forfeiture laws in Oklahoma.
(4/2/2016 The Post Star)
EDITORIAL: Seizing assets from innocent people is wrong
Civil asset forfeiture turns the fundamentals of our legal system on their head, assuming guilt and putting the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
Worse, the law allows authorities to take assets from people who are never even charged with crimes.
(4/1/2016 Reason.com Hit & Run Blog)
Florida Governor Signs Bill Requiring Actual Criminal Charges Before Seizing Property
Important reform to reduce asset forfeiture abuse
Some great news in asset forfeiture reform is coming out of Florida. S.B. 1044, approved by the legislature earlier in the month, was signed into law today by Gov. Rick Scott. The big deal with this particular reform is that, in most cases, Florida police will actually have to arrest and charge a person with a crime before attempting to seize and keep their money and property under the state's asset forfeiture laws. One of the major ways asset forfeiture gets abused is that it is frequently a "civil", not criminal, process where police and prosecutors are able to take property without even charging somebody with a crime, let alone convicting them.
(3/30/2016 Reason.com Hit & Run Blog)
SCOTUS Delivers Big Win for Criminal Defendant in 6th Amendment Case, Rejects Pre-Trial Freezing of Non-Tainted Assets
The Supreme Court issues a 5-3 opinion in Luis v. United States.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant victory both for property rights and for the 6th Amendment right to counsel in "all criminal prosecutions." By a vote of 5-3 in the case of Luis v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government's efforts to freeze the non-tainted assets of a criminal defendant before trial violated that defendant's constitutional rights. "The defendant in this case," the Court observed, "has a Sixth Amendment right to use her own 'innocent' property to pay a reasonable fee for the assistance of counsel."
(3/29/2016 Courage Campaign)
When Robin Hood steals, it's a crime. When police do, it's legal.
This is absurd. Did you know that police can legally take your personal property without ever charging you with a crime?!
On HBO’s Last Week Tonight, host John Oliver brilliantly calls out Civil Asset Forfeiture -- an unjust, racist policy leftover from Ronald Reagan’s failed War on Drugs, which gives police a free pass to impose on people’s civil rights and disproportionately steals from low-income people of color.(1) And California’s police are some of the worst offenders.
WATCH AND SHARE the viral clip of John Oliver explaining how law enforcement agencies in CA and nationwide take advantage of this loophole to legally take innocent people’s cash and property, and then keep a portion of the loot. It’s gotten over 7.5 MILLION views so far on YouTube alone!
(3/28/2016 Washington Post)
The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take stuff and keep it
The Justice Department has announced that it is resuming a controversial practice that allows local police departments to funnel a large portion of assets seized from citizens into their own coffers under federal law.
(3/25/2016 Cincinnati.com)
Opinion: Forfeiture laws need reform
Criminal defense lawyer Michael Allen has previously served as a police officer, judge and prosecutor.
Sean and Jeremy of Indianapolis were visiting Cincinnati for the weekend. While driving on I-74, they were pulled over. Having done nothing wrong, they let police search their car. During that search, officers seized more than $16,500 in cash. Law enforcement was able to hold on to their money despite never charging them with a crime and in the blink of an eye, Sean and Jeremy’s trip turned into a nightmare.
I worked with the pair to successfully recover their money, but it was only returned after a lengthy and exhaustive court fight that lasted almost two years.
(3/24/2016 The Datona Beach News Journal)
Restoring balance to asset seizures
Florida is a governor’s signature away from having one of the weakest civil asset forfeiture laws in the country to one of the strongest.
(3/21/2016 Accounting Today)
Lawmakers Prod IRS to Return Funds Seized from Taxpayers
The House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee is calling on the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department to return funds wrongly seized from taxpayers during civil asset forfeitures.
Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., who chairs the subcommittee, and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee led all the members in sending a letter Wednesday to top officials, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. They asked their agencies to review all IRS civil asset forfeiture cases and return money to victims where warranted.
(3/21/2016 Huffpost Politics)
Momentum Builds Against Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses by Law Enforcement
Luckily there is growing momentum behind reforming civil asset forfeiture laws in state houses across the country. In Florida the legislature recently sent a reform bill to Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s desk for his signature. Lawmakers in California, Alaska, Hawaii, Ohio, Nebraska, Maryland and elsewhere are considering bills that reform civil asset forfeiture laws. Last year, New Mexico passed a sweeping bill that gives the state some of the strongest protections against wrongful seizures in the country.
(3/6/2016 Sun Times Network)
Civil asset forfeiture reform passes unanimously in Florida Senate
The Florida Senate has voted unanimously to pass SB 1044, which would reform the state’s “Contraband Forfeiture Act,” as reported by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA).
The bill was introduced by Sen. Jeff Brandes and now heads to the Florida House of Representatives for a floor vote.
(3/2/2016 The Buckeye Institute)
Why Ohio needs asset forfeiture reform
There are a few principles so fundamental to American law and our notion of justice that practically any citizen can recite them—due process of law, every person is entitled to his or her day in court, innocent until proven guilty, just to name a few. These are things we have come to expect from our legal system. Unfortunately, these principles are glaringly absent from one area of law—asset forfeiture.
Legislation proposed by State Representatives Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) and Thomas Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) would restore some of those basic principles.
(3/2/2016 TownHall.com)
Cops, Kleefisch killed civil asset forfeiture reform bill
MADISON, Wis. – After what appeared to be strong bipartisan support for civil asset forfeiture reform, the legislation has died on the vine.
Assembly Bill 537 succumbed to a committee chairman who openly loathed it, and will not get a hearing in the Senate’s Labor and Government Reform Committee.
State Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, chairman of the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, did not like the reform bill, which would provide protections against law enforcement seizure of private property.
(3/1/2016 TC Palm)
Civil forfeiture laws are an assault on property rights in Florida
Did you know your property could be seized by law enforcement officials based on the suspicion you have committed a crime? In fact, in 2014, law enforcement seized more property than burglars did. Yes, you read that correctly. This is a little-known fact of which Floridians should be aware.
The reason? Under the current policy of civil forfeiture, law enforcement officials can stop you, seize your property and assume ownership of it without making a charge or arrest.
(2/29/2016 cjonline.com)
Kansans for Smart Justice pushing for criminal justice reform
A coalition of Kansas religious, community and civil rights organizations Monday pressed for broader reliance on diversion agreements, lower sentences for nonviolent drug crimes, recidivism counseling and reform of civil asset forfeiture laws.
The package presented by Kansans for Smart Justice, formed in collaboration with 13 entities, would respond to concern that too many people were incarcerated in county jails and state prisons at excessive cost to state taxpayers.
“The criminal justice system in Kansas is broken and urgently needs reform,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas. “Reform is not about politics or ideology. It is about the communities that we live in and the most fundamental of Kansas values — justice, equality and liberty.”
(2/28/2016 Kingsport Times News)
Proposed bill would change civil forfeiture; law enforcement opposed
It is perfectly legal for Tennessee law enforcement to pull someone over, take anything in their possession and not make an arrest. All police have to do is suspect that person of conducting illegal criminal activity. It is called civil forfeiture.
But a bill working its way through the Tennessee legislature would change that law, allowing police to seize items only when an arrest has been made. It would also prevent forfeiture of the seized items until after a conviction in criminal court.
*2/26/2016 Botec Analysis Corporation)
Should the Federal Government Be Involved in Civil Asset Forfeiture?
Civil asset forfeiture – that is, the ability of the government to seize the implements of and proceeds from criminal activities – is a controversial policy to say the least. The Federal Bureau of Investigation calls it “the most effective means of recovering property and funds…to compensate innocent victim(s),” whereas civil liberties groups on both ends of the political spectrum oppose it because they believe it to be an intolerable and unevenly enforced violation of property rights, especially in marginalized communities. One of the most controversial aspects of civil asset forfeiture was a program known as “equitable sharing,” which allowed state and local agencies or inter-jurisdictional task forces to process civil asset forfeitures through the federal government, dividing the proceeds in accordance with the amount of work performed by each agency. When this scheme was in place, the federal government received at least a 20% cut. The program, which was meant to facilitate interagency cooperation, was soundly criticized as open to abuse. While recent efforts, such as Eric Holder’s attempt attempted to reform the program, they generally fell short of their targets.
(2/22/2015 Opposing Views)
State Refuses To Return Man's Truck, Even After Admitting It Was Seized Due To Clerical Error
A Rhode Island man says he can't get his truck back from the state, even though the clerical error that led the state to impound the vehicle was corrected months ago.
Bart Johnson has been without his 2006 Ford Ranger for more than five months, ever since he was pulled over on Sept. 12 for allegedly driving without a license, Rhode Island's Dispatch-Argus reported.
Originally, Johnson's license had been suspended while he was accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol. But Johnson's license was restored to good standing when that case was resolved on July 20, 2015, according to the Dispatch-Argus.
(2/3/2016 The Daily Signal)
Judge Makes Government Pay Legal Fees to Store Owner Whose $107,700 Was Seized by IRS
A federal court delivered a victory to a North Carolina convenience store owner from whom the IRS had seized $107,700, directing the government to reimburse him for more than $20,000 in legal fees and expenses.
Lyndon McLellan, who owns a convenience store in Fairmont, N.C., already had won back the $107,700 the Internal Revenue Service took from him in 2014.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the federal government is required to pay McLellan’s legal fees, his expenses, and interest earned on the money the IRS seized in a case that could set a “powerful precedent” for victims of forfeiture fighting to be made whole.
(2/1/2016 Alaska Dispatch News)
Alaska's lax civil asset forfeiture laws need reform
It is a practice that violates our ideals as a state. Alaskans know better than most that you can protect the public without sacrificing liberty. Civil asset forfeiture is wrong and we must do better.
A report from the Institute for Justice confirms Alaska’s civil forfeiture laws are among the worst in America. The government has to meet a very low standard of proof to permanently deprive owners of their property. The property itself is presumed guilty and the burden is on owners to reclaim their belongings and prove the property is innocent.
(1/29/2016 The Daily Feed)
Lawmaker Seeks to Curb Policing for Profit
Bill would level playing field when civil assets are seized by police.
The past year has seen a massive upswell nationwide of news reports exposing the abuse of a police practice called civil asset forfeiture—a policy that allows law enforcement to seize any property they allege may have been involved in criminal activity, and keep or sell it. Now, one lawmaker wants to reform Utah’s law.
(1/26/2016 WKOW.com)
Lawmakers hear testimony on reforming criminal asset forfeiture
MADISON (WKOW) -- A bill that would limit the ability of law enforcement to seize assets during a criminal investigation made for strange bedfellows at a public hearing before the Senate Committee on Labor and Government Reform Tuesday.
Under current law, police can seize certain property from a person who is involved in the commission of a crime, or in relation to a criminal investigation, through a forfeiture proceeding.
(1/25/2016 Las Vegas Review Journal)
Examining controversial practice of asset forfeiture in Nevada
When Las Vegas resident Santiago Cruz was pulled over in his car for speeding on Interstate 80 in Washoe County, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer searched the car for marijuana, but instead found $102,836 in cash.
NHP turned the case over to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The U.S. attorney's office argued that the seized cash was money from marijuana sales. Although no drugs were found, there was a suspicious ledger of transactions, a canine "alerted" at the scent, and Cruz had a prior drug conviction. But there was no hard evidence, no arrests were made, no criminal charges filed. Cruz fought in civil court, but was only able to prove where half of the money came from, and the judge ruled none of it would be returned. The case is being appealed.
(1/21/2016 Cato Institute)
What the President Should Do: Civil Asset Forfeiture
As President Obama counts down the days of his last year in office, one positive step he could take for his legacy would be to halt the federal government’s use of civil asset forfeiture and make the suspension of the equitable sharing program permanent.
(1/21/2016 Inquisitr)
DEA Under Fire For Hiring TSA Agent To Help Take Cash From Luggage
In an obvious overreach of authority and power, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is being condemned by a Department of Justice watchdog following a report that the DEA had hired a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screener to purposefully search luggage for cash that the DEA could confiscate. Furthermore, the DEA had plans to pay the agent out of the cash that he or she helped the agency to seize, which the Office of Inspector General says “could have violated individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures if it led to a subsequent DEA enforcement action.”
(1/9/2016 QCOnline.com)
Forfeiture law means woman paying for grandson's crime
The word "forfeiture" didn't mean much to Judy Wiese before her only vehicle -- a 2009 Jeep Compass -- was seized by police while she slept the night of Aug. 31.
Now, the 70-year-old Moline woman is getting a crash course in Illinois' complicated civil asset forfeiture laws as she tries, without success so far, to get her vehicle returned.
(1/8/2016 The Columbus Dispatch)
Presumption of innocence
Police shouldn’t be able to confiscate property until after a criminal conviction
For months, police and prosecutors have lined up at the Ohio Statehouse to fight House Bill 347, which would restrict civil-asset forfeiture.
That’s a fancy term that translates to “law-enforcement can seize and keep someone’s cash, homes, cars, jewelry and other possessions because they just know that person was committing a crime.”
Here’s the problem: That person doesn’t have to be convicted, or even charged. Further, to reclaim property, a person must hire a lawyer and prove his or her innocence, upending a bedrock foundation of the American justice system — the presumption of innocence. The bill still would allow evidence to be temporarily seized during an investigation, but it would hold property for permanent seizure to the same criminal standard as a person: innocent until proved guilty.
(1/6/2016 The Crime Report)
Your Assets Are Mine
Is the centuries-old practice of seizing property allegedly connected with a crime headed for a major shakeup in the U.S. this year?
Reform advocates on the left and right were encouraged by the temporary suspension last month of payments to local law enforcement agencies that participate in the federal asset forfeiture program.
But the reformers, who range from conservatives and libertarians to civil rights groups and human rights advocates, want the government to go a lot further in 2016 — towards the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice altogether.
(1/6/2016 TCPalm)
Gil Smart: Is asset forfeiture ‘policing for profit?’
In Florida and across the country, efforts are underway to reform "civil asset forfeiture" — a fancy term for what happens when the cops bust you for drugs or other crimes and keep money, vehicles, cellphones, even homes they believe are connected to the crime. The idea is to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains, and law enforcement officials like Mascara, Martin County Sheriff William Snyder and Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar say Florida's forfeiture statute, the Contraband Forfeiture Act, is a valuable weapon in the war on drugs.
It's valuable for another reason, too: Forfeiture makes money for law enforcement.
(1/4/2016 The Leaf Online)
ANALYSIS: Asset Forfeiture Weakened But Not Gone Yet
2015 was a rough year for US asset forfeiture. The year opened and closed with two administrative bookends which effectively curtail the practice of allowing law enforcement to seize property without bringing criminal charges, leaving behind a longstanding practice which has been significantly weakened — but not gone.
(1/3/2016 Orange County Register)
Force awakens as asset-forfeiture plunder is threatened
This fear-mongering response is rather telling. “Law enforcement revealed that its true interest in forfeiture is policing for profit – not public safety,” said Lee McGrath, legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice. “The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act does not stop police and prosecutors from chasing criminals. They’re frustrated because Congress put on hold their chasing cash.”
(12/31/15 Washington Examiner)
An unexpected New Year's present from Congress: Property rights
State and municipal law enforcement agencies make big money seizing property from owners who have not been convicted or often even charged with a crime, on the pretext that it was somehow involved in criminal activity. The burden falls upon property owners to prove it wasn't, and they might have to go to great effort and expense to recover what's theirs. It sounds terribly un-American, but it is a routine practice in most states. Some states, such as New Mexico, have already begun to reform it, requiring a criminal conviction before property can be lawfully seized.
(12/29/15 Tenth Amendment Center)
Indiana Bill Would Curb “Policing for Profit” Via Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Loophole Remains
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (Dec. 29, 2015) – A bill prefiled in the Indiana Senate for the 2016 legislative session would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws, making it more difficult for police to seize property. But a loophole in the legislation would allow law enforcement to work with the feds to skirt the more stringent state law.
Sen. Lonnie Randolph (D-2) prefiled Senate Bill 123 (SB123) earlier this month. The legislation would require criminal conviction of the property owner before finalizing asset forfeiture. As it stands now, Indiana law enforcement officers can seize assets they suspect were involved in criminal activity without even making an arrest.
(12/28/15 Opposing Views)
Police Use Civil Forfeiture Laws To Take $107K From Massachusetts Couple During Traffic Stop
Adam and Jennifer Perry were on their way to a hearing specialist in October 2012 when a group of armed men stopped their car and relieved them of $107,520 in cash, their wedding rings and their Toyota Tundra.
The armed men they encountered on Interstate 80 in Illinois weren't criminals, at least by the standard definition -- they were police, and they used civil forfeiture law to seize everything the couple had without filing a single criminal charge or finding any evidence.
Since 9/11, when certain controls on police were relaxed, departments throughout the U.S. have taken more than $2.5 billion from American motorists and pedestrians who were stopped by police and had their assets taken without being charged with a crime or being suspected of a specific crime, a Washington Post investigation found in 2014. In those cases, police only have to say they suspect the money they seize is in some way tied to criminal activity to take it from Americans, with no clear recourse for the victims.
(12/23/15 St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Feds stop sharing asset forfeitures with local police after $1.2 billion in spending cuts
WASHINGTON • Citing $1.2 billion in cuts by Congress in recent budget and “omnibus” spending bills, the Department of Justice has temporarily suspended its program of sharing forfeited criminal assets with local police.
“This is going to have a huge impact on police departments not only in St. Louis but around the country,” St. Louis Chief Sam Dotson said Wednesday. “It is an inconsistent message from the president whose focus is on 21st Century Policing, and yet this happened without having a serious conversation about how this will impact local law enforcement.”
(12/23/15 The Columbus Dispatch)
Ohio legislators honing asset-foreiture reform bill
Ohio lawmakers could vote this winter on legislation that would restrict the ability of law enforcement to seize people’s property without a criminal conviction.
Civil-asset-forfeiture laws traditionally are used to fight large drug-trafficking organizations by seizing cash, vehicles and other assets that law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors believe were involved in a crime.
But nationally, complaints have grown over abuses of a process that allows the seizure of personal property without a criminal conviction, which critics say goes against the country’s basic system of justice. Assets typically are divided among prosecutors and law-enforcement groups involved in the incident.
(12/23/15 Reason.com)
Wonderful Asset Forfeiture News: Justice Department Temporarily Halts "Equitable Sharing" Program
Thanks to budget cuts, for a while local cops can't get federal payoffs for stealing property allegedly connected to drugs.
Budget cuts can be glorious things: the Department of Justice announces this week that, thanks to cuts in its budget of an initial $746 million in November's Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, followed up by a wondrous addition $458 million rescission in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 that became law law last week, it is temporarily halting its so-called "equitable sharing" program.
(12/21/15 TechDirt)
Law Enforcement Wants To Be Able To Seize The Cars And Homes Of People Convicted On Child Porn Charges
from the good-intentions,-but-some-bad-implementation dept
Some odd news out of Massachussetts. Legislators and law enforcement are teaming up to push legislation that would give agencies permission toseize and sell property belonging to people convicted of sexual crimes against children.
(12/17/15 The Gazette)
Keep working to fix forfeiture laws
We agree with the fundamental justification for asset forfeiture: Crime shouldn’t pay. But as we’ve argued in these pages before, current Iowa law doesn’t adequately protect against an equally important corollary: Namely, that the potential for a payout cannot influence enforcement of our laws.
A recent Iowa Supreme Court decision offers some hope for change, but does not go far enough.
(12/17/15 Independent)
New Jersey collects over $100M in criminal and civil actions
The District of New Jersey collected more than $100 million in criminal and civil actions in Fiscal Year 2015.
Of the $102,476,557 amount, $64,631,183 was collected in criminal actions and $37,845,373 was collected in civil actions, according to a statement prepared by U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman.
The District of New Jersey worked with other U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and components of the Department of Justice to collect an additional $9.27 billion in cases pursued jointly with these offices. Of this amount, $297,806 was collected in criminal actions and $9,265,900,389 was collected in civil actions, Fishman said.
(12/14/15 Reason.com)
Drug Czar Wants More Money to Spend on Taking Your Stuff
ONDCP requests record amount to "manage the massive paper flow associated with forfeiture."
The Washington Post reports that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) wants more money "to identify assets, prosecute cases and 'manage the massive paper flow associated with forfeiture.'"
Asset-forfeiture, in which law enforcement seizes property, cash, and goods that it says is connected to drug crimes and activity, is controversial but incredibly lucrative.
Last year, for instance, cops took more stuff from people than criminals did. And, as Steven Greenhut wrote here, many of the instances are outrageous:
(12/14/`5 Alternet)
The piece starts off good, with Bottcelli acknowledging the drug war is a failure and that we need a new approach. Botticelli starts off on the right track: he says we can’t incarcerate our way out of the problem and he wants to treat drug use as a health issue rather than as a criminal one.
(12/14/15 The Agusta Journal)
Abuse of civil forfeiture system cries out for reform
Earlier this year we told you the story of Andrew Clyde, the gun dealer from Athens, Ga., whose bank account was looted of $950,000 by Internal Revenue Service agents who thought his cash deposits looked suspicious.
Clyde was never convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, but it took him nearly $100,000 in legal fees and a $50,000 payment to the IRS to get his money out of “civil asset forfeiture” through federal court.
Turns out there are plenty of Andrew Clydes out there, based on a recent study by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit civil liberties organization.
(12/14/15 Public Opinion)
ACLU: Cumberland Co. misuses forfeited assets
CUMBERLAND COUNTY -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania released a report Monday that documents the alleged abuse of civil asset forfeiture by the Cumberland County District Attorney's office, according to a press release from the ACLU.
(12/13/15 Star Beacon)
Civil forfeiture laws in Ohio are worth revising
On the surface, few things sound like as much of a no-brainer as taking money and property from drug dealers and criminals and putting it into the hands of the very police departments working to get criminals off the street. Just this week, the city of Ashtabula announced the police department had been bolstered by $29,000 seized from criminals this year.
Of that money, $27,000 was forfeited and turned over to the City Enforcement Trust Fund. The fund’s money must be used in support of law enforcement, but not for officer salaries. In 2015, it paid for officer training, K-9 equipment, body armor upgrades, undercover drug “buys” and travel and lodging for witnesses subpoenaed for a court case.
Another $1,200 was forwarded to the Ashtabula County Law Enforcement Trust Fund, which has been used to help the Jefferson Police Department pay for a laser speed gun and video and buy the Roaming Shores Police Department a Taser.
So far, so good.
But, despite the clear good that seized money and assets can do, civil forfeiture laws are not without their rightful critics. Many on both sides of the political aisle say the laws as written are too easily abused and can mean innocent people losing their property or money. The argument is that when assets are seized before a criminal conviction, in essence people are being found guilty before they’re convicted.
(12/12/15 Heartland.org)
Tennessee Lawmakers Hold Hearings on Asset Forfeiture Reform
Tennessee lawmakers are holding legislative hearings about civil asset forfeiture reform, learning more about how the law enforcement practice may infringe on citizens’ due process and private property rights.
In October, the State Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from experts both favoring and disapproving of reforming civil asset forfeiture laws. One witness, West Tennessee Drug and Violent Crime Task Force prosecutor Steve Jones, claimed, “If you do away with asset forfeiture, the criminals will thank you.”
Principles of Reform
Justin Owen, chief executive officer at the Beacon Center of Tennessee, says the state’s asset forfeiture laws are at odds with good-government goals, such as accountability and transparency.
“It is impossible to know how much property is being seized under the state’s civil forfeiture laws, because law enforcement is not obligated to track and report that information,” Owen said. “A key component of any reform should be to shine light on this practice, so that we can truly know how much property is being seized and from whom.
(12/12/15 The Des Moines Register)
Iowa Supreme Court curbs police forfeitures
Iowa's Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that could curb the power of state police agencies to seize cash, illegal drugs and contraband from motorists — including some who are never charged with a crime.
Lawyers who fight these seizures said Friday's 5-2 decision from the Iowa Supreme Court will restrict the ability of state patrol troopers and deputies to do the type of warrantless vehicle searches that a Des Moines Register investigation found contributed to authorities seizing millions of dollars in recent years using controversial civil forfeiture laws.
(12/12/15 Saint Peters Blog)
Joe Negron signs on to Jeff Brandes civil asset forfeiture reform bill
The legislation would stipulate assets or property may only be seized under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act after a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime. Up to that point, assets suspected to be connected to a crime may be only temporarily revoked under a provisional title obtained by police.
Under current law, police can seize assets without even bringing charges against a defendant.
(12/11/15 Watertown Daily Times)
Drug cops will spend even more money on taking people’s stuff next year
America’s law enforcement officers have been seizing a record amount of property from citizens, often without charging them with a crime, under the practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Cops took more stuff from people than burglars did last year, according to FBI data.
But despite calls for reform from lawmakers and advocacy groups, budget numbers recently released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy suggest forfeiture efforts will ramp up next year.
(12/8/15 Techdirt)
New Mexico Legislators Sue City For Refusing To Follow New Asset Forfeiture Law
from the we-thought-it-was-just-a-suggestion dept
Earlier this year, the state of New Mexico passed one of the most solid pieces of asset forfeiture reform legislation in the country. All it asked for was what most people would consider to be common sense: if the government is going to seize assets, the least it could do in return is tie the seizure to a conviction.
Now, the state is finding out that bad habits are hard to break. CJ Ciaramella reports that the government is going after another part of the government for its refusal to stop taking stuff without securing a conviction.
(12/6/15 Public Source)
A template for change?
Fair forfeiture or the drug dealer’s ‘bill of rights?’
Reform advocates say Allegheny County’s policy to seize assets only after a conviction could show the way for the state.
"Forfeiture is a critical tool to take resources away from criminals, but that's what we expect these people to be: criminals," said Holly Harris, executive director of Fix Forfeiture, a national nonprofit group leading a bipartisan coalition of reformers and legislators seeking to restructure Pennsylvania's asset forfeiture laws.
Some drug dealers, embezzlers and other offenders are making a living and then some off of their criminal activities. Asset forfeiture in Pennsylvania was designed as a means to seize those illegal gains, whether cash, jewelry, cars or homes.
The current forfeiture process in Allegheny County Pennsylvania is similar to a pair of comprehensive reform bills pending in the state Legislature.
State Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, is one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 869, which would require a person to be convicted of a crime before law enforcement officials could permanently keep their property.
"Allegheny's (policy) is the basic foundation of what our bill does," Folmer said. "The whole purpose of 869 is not to take away asset forfeiture from the state, but to make sure a conviction happens first."
(3/9/15 - The Chattanoogan)
Supreme Court Overturns Forfeiture Of Home, Says State Failed To Follow Law
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on Monday that, in actions under Tennessee’s civil forfeiture statutes, the state must present evidence that it complied with both the procedural and the substantive requirements in the law.
(3/9/15 - Dallas Observer)
Texas Lawmakers Want to Make It Harder (or Even Impossible) for Police to Seize Property
Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country. In 2010, the Institute for Justice gave the state a grade of D- in terms of how easy it is for police to take property allegedly linked to criminal activity, and how hard it is for the property owner to get it back. It's not everywhere that a petty thief can get his pickup seized for stealing a few cases of beer.
Past legislative session have yielded reforms that have addressed some of the most egregious abuses. In the wake of cops and prosecutors teaming up to shakedown out-of-town motorists in tiny Tenaha, Texas, for instance, Texas lawmakers decided that cops couldn't have people sign away their property rights on the side of the highway.
(3/9/15 - Delmarva Daily Times)
Caught selling drugs? You risk losing car, cash
In forfeiture cases, there must be a connection between the illegal activity and the item seized, Wescott said. Just because somebody has nice things, it doesn't mean they were obtained illegally, he said.
And even if the person is involved in criminal activity, Wescott said, that doesn't mean everything the person owns is a result of that.
He said it's a problem that people have to prove how they earned their money.
"That's not the way the Constitution is set up," Wescott said.
(3/7/15 - CryptoCoinsNews)
Asset Forfeiture is the Next Attack Against Bitcoin
This week a court in Virginia indicted Kim Dotcom and six of his alleged coworkers. The event is part of an ongoing attempt to prosecute Kim Dotcom. Since 2012, Virginia attorneys have accused Dotcom of Copyright Infringement, Racketeering, Money Laundering, and Wire Fraud among other charges.
(3/7/15 - Salina Journal)
Drug task force seeks forfeiture of $100,800 seized from Salina convenience store
Salina County District Court documents show that authorities are pursuing forfeiture of more than $100,800 seized from a north Salina convenience store and believed to be the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
Although criminal charges against the Modys related to the sale of illegal substances were dismissed in October after the confidential informant was not available to testify at a preliminary hearing, authorities are continuing to pursue forfeiture of the cash. The charges were dismissed in a way that they could be refiled, but according to the complaint, violations of Kansas law involving controlled substances can result in forfeiture whether or not there is criminal prosecution or conviction.
(3/6/15 - Ricochet.com)
The Incentive to Steal: Asset Forfeiture and Police Abuse
Recently, R. Seth Williams, District Attorney of Philadelphia, wrote in praise of asset forfeiture laws, undoubtedly in response to the ongoing suit challenging the city’s forfeiture program. Mr. Williams defends asset forfeiture as necessary to root out the drug trade. He asks us to
"Think about the kid who can’t play outside anymore because he might get caught in the cross fire; the grandmother who’s threatened by dealers when she just wants to sit on her porch; the homeowner … who has to watch [his house] value plummet when his block becomes an open-air drug market."
Unfortunately, it is hard to believe that law enforcement even seriously believes anymore that the primary purpose of forfeiture is to fight the drug war.
(3/6/15 - Michigan Radio)
House speaker throws support behind asset forfeiture changes
There’s bipartisan interest in the state Legislature in protecting Michiganders from having property unfairly seized by police.
State House Speaker Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, wrote in the Detroit News this week that Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws need to be revisited. He says too many people never convicted of a crime are having their assets taken so that police departments can profit.
(3/5/15 - Reason)
This Man Was Found Innocent, But the Cops Kept His $30,000 Anyway
Robert Pardee's vehicle was stopped by an Iowa state trooper over a busted taillight. After a search turned up trace amounts of marijuana, Pardee was charged with possession. A criminal court eventually found him innocent of any wrongdoing. So why do the police get to keep the $30,100 they confiscated from him?
The answer is civil forfeiture, of course. Even though a criminal court acquitted Pardee, a civil court ruled—under a much lower burden of proof—that it was more likely than not he had acquired the cash through illegal means.
(3/5/15 - The Detroit News)
House Speaker: Michigan must reform asset forfeiture
Government exists to provide services to the people, not to profit off them. Unfortunately, some Michigan police departments are doing the latter with actions hidden from public view. Republicans in the Michigan House of Representatives are going to change that.
(3/4/15 - Forbes)
Man Acquitted Of Crime, Cops Still Take His Cash
Iowa State troopers can keep more than $30,000 in cash taken during a traffic stop, even though the owner was found not guilty, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled last week.
(3/3/15 - Techdirt)
Wyoming Governor Vetoes Asset Forfeiture Bill, Because Asset Forfeiture 'Is Right'
With the abuses of asset forfeiture being loudly publicized, there has (finally) been some legislative pushback against these abusive programs. Wyoming's legislators -- hoping to institute asset forfeiture reform -- ran into pushback themselves from the state's governor, who vetoed the popular bill (which passed out of the Senate with an 80-9 vote) when it hit his desk.
(3/3/15 - Dallas Observer)
Dallas-Area Cops Seize Millions in Cash and Property Every Year, and No One Fights Them
Anecdotes of civil forfeiture abuse in Texas abound. The most egregious example from recent years probably comes from the tiny East Texas town of Tenaha (population 1,160), where the district attorney and local police teamed up to shake down innocent out-of-town motorists for cash and other valuables worth millions. Near the border, cops were wont to focus enforcement efforts on catching the large amounts of cash headed back to Mexico, all the while more or less ignoring the drugs and weapons flowing the other way; inevitably, innocents were caught up in the dragnet. In 2012, Fort Worth cops kept or attempted to keep 15 cars, trucks, and SUVs seized from TCU students and others involved in a university-centered marijuana ring.
(3/2/15 - Casper Star-Tribune Online)
Wyoming Legislature may consider marijuana edibles, asset forfeiture in interim
The Legislature passed a bill this session to replace civil asset forfeiture with criminal asset forfeiture. Governor Mead vetoed the bill and an attempt to override the veto failed Friday in the Senate.
(3/4/15 - Philly.com)
Negotiations to settle city's forfeiture suit fail
Efforts to settle a lawsuit that challenges the city's use of state civil forfeiture laws have failed, lawyers told a federal Judge Monday.
The announcement came a day after District Attorney Seth Williams laid out his most detailed defense yet of the controversial program - one aimed at depriving drug dealers of cash and property, but increasingly under scrutiny for instances involving innocents evicted for only tangential connections to crime.
(3/2/15 - Atlanta Journal Constitution)
House votes to tighten civil forfeiture rules
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors would face new restrictions and reporting requirements for seizing an individual’s property under legislation unanimously approved in the state House on Monday.
The House voted 154-0 to approve House Bill 233, that “brings more due process, brings reporting, brings definitions to what can be used and it puts some rules in place,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Alex Atwood, R-St. Simons Island, said.
(2/26/15 - DesMoinesRegister.com)
Prosecutors shouldn’t tie guilty pleas to forfeitures
It was gratifying to see the Internal Revenue Service admit the error of its ways two weeks ago and apologize for seizing the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens.
Unfortunately, the gratification was short-lived, because no sooner had the IRS humbled itself and expressed its great regret for unfairly harassing innocent people and looting their bank accounts, than it initiated criminal proceedings against Janet Malone of Dubuque.
(2/28/15 - The Moral Liberal)
Quiet Change Expands ATF Power to Seize Property
Historically, when the ATF uncovered contraband subject to forfeiture under drug statutes, it was required to either refer the property to the DEA for administrative forfeiture proceedings or to a U.S. Attorney in order to initiate a judicial forfeiture action. Under today’s change, the ATF will now be authorized to seize property related to alleged drug offenses and initiate administrative forfeiture proceedings all on its own.
(2/26/15 - Casper Star-Tribune Online)
Legislators should override Mead's forfeiture veto
Legislators should override Gov. Matt Mead’s veto of a bill that would change how law enforcement in Wyoming can seize personal property.
It sounds complicated, but it comes down to this: The right to due process, a fair trial, is still alive and well in the United States, and our rules should reflect that. Right now, they don’t.
(2/26/15 - Nashua Telegraph)
A big upgrade over a bad law
We have no problem with the notion that people who break the law should be required to forfeit the fruits of their unlawful activity.
(2/25/15 - The Keene Sentinel)
Civil forfeiture laws needs an overhaul
There’s a perception that our system of government, and particularly the United States Constitution from which that government derives its powers, were conceived with the notion of protecting the average citizen from the abuses of power our Founding Fathers saw inherent in European monarchies, specifically England’s.
Because of that, many Americans believe the Constitution — particularly the Bill of Rights — was drawn up containing strict limits on what the government can do regarding citizens’ property, wealth and privacy.
(2/24/15 - Techdirt)
Virginia Lawmakers Attempting To Reform State's Asset Forfeiture Debacle By Pushing For A Conviction Requirement
The Institute for Justice's 2010 report "Policing for Profit" listed Virginia as one of the worst five states in the nation in terms of forfeiture abuse. Pushing the state towards its Bottom Five finish was this perverted incentive: 100% of the proceeds from civil asset forfeiture were retained by the law enforcement agency performing the seizure. And, like a majority of states, Virginia also perverted the justice system, deeming the property "guilty" and transferring the burden of proof to those whose assets were seized.
Now that civil asset forfeiture has gone mainstream, receiving coverage from major press outlets, legislators are having a harder time ignoring opponents of these "legalized theft" programs. In response, Virginia's lawmakers are trying to drag the state out of its forfeiture morass.
(2/24/15 - Forbes)
Can IRS Seize First, Ask Questions Later? 'Yes We Can'
Remember those horrible stories about the IRS seizing accounts merely on suspicion, no crime required? Outrage and press coverage lead to Attorney General Holder announcing changes to government asset forfeiture programs. However, that doesn’t mean the law has been changed or that there are no more seizures. In fact, the IRS can still do it, as the IRS Chief recently testified. There has been growing concern that the federal government grabs first and asks questions later.
(2/23/15 - First Coast News)
Judge rules probable cause for police to seize $200k from NFL player
A judge has ruled there is probable cause for a police department to seize nearly $200,000 and a brand new truck from an NFL player and First Coast native who was arrested on drug charges February 3.
Starke Police seized the items using a controversial legal process called civil forfeiture.
The American Civil Liberties Union calls the method 'policing for profit'. Law enforcement agencies disagree, saying the funds go back directly to help the community.
(2/22/15 - The Inquisitr)
Asset Forfeiture: How The Police Can Take Everything You Own Without Charging You With A Crime
Seventy-two-year-old retired Michigan carpenter Thomas Williams was at home, minding his own business, on a November 2013 morning, when police wearing masks and camouflage broke down his door with a battering ram, according to the Detroit Free Press.
“We think you’re dealing marijuana.”
In fact, Williams was growing marijuana at the time — medical marijuana is legal in Michigan, and Williams had a card, allowing him to grow a limited number of plants for personal use.
The SWAT raid on Williams’ home turned up no evidence of any crimes, and he was not charged. That didn’t stop police from taking $11,000 in cash, his car, his gun, his TV, and even his cell phone — leaving an elderly man without a land line stranded in his home in a rural area in the winter. He was stranded for three days until a concerned neighbor stopped by to check on him.
Police are also trying to seize his home.
(2/22/15 - Detroit Free Press)
Police seize property and cash in questionable raids
Thomas Williams was alone that November morning in 2013 when police raided his rural St. Joseph County home, wearing black masks, camouflage and holding guns at their sides. They broke down his front door with a battering ram.
"We think you're dealing marijuana," they told Williams, a 72-year-old, retired carpenter and cancer patient who is disabled and carries a medical marijuana card.
(2/21/15 - The Denver Post)
Tighten Colorado forfeiture law
Back in 2002, a large majority of Colorado lawmakers concluded that police should seize the assets of people, only after criminal conviction, with few exceptions — and wrote those requirements into law.
But asset forfeiture without a conviction still occurs, as a case highlighted in a recent Denver Post story by Noelle Phillips made clear. As related by Phillips, a South Dakota couple in December watched Parker police and a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent take $25,000 from their vehicle after a stop triggered by a temporary tag. And yet the couple were never charged with a crime, let alone convicted.
(2/20/15 - The Heartland Institute)
Congressman @PeterRoskam (R-IL): Civil Asset Forfeiture
Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) joins Budget & Tax News managing editor Jesse Hathaway to talk about the issue of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize innocent citizens’ assets, based on suspicions that they really are financial criminals.
Roskam tells the stories of how dairy farmers, gun store owners, and other small business owners have ran afoul of the IRS’ bully tactics, and explains how he forced IRS commissioner John Koskinen to apologize for his agency’s long-running practice of seizing people’s money without first obtaining criminal convictions, or proof of wrongdoing.
(2/20/15 - Nogales International)
Cash forfeitures get tougher review locally, nationally
On its surface, a Sept. 16, 2014 bust was similar to many other cases in which cash was seized at a port of entry.
On that date, Rosa Colosio drove her 2012 Cadillac Escalade up to the Mariposa Port of Entry on her way to Mexico with her long-time boyfriend Reynaldo Bernal and her grandchildren. After port officers detected an anomaly in the vehicle, they found $189,310 hidden inside the vehicle’s roof, interviewed the occupants, and turned the cash over to the County Attorney’s Office.
However, the County Attorney’s Office hit a slight bump in the road Wednesday when Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink called for a hearing so Deputy County Attorney John Holman could explain why the cash should be forfeited.
(2/20/15 - First Coast News)
Stakes are high in NFL player's civil forfeiture case
Soon an NFL player and First Coast native will learn if he gets to keep nearly $200,000 police say they found in his truck along with almost a pound of marijuana.
Starke Police seized the items using a controversial legal process called civil forfeiture.
(2/20/15 - Concord Monitor)
Amid national debate, state lawmakers weighing a reformed civil forfeiture law
State lawmakers showed a willingness to consider a previously defeated proposal that would overhaul a long-standing and nationally contested practice in which the government seizes private property that may be connected to a crime.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday acknowledged several improvements in the newest iteration of the bill, which limits asset forfeitures only to cases in which a person has been convicted of a crime, but said they planned to send it to a subcommittee for further edits.
(2/20/15 - Garden City News)
The Asset Forfeiture Consensus
This is a very partisan age, with a more or less evenly divided red nation and blue nation. Nevertheless, civil forfeiture, which permits the government to seize assets believed by the police to be connected to a crime, is an area where there is an emerging consensus between left and right.
(2/19/15 - American Civil Liberties Union News and Information)
New Bill Would End Policing for Profit in New Mexico
Today, Republican Representative Zachary J. Cook introduced a bill designed to end civil asset forfeiture—also known as “policing for profit”—in New Mexico. This unfair practice allows police to seize and keep property of citizens who haven’t even been charged with a crime, never mind convicted. Rep. Cook’s legislation would end the legal fiction of civil forfeiture—that property can be responsible for a crime—and replaces it with criminal forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture requires a conviction of a person as a prerequisite to losing property tied to the crime.
(2/18/15 - Drug War Chronicle)
Chronicle AM: Asset Forfeiture Reforms Blocked
Virginia Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill Killed in Senate Committee Vote. An asset forfeiture reform bill that passed the House of Delegates 92-6 earlier this month and passed the Senate Courts of Justice Committee 11-2 last week has been killed in the Senate Finance Committee. The measure, House Bill 1287, was opposed by law enforcement and prosecutors. Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment (R-James County) said the bill will now be studied by the State Crime Commission.
Wyoming Governor Vetoes Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill. Gov. Matt Mead (R) Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have made it more difficult for police and prosecutors to seize property from people they believe are involved in drug crimes. The bill, Senate File 14, would have required a criminal conviction before civil asset forfeiture could take place. Mead, a former US attorney, said he didn't believe asset forfeiture had been abused in the state. The measure passed both houses by a veto-proof margin, so stay tuned.
(2/18/15 - The Heartland Institute)
Wyoming Governor Vetoes Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill
In mid-February, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead vetoed a bill aimed at reforming the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
In a letter explaining his veto, Mead defended the state’s asset forfeiture laws, writing “asset forfeiture has a number of benefits” for government and law enforcement agencies.
In the letter, Mead said allowing the seizure of citizens’ private property without prior conviction or criminal activity “is important and it is right.”
(2/17/15 - Newsmax.com)
Asset Seizure Sans Proof Draws Ire of Sen. Paul, Rep. Walberg
Without convicting you of any crime, or even charging you, the government can seize your home, car or other personal property on the mere suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity.
Termed "civil forfeiture," the practice has allowed law enforcement agencies to seize personal property 55,000 times at a total value of $3 billion since 2008, the Daily Signal reports.
Now, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., hope to stop it.
(2/17/15 - Daily Press)
Virginia Senate kills asset forfeiture reforms
The Virginia Senate on Tuesday set aside a House effort to rein in the state's civil asset forfeiture program, which police use to seize property from people accused crimes.
The Senate Finance Committee voted 9-5 to kill the bill and have the Virginia State Crime Commission study the issue instead. The Senate Courts of Justice Committee did much the same thing earlier this session with a similar bill, signaling that the Senate wasn't on board with the House effort.
(2/17/15 - Massillon Independent)
Federal asset forfeiture change not expected to affect local agencies
A change in federal policy to asset forfeitures won’t affect local seizures or revenue, area law-enforcement officials say.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder ended a controversial practice known as “adoption” in mid-January as part of a review of the federal program. Items seized by local law enforcement under state law no longer can be forfeited under federal law — unless the property is a public safety concern or associated with a joint operation or federal warrant.
(2/16/15 - Town Hall)
Is Rand Paul a Racist for Opposing Loretta Lynch?
The Congressional Black Caucus will forgo no opportunity to retard black progress in America and undermine the ideals that were once understood to be the goals of the civil rights movement.
In the latest example, the caucus has issued a press release calling Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) a racist for opposing confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. Attorney General.
(2/17/15 - First Coast News)
NFL player wants cash, truck back seized during drug arrest
This week, a judge in Starke will rule whether there's probable cause for police to keep nearly $200,000 in cash they said they seized from an NFL player during a drug arrest.
Following a civil forfeiture hearing at the Bradford County Courthouse Monday morning, Judge Phillip Pena said he will make his decision by the end of the week.
(2/13/15 - City Journal)
Small Justice - Eric Holder’s welcome, if limited, reform to civil asset forfeiture
Eric Holder’s divisive tenure at the Justice Department is coming to a close, in at least one area, on a somewhat positive note. Last month, the outgoing attorney general announced that he would scale back the Justice Department’s “equitable sharing” program, under which state and local police forces could use federal law to seize property and assets from citizens without charging them with crimes. When operating on federal mandates, the police departments kept up to 80 percent of the seized assets, while federal agencies “adopted” the rest. “With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said.
(2/10/15 - Courthouse News Service)
Seizure of Medical Marijuana Dispensary Stayed
A federal judge stayed a forfeiture action by the United States against a licensed Berkeley medical marijuana dispensary, pending Berkeley's appeal to the 9th Circuit.
The government sought to shut down Berkeley Patients Group in May 2013. The dispensary, its landlord Nahla Droubi and the city of Berkeley challenged the forfeiture.
(2/13/15 - Tax-news.com)
US House Pressures IRS On Civil Asset Forfeitures
The House Committee on Ways and Means' Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on February 11 on the use by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of civil forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small businesses.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000, which was aimed at preventing money laundering, drug trafficking, or other crimes, has been criticized for enabling government agencies to use greatly reduced standards of evidence to seize assets. Agencies are able to confiscate and sell the property of individuals suspected of (but not necessarily charged with) a crime.
(2/11/15 - Washington Post)
Lawmakers say abuses of civil asset forfeiture require reform legislation
Members of a House Judiciary subcommittee agreed Wednesday that legislative changes are needed to prevent local and state police from making cash and property seizures under federal law without clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Republicans and Democrats on the subcommittee on crime, terrorism, homeland security and investigations agreed on the same message: Previous efforts to change civil asset-forfeiture practices have fallen short, and abuses are widespread.
(2/11/15 - Huffington Post)
Police Stop You While You're Carrying A Bunch Of Cash. What Happens To Your Money?
Last week, police pulled over NFL defensive tackle Letroy Guion was while he was driving in his hometown of Starke, Florida. An officer claimed that Guion had failed to keep his Dodge Ram pickup truck in a single lane and that there was a "strong odor" of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. After brief questioning, police searched Guion's truck and found an unloaded, legally owned handgun, a black backpack containing 357 grams of weed -- a little more than three-quarters of a pound -- and $190,028.81 in cash (and apparently coins). Police arrested Guion and proceeded to put the entire haul on the table (down to the last penny) for a photo op.
(2/11/15 - Reason)
Virginia Delegates Overwhelmingly Approve Major Forfeiture Reform
Last week the Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved a bill that would effectively raise the burden of proof for civil forfeitures by forcing the government to return seized property unless it can obtain a criminal conviction. The bill, introduced by Del. Mark Cole (R-Spotsylvania) and Del. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon), passed by a vote of 92 to 6 and is now being considered by the state Senate.
(2/10/15 - Politico)
IRS Seizes First, Asks Questions Later
Legislation enacted in 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, was supposed to help property owners by enacting deadlines to ensure that government cannot drag out the civil forfeiture process. But government routinely disregards those deadlines. Under CAFRA, the government is supposed to commence forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of seizing property. But in one case, involving three brothers on Long Island, the government held almost half a million dollars for over 2½ years without taking any step to commence forfeiture proceedings — and, thus, without giving the brothers any opportunity to present their case to a judge.
(2/10/15 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Congress must reform outdated and unfair civil forfeiture laws
It's hard to believe this can happen in America. The government is seizing billions of dollars of cash and property from Americans, often without charging them with a crime. Worse, the law enforcement agencies that seize the cash are usually entitled to keep it.
If these individuals were found guilty of crimes and this money was its fruit, my only response would be applause. But forfeitures need not be predicated on crimes.
(2/10/15 - Examiner.com)
Civil forfeiture hearing set for tomorrow morning in the U.S. House
With Congress set to consider comprehensive reforms to the federal government's civil forfeiture statutes on Wednesday, a new analysis reveals that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recently announced policy change curtailing federal civil forfeiture actions would only affect a fraction of seizures. In light of the findings, on Wednesday, two attorneys from the Institute for Justice, Darpana Sheth and Robert Everett Johnson, as well as IJ client Jeff Hirsch, will testify before Congress that further reforms are urgently needed.
(2/6/15 - Truth and Justice Blog)
Surprise, surprise… DOJ admits Holder policy will have little impact
An article by Matt Sledge and Ryan J. Reilly, posted last night on Huffington Post, corroborates my initial reaction to Attorney General Holder’s policy order limiting Federal Adoption. The article, Justice Department Budget Projects Some Asset Forfeiture Payments Will Rise Despite Reforms, Huffington Post, 2/5/2015, quotes Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general Jolene A. Lauria Sullens as saying Federal Adoption “wasn’t a big revenue for the asset forfeiture fund” and “it was a very small amount of cases that were adopted.”
(2/5/15 - Huffington Post)
Justice Department Budget Projects Some Asset Forfeiture Payments Will Rise Despite Reforms
Attorney General Eric Holder last month announced reforms to asset forfeitures, the controversial government practice of seizing property associated with alleged illicit activity. But the new Justice Department budget released this week projects the changes will barely cut into federal seizures.
(2/6/01 - Florida Times-Union)
House bill could provide needed compromize on civil forfeiture laws
Civil forfeiture, one of the most contentious issues in the past two legislative sessions, is headed toward a quiet resolution this year, thanks to an agreement announced Friday.
The standoff was between law enforcement and personal-property advocates over proposed reforms to so-called “policing for profit.”
(2/6/15 - The Easterner)
Local police banned from using federal laws for seizures
Attorney General Eric Holder released an order on Jan. 16 prohibiting local and state police from using federal laws to seize assets or property unless there is evidence of a crime.
(2/6/15 - The New American)
Black Caucus Rips Rand Paul for Opposing AG Nominee Lynch
The Congressional Black Caucus lit into Senator Rand Paul (shown) Thursday after the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 presidential contender announced he would vote against confirmation of Loretta Lynch for attorney general. Paul said Lynch’s answers to questions about civil asset forfeiture law and other issues convinced him the nominee “rides roughshod” over constitutional liberties.
(2/4/15 - The Press Democrat)
Little impact expected in Sonoma, Mendocino counties after Feds’ pivot on asset seizures
Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to end part of a controversial asset forfeiture program that critics say allows law enforcement to seize personal assets without proof that a crime has been committed will have little effect on the North Coast, where police agencies operate largely without federal government participation.
(2/4/15 - Truth and Justice Blog)
The text of the 2015 FAIR Act bill has been revealed
The text of H.R. 540 is now posted on the www.congress.gov website, and it is a bit better than last session’s bill. Once again it is named “The FAIR Act” – full title “Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015.” I am happy to see that it includes a few more reforms. It still doesn’t go far enough, but it is a good start. Bills go through numerous revisions and amendments while they are pending, and if the public keeps asking for more reforms we may get them.
(2/6/15 - National Post)
When cops become robbers
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued new guidelines to prevent local and state police from using federal law to seize private property without a warrant or proof of a crime. But it’s a little early to be celebrating the end of civil forfeiture abuse.
Most U.S. states have their own civil forfeiture statutes, as do seven Canadian provinces, which means that in most of North America, police are still free to take people’s property — their homes, their cars, their cash — without even charging them with a crime, let alone proving one beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
It is difficult to think of a better example of how little will change thanks to the DOJ’s guidelines than a Virginia bust and seizure reported on recently by The Washington Post.
(2/6/15 - Tribune-Review)
Study finds IRS seizes first, questions later
The Internal Revenue Service has routinely seized bank accounts from individuals in recent years without proof of criminal wrongdoing — and only then asked the account owners about allegations of suspicious activity.
From 2005 to 2012, the IRS took almost a quarter-billion dollars in more than 2,500 cases, under federal asset-forfeiture law. That's the finding of a new study by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning civil liberties group. The group's study, “Seize First, Question Later,” focuses on IRS enforcement of a law that prohibits “structuring,” a type of banking activity intended to launder ill-gotten money or hide the source of funds.
(2/5/15 - Drug War Chronicle)
Asset Forfeiture Action
There's news on the asset forfeiture front.
(2/5/15 - Washington Free Beacon)
IRS Seized Thousands of Bank Accounts Without Filing Criminal Charges
The Internal Revenue Service seized hundreds of millions of dollars from thousands of bank accounts over the past decade, often without proof of any criminal wrongdoing, according to a report released by the Institute for Justice this week.
The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, said the IRS practiced a “seize first, ask questions later” strategy when it seized $242 million in more than 2,500 cases from 2005 to 2012.
(2/5/15 - Examiner.com)
Civil forfeiture as America moves forward
In the last two months, Carole Hinders and the Hirsch brothers have scored major victories against the I.R.S. In both cases, the government settled the case and agreed to return the money it took from these innocent small business owners. You can find out more about these cases in the "Suggested Link" section below. These two cases, along with many more, prove you can sue the I.R.S. and win. Institute for Justice's Justin Wilson stated in an email yesterday, "That's largely because the agency's use of civil asset forfeiture was so egregious and unjustified. According to a report released, on February 3, 2015, Carol and the Hirsch brothers were just two examples among thousands of cases where the I.R.S. used forfeiture to seize funds. The report, which was based on documents we received from the I.R.S. under the Freedom of Information Act, underscores the need for comprehensive forfeiture reform."
(2/5/15 - AllGov)
IRS Seizes Money and Property without Criminal Charges
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses civil forfeiture to seize millions of dollars from Americans who haven’t been charged with a crime, according to the group Injustice for Justice.
The libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm says in a new report (pdf) that the IRS seized more than $242 million from 2,500 individuals and businesses from 2005 to 2012. The agency was able to take away such vast sums because of “lax civil forfeiture standards” that have permitted the IRS to “seize first and ask questions later.” As a result, people have had their bank accounts drained without the IRS putting any effort into investigating the situation. Property owners are then forced into a difficult legal battle to reclaim their money.
(2/4/15 - Huffington Post)
Rand Paul Won't Back Loretta Lynch For Attorney General
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he won't vote to confirm Loretta Lynch as President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general because of her support for laws allowing civil forfeiture of property.
"Civil forfeiture turns justice on its head," Paul told Greta Van Susteren during an interview on the Fox News show "On The Record." "Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent. The government takes your cash -- $1,000, $100, $500, whatever it is. This program predominantly has targeted black individuals, poor individuals, Hispanic individuals. And when Sen. [Mike] Lee asked her about it in the committee, she said, 'Oh, no, as long as there is a valid court order.'"
(2/4/15 - Wall Street Journal)
Opinion Journal: The IRS’s ‘Civil Forfeiture’ Scandal
Institute for Justice Attorney Larry Salzman on a new report that details how federal bureaucrats seize cash without evidence of wrongdoing.
(2/4/15 - The Heartland Institute)
Colorado Lawmaker Proposes Crackdown on Civil Forfeiture Abuse
Responding to concerns from her constituents, a Colorado state lawmaker is aiming to rein in a controversial program allowing police to confiscate and sell citizens’ private property without search warrants or a criminal conviction.
In 1984, the federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act was passed into law, creating a method through which local and national law enforcement agencies could split proceeds from the sales of seized assets. In 2008, this program, the national Asset Sharing Program, collected $1 billion in seized currency and property—a 968 percent increase over the program’s size in 1986.
(2/4/15 - Cato Institute)
Seize First, Question Later: The Institute for Justice’s New Report on the IRS’ Abusive Civil Forfeiture Regime
Considering the growing controversy over the abuse of civil asset forfeiture at the federal and state levels, the Institute for Justice’s newly released report on the IRS’ questionable use of the practice is perfectly timed.
(2/4/15 - The Denver Post)
Colorado delays review on police forfeitures
Colorado senators have delayed debate on a bill to direct Colorado to join other states in ratcheting back how law enforcement agencies from taking someone's property through the asset forfeiture process.
(2/3/15 - Reason)
Suspiciously Small Deposits Trigger Legalized Bank Robbery
The week before her confirmation hearings, Loretta Lynch, President Obama's choice to succeed Eric Holder as attorney general, quietly dropped a forfeiture case involving $447,000 seized from Bi-County Distributors, a family-owned business that sells candy and cigarettes to convenience stores on Long Island. Although there was no evidence that the money came from illegal activity, the IRS thought the way it was deposited, in amounts below the $10,000 threshold for mandatory bank reports to the Treasury Department, suggested that Bi-County was trying to evade that requirement, which is a federal crime known as "structuring." According to a new report from the Institute for Justice, which represented Bi-County's owners, the IRS seized $242 million based on suspected structuring in more than 2,500 cases from 2005 to 2012. During that period, the number of cases rose fivefold and revenue increased by 166 percent, but the gap between the amount seized and the amount ultimately forfeited also grew, suggesting the IRS has becoming increasingly reckless with the rights of innocent owners like Mitch, Richard, and Jeffrey Hirsch, the brothers who run Bi-County Distributors.
(2/3/15 - Washington Post)
IRS took cash, asked questions later, report says
The Internal Revenue Service has routinely seized bank accounts from individuals in recent years without proof of criminal wrongdoing — and only then asked the account owners about allegations of suspicious activity.
From 2005 to 2012, the IRS took almost a quarter-billion dollars in more than 2,500 cases, using authorities under federal asset forfeiture law.
(2/3/15 - Widener Law News)
Jurist in Residence Discusses Civil Forfeiture in Pennsylvania
On Thursday, January 22, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court delivered her second lecture since becoming the jurist in residence at Widener Law Harrisburg one year ago.
The lecture, hosted by Widener's Law and Government Institute, focused on the current state of civil forfeiture law in Pennsylvania. Beginning with a brief recounting of the history of forfeiture laws, Leavitt explained to the audience that the concept of forfeiture began in biblical times, with criminal forfeiture dating to the Middle Ages and statutory forfeiture originating in admiralty law.
(2/2/15 - The Daily Progress)
Opinion/Editorial: Forfeiture revision is a good start
Attorney General Eric Holder’s revision of a federal civil asset forfeiture program isn’t as far-reaching as first trumpeted. But it’s a stride in the right direction. We’ll take it.
Mr. Holder himself described the new policy as the “first step” in a wider review.
(2/2/15 - Above the Law)
Asset Forfeiture: Why Your Boilerplate Lease Won’t Cut It For A Marijuana Business
Many commercial landlords will not rent to marijuana businesses. In addition to the remote possibility of the U.S. Department of Justice arresting them for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act, landlords face the real threat of losing their property via civil asset forfeiture. The federal government can and does seize property used for cultivating, manufacturing, or selling marijuana. Since 2008, the Feds have netted more than one billion dollars from seizing personal and real property used to manufacture or distribute federally illegal drugs, including marijuana in those states where marijuana is legal.
(2/1/15 - RenewAmerica)
Will new AG support civil forfeiture reform?
In early November the Wall Street Journal, in an opinion titled "The Next Attorney General: One area to question Loretta Lynch is civil asset forfeiture", it noted that "As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch had also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit."
(1/31/15 - Daytona Beach News-Journal)
OUR VIEW: State must limit ‘policing for profit’
They say crime doesn’t pay — unless, that is, you are a law enforcement agency that profits from seizing the property of suspected criminals.
Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to take cash, cars, boats, homes and other property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. The emphasis is on “suspected,” because unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture does not require that the property owner even be charged with a crime to permanently lose his property.
(1/30/15 - Cato Institute)
Loretta Lynch’s Worrisome Answer on Civil Asset Forfeiture
Referring to the federal government’s forfeiture regime as “an important tool” in fighting crime, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch staunchly defended the concept of civil asset forfeiture during the first day of her confirmation hearings.
After Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) questioned the “fundamental fairness” of Americans having their property taken by the government without any proof (or often even suspicion) of criminal wrongdoing, Lynch asserted that there are “safeguards at every step of the process” to protect innocent people, “certainly implemented by [her] office … as well as an opportunity to be heard.”
Even setting aside the litany of federal civil asset forfeiture abuses that have come to light recently across the country, Lynch’s reference to her own office’s handling of civil forfeiture is particularly concerning.
(1/30/15 - Dallas Observer)
Texas Siezed a Man's Truck Because He Stole Two Cases of Bud Light
The two cases of Bud Light in the bed of John Werthing Jr.'s, pickup were still cold when Hutchins police pulled him over around 8 a.m. on September 30, 2013. A clerk at a Shell gas station had called in a shoplifting complaint a few moments before; a man matching Worthing's description and driving a white, 2001 Ford F150, had grabbed three 18-packs of Bud Light from the cooler and walked out of the store without paying. She'd only been able to retrieve one of the 18-packs before the thief drove off, but the other two were still in the bed of the pickup.
(1/30/15 - Tax-news.com)
US Congress Gets Bill To Curb IRS Civil Asset Forfeitures
Legislation to protect taxpayers from the inappropriate use of civil forfeiture laws has been re-introduced into both the United States House of Representatives and Senate.
The move follows criticism, late last year, of the operation of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000, which was aimed at tackling money laundering, drug trafficking, or other crimes. Taxpayers have complained that it enables Government agencies, and in particular the Internal Revenue Service, to use greatly reduced standards of evidence to seize assets.
(1/30/15 - Washington Post)
Report criticizes DEA’s poor monitoring for racial bias in ‘cold consent’ stops
Federal drug agents who questioned a black Pentagon attorney for suspicion of drug trafficking as she prepared to board a plane for government business triggered a critical watchdog review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s “cold consent encounters.”
The practice allows DEA agents at airports and other mass transit facilities to conduct interviews and searches of individuals, but only with the person’s consent. The Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the agency Thursday, however, for its limited collection of demographic data on the practice.
The DEA doesn’t track demographic data on stops that fail to turn up drugs and money or result in arrests, which the IG report said prevents accountability on issues such as racial profiling.
(1/29/15 - Battle Creek Enquirer)
Other voices: End abuses of seizures
In the wake of numerous reports of police laying claim to the cash, cars and property of innocent people, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently — and very belatedly — decided the Equitable Sharing program was in need of reform.
Unfortunately, the changes that Holder has rolled out don’t amount to much.
(1/29/15 - ETF Daily News)
What Every American Should Know About Civil Asset Forfeiture
Most drivers will admit to dreading both the sight of a police cruiser’s flashing lights in their rear view mirror and the routine traffic stop they expect to undergo for driving a little too fast or skirting a minor traffic law. For some motorists, however, the traffic stop will morph into a nightmare and before it is over, they will find themselves victim to an increasingly common law enforcement tactic known as Civil Asset Forfeiture.
(1/29/15 - Beaufort Observer)
Rand Paul goes after civil forfeitures. Let's support him.
Last week we posted an article that reported that Attorney General Eric Holder has order an end to federal participation in civil forfeitures. While there was some ambiguity about precisely what the details will be, we commended him for at least beginning to look at one of the most diabolical government practices in history.
Civil forfeitures are so egregious simply because they do not require the government to prove, at trial, that a person is guilty of a crime that justifies seizure of their property.
(1/29/15 - Reason.com)
AG Nominee Loretta Lynch Says Civil Asset Forfeiture ‘Protections Are There.’ Not When Her Office Ignores Them.
U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, nominated to replace Eric Holder as attorney general, sat before the Senate's Judiciary Committee to be asked questions (or sit through speeches from senators only vaguely approaching the concept of a question) about President Barack Obama's use of executive authority on immigration, waterboarding, prosecuting terrorists, marijuana legalization, Operation Chokepoint, gay marriage recognition, and a number of other issues. The hearings and speeches continue today.
(1/28/15 - Tribune-Review)
Pennsylvania police departments worry order on criminal seizures hurts bottom line
“Taking cash, cars, boats, planes, anything away from criminals — nobody would say this isn't a good thing,” said University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris. “But there is too much potential for abuse of power.”
(1/29/15 - The Detroit News)
Reform civil forfeiture laws now
Police in Michigan can seize private money or property based simply on a suspicion of guilt or involvement with criminal activity, even if the suspect has committed no crime and is never convicted of one.
Civil asset forfeiture, as it's formally called, circumvents the constitutional premise that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and needs serious reform.
Michigan's laws surrounding forfeiture are some of the worst in the nation. Several bills already introduced in the state House would reform civil forfeiture laws to prohibit seizure unless a person is convicted of a crime and to force transparency in the forfeitures that do take place.
(1/28/15 - Reason.com)
Colorado Legislator Seeks to Abolish Civil Forfeiture
In my syndicated column and my Forbes column last week, I worried that widespread exaggeration of Eric Holder's recently announced changes to the Justice Department's forfeiture policy could undermine the prospects for more ambitious reforms. Here is an example of how that might happen.
(1/28/15 - The Hill)
Lynch hearing is opportunity to discuss civil asset forfeiture reform
America is in the midst of an important national conversation about the scope and powers we delegate to law enforcement agencies. From revelations of domestic surveillance by intelligence agencies to recognition of police militarization at the local level, there is a growing sentiment that our country needs to recalibrate the balance between security and liberty.
Yet civil asset forfeiture, one of the most flagrant examples of overreach, has attracted comparatively little public attention. This is a practice in which law enforcement agencies can seize money, property, or other possessions they characterize as connected with illegal activity. Disturbingly, neither a conviction nor a criminal charge are prerequisites for seizing assets. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reported a record haul of more than $4 billion in assets seized in FY 2012 and another $2 billion in FY 2013 through civil forfeiture.
FREE download of Rep. Henry J. Hyde's book - "Forfeiting Our Property Rights"
Most people don't know it, but the government can take people's homes, cars, and money without charging them with a crime -- and the burden of recovery is on the owners! In Forfeiting Our Property Rights, Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois examines the abuse inherent in civil forfeiture, the law that lets government take property that is merely suspected of having "facilitated" crime. Hyde shows how forfeiture law has cost innocent people their property and at least one citizen, Donald Scott, his life. In fact, over a quarter of a million Americans have had their property seized through forfeiture law. Congressman Hyde proposes an overhaul of the law to protect innocent property owners, including a shift in the burden of proof from citizen to the government and a raising of the standard the government must satisfy to seize property in the first place. This alarm on behalf of our threatened civil liberties and rights couldn't be more timely.
(1/27/15 - Dallas Observer)
Texas Cops Seized $486 Million Through Civil Forfeiture Last Decade
Two years ago the Texas Legislature slipped into the state budget an item mandating a thorough review of certain civil forfeiture proceedings. Civil forfeiture -- the process state and federal prosecutors use to seize property from suspected criminals, whether they've been convicted or not -- is a source of perpetual controversy. Partly, this is because the practice sidesteps defendants' constitutional due process rights (e.g. the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, etc.) by filing suit against the property itself, which explains the existence of cases such as United State of America vs. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton and State of Texas vs. Twelve Gold Coins. Partly, it's because the resulting stash of forfeited cars and cash often prove irresistible to certain prosecutors who may, for example, need to buy the silence of the driver he or she crashed into or a margarita machine.
(1/27/15 - Reason.com)
Here Is How Rand Paul's Bill Would Curtail Civil Forfeiture
Today Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, which would revise federal civil forfeiture law to give property owners more protection and reduce the profit incentive that encourages law enforcement agencies to seize assets. "The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime," Paul said. "The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime."
(1/27/15 - Watchdog.org)
Feds drop forfeiture case led by Obama AG pick Lynch
Sometimes, not violating the law can get you in trouble with the law.
Just ask the Hirsch family, from Long Island, New York.
Or, better yet, ask Loretta E. Lynch, the U.S. attorney who could be the nation’s next attorney general.
After nearly three years of legal battles, the federal government last week dropped its case against the Hirschs, who own a distribution company that serves convenience stores on Long Island. The government agreed to return more than $446,000 in assets and cash seized by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012 under federal civil asset forfeiture laws, even though the Hirsch family was never charged with a crime.
(1/27/15 - KPBS)
USA Vs. $9,000 In Currency — A Lawsuit Over Drug Money In San Diego County
On July 21, San Diego sheriff’s deputies in Vista pulled over a 2003 Ford Fusion with a busted taillight. The deputies soon noticed the car had a hollowed rear bumper and a spare set of keys in the car’s door. The console and air filter box were both loose and missing screws.
In their minds, those were all signs of a car being used to smuggle drugs.
The driver, Adrian Lopez, didn’t have a license, but in his wallet were cards of “saints associated with narcotics trafficking,” along with a handwritten prayer referencing narcotics trafficking saint Santa Muerte. To the deputies, these were yet more signs of drug trafficking.
Although a drug-sniffing dog smelled drugs, deputies only found a padlocked backpack in the trunk. They opened the backpack with the set of keys in the door and found a plastic bag. Inside was a sock, and inside the sock, wrapped in a skull and crossbones bandana, was $9,000 in cash.
Deputies seized the cash, which they can do under federal and state asset seizure laws without having to charge Lopez with a crime. Under a federal asset forfeiture program, the federal government can then “adopt” those assets and share the money with the local cops.
(1/27/15 - Odessa American)
The Persistence of Policing for Profit: Eric Holder’s Forfeiture Reform Is Welcome but Does Not Go Nearly Far Enough
Money-hungry cops are angry about the forfeiture reform that Attorney General Eric Holder announced last Friday, which suggests it’s a move in the right direction. But contrary to initial press reports, the new policy represents a modest change to the rules governing civil forfeiture, which allows the government to take people’s assets without accusing them of a crime.
(1/27/15 - Carolina Journal)
Some Good News on Civil Asset Forfeiture
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been subjected to a good deal of criticism during his time in office, but even many of his fiercest critics have joined the chorus of praise for an order he signed this month titled “Prohibition on Certain Federal Adoptions of Seizures by State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” — and for good reason.
For years the Department of Justice has been using the “adoptions” referred to in Holder’s order to promote an obnoxious practice called “civil asset forfeiture” and make it an integral part of the American criminal justice system. The result, as one constitutional law scholar described it in The Washington Post, has been “a civil-liberties debacle and a stain on American criminal justice.”
No wonder so many commentators have welcomed the news that the head of the agency has finally acknowledged that civil asset forfeiture is a problem and is taking steps to address it.
(1/26/15 - The Real News Network)
Holder's Move on Civil Forfeiture Only a Dent in Abusive Police Practice
Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford says further federal action is needed because dozens of states will still continue the practice.
(1/26/15 - WDAZ)
Minnesota Forfeiture Program
Hennepin County brought in more $600,000 in extra revenue in 2012-2013 thanks to a federal program that allowed the sheriff’s office, county attorney and two task forces to cash-in seized property.
That bonus funding stream is about to run dry. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced changes to the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program.
(1/26/15 - NJ.com)
Holder taps the brakes on civil forfeiture: Editorial
You may have had the impression that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was making a substantial change to this program. But in reality, it was more like a tweak. Holder recently ended a relatively minor aspect of civil forfeiture, an “equitable sharing” program that allowed local police agencies to keep up to 80 percent of a seizure simply by reporting it to the feds and giving them a cut.
(1/26/15 - Reason)
Cops Are Still Robbers
Contrary to what you may have read recently, Attorney General Eric Holder did not put an end to civil forfeiture, a form of legalized theft in which the government takes property allegedly linked to crime without even charging the owner, let alone convicting him. Nor did Holder stop civil forfeiture by the federal government or by the Justice Department. He did not even eliminate the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program, which lets police dodge state limits on forfeiture. Instead Holder restricted part of that program: "adoption," where a state or local law enforcement agency seizes an asset and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. Holder's reform was a step in the right direction, but not nearly as big a step as much of the press coverage implied.
(1/26/15 - Raw Story)
Obama AG nominee Loretta Lynch quietly dropped $450,000 civil forfeiture case a week before hearings
When Long Island businessman Jeff Hirsch stepped up to the bank window to make a deposit one morning in May, 2012, the teller shot him a worried look. “You know, your account has been frozen,” she told Hirsch. “I’m not sure you want to put any money in there this morning.”
In fact, the disbelieving Hirsch soon learned, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York had, without warning, seized the entire working capital — $447,000 — of Bi-County Distributors in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., the business Hirsch co-owns with his two brothers.
Last week, Lynch’s office finally gave the brothers their money back, two years and nine months after it had been seized and exactly a week before Lynch was scheduled to be grilled by members of the Judiciary Committee.
(1/26/15 - The Virginian-Pilot)
Virginia House bill targets asset forfeitures that fund police
A bill moving through the General Assembly could eliminate a legal process that brings in millions of dollars for law enforcement agencies, but which critics say allows the government to confiscate property unfairly.
HB1287, sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania, would end civil asset forfeitures - state legal proceedings that allow police to keep property seized from criminal suspects. The process rankles civil liberties advocates because such seizures can occur without a criminal conviction.
(1/25/15 - The Augusta Chronicle)
Highway Robbery
The childhood taunt “finders keepers, losers weepers” never was right.
But it’s rarely been this wrong.
Forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize the assets of innocent citizens are quite possibly the most prevalent perversion of justice in America today.
(1/24/15 - DesMoinesRegister.com)
The Register's Editorial: Forfeiture laws shouldn't benefit cops
Over the past seven years, local and state police agencies throughout the country have used a federal program called Equitable Sharing to execute 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth an estimated $3 billion.
In the wake of numerous reports of police laying claim to the cash, cars and property of innocent people, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently — and very belatedly — decided the Equitable Sharing program was in need of reform.
Unfortunately, the changes that Holder has rolled out don't amount to much.
(1/23/15 - Watchdog.org)
Civil asset forfeiture reform at the Wyoming senate
After narrowly emerging from the Wyoming Senate Judiciary Committee by a 3-2 vote on Monday, the entire Wyoming Senate began to consider Senate File 14, which would replace civil forfeiture under the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act with criminal forfeiture. That is, instead of law enforcement being able to seize and forfeit cash, cars, firearms and other property that is allegedly related to the drug trade through a civil proceeding (where the property owner is not provided an attorney and is subject to a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt), the property owner will have to be convicted of a drug felony before losing any property.
(1/23/15 - The Heartland Institute)
DOJ Abandons Civil Asset Forfeiture ‘Adoption’ Program
In late January, U.S. Attorney General Eric announced the end of a federal program allowing local law enforcement to receive shares of assets seized from citizens without criminal charges or search warrants.
Since 2008, the U.S. Justice Department’s “Equitable Sharing” civil asset forfeiture program seized more than $3 billion in citizens’ cash and property, seized as part of criminal investigations. The majority of these seized assets were redistributed to participating local and state law enforcement agencies.
Despite the end of the Equitable Sharing program, significant reforms are still required to ensure citizens’ fair treatment by law enforcement officials.
(1/22/15 - Forbes)
Despite Holder's Forfeiture Reform, Cops Still Have A License To Steal
Contrary to what you may have read recently, Attorney General Eric Holder did not put an end to civil forfeiture, a form of legalized theft in which the government takes property allegedly linked to crime without even charging the owner, let alone convicting him. Nor did Holder stop civil forfeiture by the federal government or by the Justice Department. He did not even eliminate the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which lets police dodge state limits on forfeiture. Instead Holder restricted part of that program: “adoption,” where a state or local law enforcement agency seizes an asset and then asks the Justice Department to pursue forfeiture under federal law. Holder’s reform was a step in the right direction, but not nearly as big a step as much of the press coverage implied.
(1/22/15 - DesMoinesRegister.com)
Controversial Iowa asset forfeiture case highlighted on CNN
Two California professional gamblers whose $100,020 poker bankroll was seized by the Iowa State Patrol after a controversial 2013 traffic stop were highlighted Wednesday in a report on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.
William "Bart" Davis and John Newmerzhycky were driving on Interstate 80 in Poweshiek County in April 2013 when they were pulled over by trooper Justin Simmons for allegedly not using a turn signal while passing. Simmons and another trooper searched the pair's rented Nissan Altima without a warrant because the troopers suspected the two gamblers were involved in drug trafficking.
(1/22/15 - Al Jazeera America)
Holder assails policing for profit
On Jan. 16, outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced sweeping revisions to the federal civil asset forfeiture policy, barring state and local police from using federal law to confiscate cash and other property. Under the oft-criticized equitable sharing program, the federal government “adopts” assets seized by state and local law enforcement and then funnels up to 80 percent of the value back to the agencies.
The program invited malfeasance by giving cash-strapped police departments incentive to confiscate property believed to be involved in illicit activities even when the owners were not accused — much less convicted — of any crime. The program’s abuses have garnered bipartisan support for reform, and critics are praising Holder’s changes.
While the improvements are laudable, they will not end the abuse for a number of reasons. First, local agencies may continue the programs under state laws. Second, Holder did not ban forfeiture for state and federal joint operations. And finally, the changes fall short of addressing the how civil forfeiture tramples due process rights.
(1/20/15 - New York Times)
$447,000 Seized by Government Will Be Returned to Business
Loretta E. Lynch, the United States attorney for New York’s Eastern District and President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, signed off on Tuesday to a settlement that would return $447,000 seized from a family-run Long Island business under a controversial area of federal law known as civil asset forfeiture.
(1/21/15 - WAVY-TV)
Virginia lawmakers consider new rules for asset forfeiture
A Virginia House panel has approved a measure aimed at preventing law enforcement agencies from taking someone’s property through the asset forfeiture process.
The House panel voted Wednesday in favor of a legislation proposed by Spotsylvania Republican Del. Mark Cole that would only allow asset forfeiture to take place after a criminal conviction.
(1/21/15 - Accounting Today)
Prosecutors Return $447,000 in IRS Civil Asset Forfeiture Case
Federal prosecutors have agreed to return nearly $447,000 to a small business whose assets had been seized by the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department agents as part of the controversial civil forfeiture program.
(1/21/15 - Daily Beast)
On His Way Out, Holder Goes Big on Asset Forfeiture
Most Americans now agree that the war on drugs is a failure. Illegal drug use has not decreased, prisons are overcrowded by non-violent drug offenders, and our precious civil liberties have been trampled.
Overzealous lawmakers eager to pander to constituents with a “tough on crime” image have empowered and incentivized federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to wage this decades-long war with various legal tools that undermine constitutional protections of due process and private property rights.
This long train of abuse, however, may finally be hitting a brick wall.
(1/21/15 - Mail Tribune)
Our View: Restrictions on civil forfeitures are reasonable
It doesn't appear that local police agencies stand to lose a great deal of money after Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to end some civil forfeitures under federal auspices. Oregon state law still allows police to seize assets from those engaged in criminal activity, but there are more restrictions, and police get to keep less of the cash.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. A concern among civil libertarians has been that police have a greater incentive to seize cash if their drug task forces depend on the money.
(1/20/15 - Vox)
Why Eric Holder's civil forfeiture reforms can't keep police from taking your stuff
On Friday, the federal government announced a substantial change to a program that allows police to keep cash, cars and property without charging anyone with a crime. Initial reports were enthusiastic and exaggerated the scope of the change, suggesting Attorney General Eric Holder was preventing local and state cops from seizing property entirely. Now, activists are pushing back.
(1/20/15 - Washington Post)
How much civil asset forfeiture will Holder’s new policy actually prevent?
When a federal agency announces a significant new policy, it isn’t always clear what actual effects that policy will have in practice. It takes some time to sift through the language and figure out how it will apply in the real world. And, of course, many times we won’t know for sure until it has been in effect for a while and we can analyze the results. I’ve already put up a couple of posts praising Attorney General Eric Holder’s new policy on civil asset forfeiture, but I’ve also expressed concern about its limitations, as have other critics of forfeiture. Unfortunately, the more scrutiny the policy gets, the less significant it seems to be.
(1/20/15 - Go Banking Rates)
Why You Still Need to Protect Your Money From Civil Forfeiture
In the legal world, it’s generally accepted that the police and the Internal Revenue Service will confiscate property used in the commission of a major crime, but only after the person has been convicted. That’s only if you’ve never heard of “civil forfeiture,” a term that’s quickly blurring the line between guilt and innocence. And though recent legislation has seemingly put a stop to this long-standing abuse, many experts believe it will continue to happen, at least until the practice is barred fully on state levels.
(1/21/15 - reason.com)
The Persistence of Policing for Profit
Money-hungry cops are angry about the forfeiture reform that Attorney General Eric Holder announced last Friday, which suggests it's a move in the right direction. But contrary to initial press reports, the new policy represents a modest change to the rules governing civil forfeiture, which allows the government to take people's assets without accusing them of a crime.
(1/19/15 - reason.com)
The Fine Print in Holder's New Forfeiture Policy Leaves Room for Continued Abuses
Last week Attorney General Eric Holder scaled back the Equitable Sharing Program, which enables local law enforcement agencies to evade state limits on civil asset forfeiture. But he did not end that program, and the fine print in the new policy seems to leave a lot of leeway for continued abuses.
(1/18/15 - reason.com)
Over $455,000 Seized from Medical Marijuana Patient Slapped with Civil Asset Forfeiture
In March 2013, Steve Oates' home in Goodyear, Ariz. was stormed by police, SWAT, and DEA agents because of a marijuana grow room in the guest house.
Goodyear Police Department brought Oates' case to the Attorney General, who consequently slapped Oates with over $455,000 in civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is when the government can seize property and finances that they suspect have a connection to illicit activity. However, they sue the property instead of the person, so there doesn't have to be a related conviction.
(1/19/15 - The Washington Post)
More fallout from Eric Holder’s changes to civil asset forfeiture law
On Friday, I posted some analysis of Attorney General Eric Holder’s changes to the equitable-sharing program, which allows local police agencies to circumvent state restrictions on civil asset forfeiture by procuring nominal federal involvement in their investigations, thereby making those investigations governed by more forfeiture-friendly federal law. The feds take 20 percent of the proceeds, then give the rest back to the police.
(1/16/15 - The Washington Post)
Breaking down Holder’s move to limit civil asset forfeiture abuse
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using FEDERAL law to seize cash, cars and other property without evidence that a crime occurred.
(1/17/15 - FEAR)
Attorney General Holder’s Asset Forfeiture Policy Limiting Federal Adoption Will Not Stop the Abuses
There was widespread rejoicing yesterday when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a new policy governing the Asset Forfeiture Program’s “Federal Adoption” program (often known under the broader term, Equitable Sharing), most of it mistaken. FEAR's own Brenda Grantland provides a little calm rationality to offset all the misunderstanding (see below).
(1/16/15 - The Marshall Project)
Hands Off My Yacht
(1/16/15 - Huffington Post)
Eric Holder Curbing Federal Government's Role In Civil Asset Forfeiture
(1/16/15 - PBS News Hour)
Will federal reforms on civil forfeiture mean more police accountability?
(1/16/15 - ACLU)
ACLU Comment on DOJ Announcement on Civil Asset Forfeiture Program
(1/17/15 - Mail Tribune)
Attorney general's decision would limit federal sharing of asset forfeitures
(1/16/15 - Los Angeles Times)
Justice Department policy change targets abuses in police seizures
(1/16/15 - Fayetteville Observer)
Cumberland sheriff's office not expecting big impact from Holder's changes
(1/17/15 - Youngstown Vindicator)
Attorney general curtails asset forfeitures
(1/17/15 - Press Herald)
Attorney general revises rules for seizing civilians’ assets
(1/16/15 - Opposing Views)
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture
(1/17/15 - cbc.news)
U.S. asset forfeiture program undergoes sweeping changes
(1/18/15 - Aspen Daily News)
The parallel universe of civil forfeiture
(1/18/15 - MetroWest Daily News)
Editorial: Shutting down civil forfeiture
(1/19/15 - eurweb.com)
AG Holder Reigns in Controversial Police Practice Civil Forfeiture
(1/19/15 - msnbc)
AG Holder tackles civil forfeiture
(1/19/15 - MyFox Memphis)
US Attorney General Sets Changes To Asset Forfeiture Program
(1/21/15 - Wicked Local Fall River)
Our View: Shutting down civil forfeiture
(1/21/15 - KSTP.com)
Changes to Civil Forfeiture Program Means Less Funding for Local Police Departments
(1/16/15 - kcrg.com)
More than $3 million collected in 2014 criminal, civil actions, U.S. attorney says
U.S. Attorney Kevin Techau announced Thursday the Northern District office collected more than $3.7 million in criminal and civil actions owed to the government and to crime victims in fiscal year 2014.
(1/12/15 - SaintPetersBlog)
Jeff Brandes ‘looking into’ possibly addressing Florida’s civil forfeiture laws
At today’s joint Pinellas Board of County Commissioners/Pinellas Legislative Delegation, state Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) announced that he is considering filing legislation addressing civil asset forfeiture and the abuse of the legal process. He said that his primary focus will be to redirect funds and assets so that individual police departments don’t have a perverse incentive to confiscate more funds and property than they ultimately keep for their own use under current law.
(1/13/15 - Washington Free Beacon)
Senators Call on Justice Department to Stop Sharing Asset Forfeiture Funds
Leading members of the House and Senate judiciary committees called on the Justice Department on Friday to cut off the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars of proceeds from seized property to police departments around the country.
The congressmen said in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department should stop distributing funds from its “equitable sharing” program, which pools money seized under asset forfeiture laws and shares it with law enforcement agencies across the country.
(1/13/15 - eNews Park Forest)
Department of Justice Seeks Recovery of Approximately $1,528,000 in Bribes Paid to a Honduran Official
The Department of Justice filed today a civil forfeiture complaint seeking the forfeiture of nine properties worth approximately $1,528,000 that were allegedly purchased with funds traceable to a $2 million bribe paid by a Honduran information-technology company to the former Executive Director of the Honduran Institute of Social Security.
(1/12/15 - Times Herald-Record)
Forfeiture legislation takes from innocent people
The process of civil asset forfeiture, in which the government can seize an individual's assets simply if the property is suspected to be involved in criminal behavior, has recently come under national scrutiny. It differs from criminal asset forfeiture in that the individual does not need to be convicted of a crime to have their property taken.
(1/12/15 - Reason)
New York’s Program a Mess; Lawmakers Want to End Federal Asset Sharing Program
An audit of New York’s State Police finds they have done a lousy job of keeping track of the $2 billion in assets they’ve seized during criminal investigations, sometimes failing even to properly report cash and vehicles they’ve taken.
Furthermore, though critics of asset forfeiture often view the program as a sinister way for police to pad their budgets, New York police aren’t even doing that right. They’re selling off what they’ve seized for just a fraction of the price they should be getting.
(1/5/15 - Towanda Daily Review)
Civil forfeiture often violates civil rights
Many state legislators from other parts of the commonwealth often treat Philadelphia like an exotic foreign country. But they should pay close attention to a Dec. 30 Commonwealth Court decision of a case that originated in Philadelphia, and quickly codify its findings as law.
At issue was civil forfeiture, a procedure that initially was authorized by many state legislatures as a weapon against drug-dealing but which has become a cash-cow for many law enforcement agencies nationwide at the expense of innocent civilians.
(1/4/15 - Casper Star-Tribune Online)
Wyoming Legislature considers forfeiture reform
The Judiciary Committee is also sponsoring a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws in Wyoming. Currently, law enforcement and prosecutors can seize money, weapons, vehicles or other property even if the owner hasn’t been convicted of a crime. The process is called civil asset forfeiture.
The committee’s bill would eliminate civil forfeiture and introduce criminal asset forfeiture to Wyoming. Under criminal forfeiture, the owner would have be convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year behind bars. The bill requires hearings, notices in the newspaper and the right of a spouse or bank to fight forfeiture.
(1/2/15 - Philly.com)
Forfeiting their rights
Commonwealth Court did the right thing in overruling District Attorney Seth Williams' outrageous attempt to confiscate a West Philadelphia widow's home after police arrested her son for allegedly selling less than $200 worth of marijuana at the house.
(12/30/14 - The Dallas Morning News)
Texas’ asset forfeiture laws require changes
Growing numbers of legislators are concluding that the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws need improvement, a sentiment shared by this newspaper. Several examples of abuse by overzealous law enforcers in recent years should provide lawmakers the justification they need to tighten the rules for funds and property confiscated during arrests.
(12/30/14 - eNews Park Forest)
Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office Collected $118.9 Million In Civil And Criminal Actions And Asset Forfeitures In Fiscal Year 2014
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois collected $118.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 2014, Zachary T. Fardon, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, announced today. These collections included more than $29.8 million in criminal debts, more than $80.4 million in civil actions, and more than $8.7 million collected through asset forfeiture proceedings, resulting in the office’s total collections exceeding more than four times its budget of approximately $28.1 million in FY 2014. Over approximately the last 11 fiscal years combined, the office has collected more than $1 billion on behalf of the United States.
(12/29/14 - Slate Magazine)
The 10 Worst Civil Liberties Violations of 2014
The world may not actually be falling apart—but it feels like America is. From police brutality and botched executions to voter suppression and election corruption, 2014 was a terrible year for civil liberties in the United States. Protests were quelled by military-grade weapons in scenes worthy of a banana republic, and the divide between the rich and the poor in the freedom and justice they are afforded is Dickensian in its scope.
(12/29/14 - Houston Press)
Rep. Steve Stockman Tried to Abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture on His Way Out
Congress has already been let out for the holidays, but before all the politicians scampered away Stockman filed House Resolution 5847. The resolution, if it had gained any traction, would have abolished civil asset forfeiture, the legal process that allows police to take assets from people suspected of a crime or general illegal activity (i.e. you, if the police have decided you might not be up to entirely legal things). The catch being, the police don't necessarily have to charge and convict the owners of said stuff to seize the property, which is why a lot of people aren't fans this particular (and somehow legal) tactic.
(12/19/14 - Chisago County Press)
Forfeitures integral part of law enforcement as crime deterrent, and providing needed revenue
When you commit certain crimes in Minnesota you can find yourself minus a vehicle, cash and/or firearm. The arresting agency and the prosecuting authority can sell these items or work out a qualified buy-back, keeping the proceeds using a system called forfeiture. The agency gets 70 percent, the prosecuting authority gets 20 percent and the state gets 10 percent.
(12/19/14 - Michigan Capitol Confidential)
Different Parties, Same Conclusion on Civil Asset Forfeitures: Reform It
With the conclusion of the 2013-2014 Legislature, the clock has run out on bills that would have required more disclosure by law enforcement agencies on their civil asset seizures and forfeitures.
The measures had been championed by two House members from opposing parties who think it’s time to put party differences aside and reform Michigan's laws in this area.
(12/19/14 - Philly.com)
Challenge to Philadelphia civil forfeiture law continues
Philadelphia prosecutors agreed Thursday to halt efforts to seize the homes of two of the lead plaintiffs in a widely publicized federal suit challenging the city's use of civil forfeiture laws in drug cases.
(12/18/14 - Washington Free Beacon)
Philadelphia Drops Asset Forfeiture Cases that Drew National Attention
The Philadelphia District Attorney has dropped its efforts to seize the houses of two area families after their cases drew national and critical attention to the city’s use of asset forfeiture to seize citizens’ property.
The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, announced on Thursday morning that the Philadelphia D.A. was dropping its asset forfeiture cases against the homes of Christos Sourovelis and Doila Welch.
(12/19/14 - Economics21)
Civil Forfeiture Creates a License to Steal
Many Americans have not heard of civil forfeiture, but this outrageous, and expanding, law enforcement tactic is becoming more difficult to ignore.
Civil forfeiture does not receive the condemnation it deserves because most people cannot believe that, in the United States, the government can take property from individuals without charging them with a crime. This is the type of behavior expected of the Venezuelan government, not of the United States, where individuals are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
(12/16/14 - KETK)
Gregg County Officials react to potential law reform
State representatives will consider reforming civil and criminal forfeiture and seizure laws in the upcoming session.
Last week, District 7 Representative for Gregg and Upshur Counties, David Simpson, spoke at a panel in Austin in favor of reform to increase transparency and due process and Gregg county officials say they are ready to meet with him to get on the same page.
Simpson will meet with county officials before the legislature convenes to give everyone a chance for input.
(12/16/14 - Huffington Post)
Asset Forfeiture Reform Redux
To much fanfare in 2000, seminal legislation was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by a Democratic president that actually limited the power of the federal government. By increasing the burden on the government when seizing and retaining assets belonging to individuals, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) was properly hailed as a milestone in the difficult -- almost impossible -- task of protecting individual rights against constant incursions by law-and-order officials. I know; I was there.
(12/15/14 - Accounting Today)
Prosecutors Drop IRS Civil Forfeiture Case
Federal prosecutors in Iowa have agreed to drop a controversial civil asset forfeiture case in which the Internal Revenue Service seized nearly $33,000 from the owner of a Mexican restaurant whose cash deposits at her bank had aroused suspicion of criminal activity.
The government moved to drop its case against Carole Hinders, who owned Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food in Arnolds Park, Iowa, after hearing her sworn testimony last week, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm that represented her in the case.
(12/15/14 - NJ.com)
Hunterdon has few criminal forfeitures
Chief of Detectives John Kuczynski said Hunterdon takes a strict approach to seizures and to forfeitures, using the practice when criminal connections are clear.
The move by police to take property sometimes can be done without criminal charges being filed, but Kuczynski could not recall that happening in Hunterdon.
(12/15/14 - Longview News-Journal)
Gregg County D.A.: Seizure law has checks, balances
Advance notice state Rep. David Simpson would join a panel in Austin a week ago today discussing whether to revamp Texas’ seized asset forfeiture statute prompted an impressive contingent from Gregg and Upshur counties to charter a flight to Austin to hear the tea party Republican’s message.
(12/13/14 - Longview News-Journal)
Government and fences
Civil asset forfeiture, or forfeiture of contraband as it is referred to in Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, is the process by which the state may confiscate assets of an individual that are alleged to be proceeds or instruments of crime.
It is a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, developed and often used to attack drug dealers, cartels and human trafficking rings. It also has increasingly become a significant source of government funds.
Like many government ideas gone awry, the thought behind civil asset forfeitures may have had a kernel of sense in it when it was first conceived.
(12/13/14 - New York Times)
I.R.S. Asset Forfeiture Case Is Dropped
Federal prosecutors have agreed to dismiss a case against Carole Hinders, an Iowa restaurant owner whose bank account was seized by the I.R.S. based solely on a pattern of cash deposits, Ms. Hinders’ lawyer said on Friday.
Seizing assets without criminal charges is legal under a controversial body of law that allows law enforcement agents to seize cars, cash and other valuables they believe are tied to criminal activity. The burden of proof falls on owners seeking the return of their property. This week, the two high-ranking members on the House Ways and Means committee filed bipartisan legislation to curb abuses of the practice, known as civil asset forfeiture. Civil forfeiture has also become an issue in the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who as United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York presided over a case involving more than $440,000 seized from a family-run business on Long Island.
(12/11/14 - New York Times)
Who’s Policing the Prosecutors?
Even as settlements, fines and confiscated assets have become a growing source of income for federal, state and local governments, there is very little monitoring of where it goes. In many cases, local prosecutors are spending the money as they wish, without adequate oversight or accountability. The money is supposed to be used for law enforcement purposes, but that term is so loose and broad that it has been interpreted in shocking ways.
The Massachusetts state auditor’s office discovered that a local district attorney had used confiscated funds to purchase an ice-resurfacing machine and lawn equipment, and to refurbish a school basketball court, in the name of crime prevention. In Connecticut, police used forfeited money to buy undercover vehicles and fitness equipment and pay for training trips. The district attorney in Montgomery County, Tex., used funds to purchase liquor for a cook-off for workers.
(12/10/12 - Capital New York)
Assembly Democrats reconsider asset forfeiture laws
Assemblyman Joe Lentol of Brooklyn, the chair of the chamber's codes committee, convened a hearing in Manhattan on Tuesday to address how the state might rein in the power of law enforcement to seize property, amid reports of reckless prosecutors and unscrupulous officers who have used the process to fill their coffers or punish suspects.
(12/9/14 - NJ.com)
Editorial: Broad use of civil forfeiture law by N.J. law enforcement needs scrutiny
Police call it a tool for deterrence. Really, it’s more like legalized extortion.
(12/6/14 - NJ.com)
'We don't have to charge anyone at all' - Mercer County car, property seizures spike under forfeiture law
Under New Jersey’s civil forfeiture law, property can be taken by law enforcement if police determine that it was used in the commission of a crime – such as in the Hamilton case – or if it was purchased with the proceeds of a crime. But most disturbing to critics and civil libertarians, the move to take property sometimes can be done without criminal charges being filed.
(12/3/14 - Drug War Chronicle)
Tennessee DA to End Civil Asset Forfeiture
Ray Crouch, DA for the 23rd Judicial District, has announced that his office will no longer pursue civil asset forfeiture cases. The state's civil asset forfeiture has come under repeated criticism for abuses, and Crouch is responding.
(12/3/14 - Forbes)
Washington, D.C. Council Votes to Reform City's Civil Forfeiture Laws, Ban Policing for Profit
The Council of the District of Columbia voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of overhauling the city’s civil forfeiture laws, which lets police seize property from people never charged with a crime. Law enforcement can then pocket all of the proceeds gained from forfeiture.
(12/3/14 - The Battlefords News-Optimist)
Civil forfeiture laws a serious threat to citizens' property rights
Most Canadians probably expect the government to treat them fairly even if they don't do all the paperwork the law demands. Who would ever imagine that failing to fill out some forms could result in a jail sentence of 18 months, an order preventing you from earning your living, and a fine of $116,000?
(12/3/14 - Michigan Capitol Confidential)
Property Seized, Money Taken – But No Crime
Wladyslaw “Wally” Kowalski is a PhD. design engineer who lives in Van Buren County. In September, Kowalski came home to find his residence surrounded by police armed with a warrant. Officers searched the home and then hauled away his power generator and many expensive tools. They also froze his bank accounts, leaving Kowalski unable to pay his bills, student loan installments and taxes.
Last November, state police raided the home of southwest Michigan resident Thomas Williams. The rural resident spent 10 hours in handcuffs while officers searched his property. When they departed they took his car, television, phone and some emergency cash.
In both cases, neither Michigan resident was ever convicted or even charged with a crime. But law enforcement are still holding on to their property. They are able to do so because of a little known part of the criminal system called civil asset forfeiture.
(12/2/14 - The Tennessean)
Crouch: No more civil forfeiture for passenger vehicles
The 23rd Judicial District Attorney General, Ray Crouch "guarantees" motorists no longer have to fear losing their cash or possessions to local drug agents along interstates in Dickson and neighboring counties, based on a hunch and legal jargon.
(12/1/14 - Arkansas Business Online)
IRS Change Too Late for Structuring Defendants
Patrice Duncan said she and her husband never thought much about bank deposits for their family-owned business in Conway until Jan. 24, 2012. That’s the day the Internal Revenue Service seized $94,500 from the company’s account.
“That’s when we started learning all about structuring,” Duncan, 59, told Arkansas Business in a recent interview.
(11/28/14 - Polson Lake County Leader)
Attorney’s office gets $14.1m in court actions
The Montana United States Attorney’s Office collected $14.1 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-related to criminal and civil actions and an additional $3.4 million related to criminal and civil forfeiture, U.S. Attorney Michael W. Cotter said.
(11/26/14 - Techdirt)
DC Police Department Budgets Its Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Years In Advance
D.C. police have made plans for millions of dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash and property, even though federal guidelines say “agencies may not commit” to such spending in advance, documents show.
The city’s proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015 includes about $2.7 million for the District police department’s “special purpose fund” through 2018. The fund covers payments for informants and rewards.
(11/25/14 - Star-Tribune)
Program allows police to seize property
The Pittsylvania County Sheriff’s Department has been extra busy fighting crime and seizing property during the last five years compared to other localities, according to statistics released by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Forfeited Asset Sharing Program.
Victim Stories
The news media has been contacting us asking for forfeiture victims who have outrageous cases and are willing to be interviewed by the press. Victims should discuss this with their attorneys first. The case needs to be recent, with currently pending cases preferred. If you have video footage evidence, such as dash-cam videos taken by the police of a stop for example -- those cases are particularly wanted.
Email us at: victimstories@fear.org
Acceptable formats: Word Perfect or Word for PCs (not Mac), Rich Text Format (RTF), PDF, ASCII.
(11/18/14 - The Washington Free Beacon)
D.C. Council Passes Asset Forfeiture Reform
The D.C. Council passed a bill Tuesday reforming asset forfeiture laws in the District of Columbia following several investigative news reports detailing abuse and civil rights concerns regarding the practice.
(11/20/14 - Think Progress)
D.C. City Council Cracks Down On Cops Seizing People’s Assets For Police Use
The Washington, D.C. Council unanimously passed a major overhaul this week of a system that has allowed police to seize personal property from thousands of residents and keep the profits for their department’s use. Among the major changes are that law enforcement offices would no longer get to keep the profits from their own seizures.
(11/21/14 - Fox News)
AG pick Lynch may face grilling over seizing properties, experts say
A boast by President Obama's pick to be the nation's top law enforcement official could come back to haunt her in confirmation hearings before the Senate, where some members object to prosecutors' rampant use of civil forfeiture, a controversial but legal process that can allow citizens' assets to be seized without due process.
(11/19/14 - reason.com)
How the Government Steals from Citizens
“Government,” as Barney Frank and other progressives are fond of saying, “is just another word for things we choose to do together.” Like rob people blind.
Sometimes the together-doing is highway robbery in the most literal sense — as when police departments seize cash from motorists who are never even charged with a crime. The euphemism for that is civil asset forfeiture, and it’s gotten so out of hand even hang-’em-high, law-and-order conservatives say it needs to stop.
(11/19/14 - Reuters)
Washington, D.C., approves landmark civil asset forfeiture law
District of Columbia lawmakers approved legislation on Tuesday that makes it harder for police to seize assets from people who are not ultimately charged with crimes, a bill that backers say is a model for the rest of the country.
The measure approved unanimously by Washington City Council prevents assets taken by police from going to the department, and instead earmarks them for the U.S. capital's general fund.
It's local only, but, it's a start!
(11/18/14)
Civil forfeiture laws could mean big payday for police
The US Marshals Service (USMS) is looking forward to another funding bonanza after holding another auction of Bitcoins seized from the Silk Road online bazaar that was allegedly run by Ross Ulbricht under the handle the Dread Pirate Roberts.
The auction is for 50,000 Bitcoins, worth $19,241,924 at current market rates, and the coins will be sold off in ten lots of 2,000 units and ten more of 3,000. Buyers will have to place a deposit of $100,000 for the 2,000-unit lots and $150,000 for the larger portions.
(11/17/14)
Time for civil-forfeiture reform - Law enforcement needs to stop extorting innocent victims
The D.C. Council later today will vote on whether to adopt a package of reforms designed to restrict the ability of D.C. law enforcement officials to seize the property of those connected to, but innocent of, wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture has been termed “policing for profit,” because in many states and local jurisdictions law enforcement agencies that seize such property are allowed to keep the cash realized from its sale or the cash itself if that is what is seized, and use it as they will.
(11/18/14)
The menace of civil forfeiture
Runaway crime has been replaced by rogue executive power. Whether your metric is the use of the executive branch’s awesome investigative and prosecutorial powers to punish the administration critics, the stonewalling and misleading of congressional investigations, or the racially discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws in violation of the Constitution’s equal-protection principles, the Obama Justice Department is the most politicized in the nation’s history.
(11/17/14)
AG Nominee Loretta Lynch Boasts Having Seized $904 Million Through Asset Forfeitures in 2013 Alone
President Obama took another ding to his populist credentials when it was revealed that his nominee for Attorney General is a big-time forfeiture whore from way back...
The Washington Post notes that, under President Obama, civil asset forfeitures have doubled. Now, as Eric Holder steps aside as US Attorney General, his potential replacement, nominee and US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch, recently announced that her office seized over $904 million in asset forfeitures in 2013 alone.
(11/17/14)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Goes Mainstream
The number of civil asset forfeiture abuses—and some particularly egregious cases—have drawn the attention of news media and even late-night comedians. The increased attention being paid to this problem may lead to real reform.
(11/14/14)
Dead gangster's bling forfeited to government
A B.C. Supreme Court master issued a consent order this week handing over to the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office nine items of jewelry and most of the cash RCMP had seized from the now-slain gangster who gained a large amount of infamy during his time in Prince George.
(11/15/14)
APD’s cut of federal forfeitures escalates
The amount of money the Albuquerque Police Department receives annually from federal forfeiture proceedings has doubled in the last five years, exceeding more than $1 million in the 2014 fiscal year, according to police records.
That money is in addition to what the city receives from seizing and sometimes selling vehicles used in repeat DWI cases. Overall, Albuquerque received about $11 million from 2010 through 2014 fiscal years from property seized by law enforcement, according to the records.
(11/14/14)
Congress must reform civil asset forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow police officers to seize citizens’ assets without charging them with a crime, have mutated from legitimate law enforcement tools used to combat the international drug trade and terrorism funding networks to near-ubiquitous funding mechanisms for local police departments. The new 114th Congress and state governments should make it a priority to restore the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
(11/13/14)
Time is now to fix asset forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture hasn’t made many headlines until this year. But its very obscurity has bred a degree of corruption that badly undermines the integrity of law enforcement – from local police all the way to the FBI.
(11/13/14)
Civil Forfeiture Office criticized for "zealous" vehicle confiscation
A Kelowna woman with no criminal record who had her vehicle taken by the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office will get her property back thanks to a Supreme Court judge who called the seizure "zealous."
(11/13/14)
A ‘gold mine’ or a civil liberties outrage? Civil forfeiture remarks go viral
The city attorney of Las Cruces says increasingly broad interpretations of civil forfeiture laws could be “a gold mine” for authorities across the country to seize things such as expensive cars and even people’s homes.
But his remarks during a seminar filled with local government and law enforcement officials — made with an amiable bemusement that bordered on glee — were caught on tape and have turned into a gold mine for critics who say the laws turn the justice system on its head and encourage authorities to see the personal property of private citizens as a one big money grab.
(11/12/14)
Asset forfeiture: The intended consequence of the war on drugs?
Pete Miller remembers staring down the barrel of a loaded gun in the early morning of Dec. 28, 2010. He remembers how the hand of the arresting officer—now a disgraced narcotics agent serving time for crimes related to stealing evidence—shook as it gripped the weapon. How the officer smiled, with blood-shot eyes and a sweaty brow.
(11/14/14)
Treasury Forfeiture Fund - ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT - Fiscal Year 2013
Our government gloats over all the loot it seized last year from innocent victims.
(11/12/14)
Wall Street Journal Reports Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Has Been Involved in $904 Million in Asset Forfeitures
Considering the fact that civil asset forfeiture has rightly entered the national spotlight as of late, the stance of Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, on the matter is extremely important. Particularly if the Wall Street Journal is correct and her office had been aggressive in utilizing this practice to seize funds under her oversight.
(11/12/14)
Police seizing billions via asset-forfeiture laws
Last month we looked at the disturbing trend of the IRS seizing the bank assets of businesses with no charges being filed against them and just keeping the money. I remember thinking, when first reading that story, that it sounded like highway robbery. This week we run across a different tale which may turn out to be a far more literal case of highway robbery. It involves two men described as professional gamblers who were pulled over by Iowa state troopers on their way to Vegas. The encounter did not go well for them.
Civil Asset Forfeiture -- An Editorial
(11/12/14)
An Important United States Government Accountability Office Report
(11/12/14)
Stop and Seize Collection
All 5 of The Washington's Post's articles on forfeiture.
(11/12/14)
Why It's Nearly Impossible To Get Your Stuff Back After The Cops Seize It
An educational video on a controversial police practice known as civil forfeiture inadvertently exposes just how hard it is to get your property or cash back after the cops seize it.
(11/12/14)
Case Brought by Two Humboldt County Men Draws Attention to Civil Forfeiture Laws
A case involving two Humboldt County men is receiving national attention because money the two claim was used for legal gambling was seized in a traffic stop and the two not only fought to have the money returned but are seeking compensation from the officers who stopped them and took the cash.
The men—William Barton Davis, age 51, of Eureka and John Newmerzhycky, age 43, of McKinleyville—claim that they were traveling in Iowa on April 15, 2013 when they were stopped illegally. The officer said he pulled them over for failing to signal when pulling into the left lane to pass another vehicle. Video from the officer’s dash-cam shows the car blinker was activated.
(11/11/14)
Inside Police Seminars on How to Maximize Profits from Civil Forfeiture
Are the police being trained in better ways to RIP YOU OFF? They sure are!!
(11/10/14)
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
You don't have to be convicted of a crime — or even accused of one — for police to seize your car or other property. It's legal. Several videos online are shedding some light on the controversial practice.
The practice is called civil asset forfeiture, and every year it brings cities millions of dollars in revenue, which often goes directly to the police budget. Police confiscate cars, jewelry, cash and homes they think are connected to crime. But the people these things belong to may have done nothing wrong.
(11/10/14)
Highway seizure in Iowa fuels debate about asset-forfeiture laws
The two men in the rented red Nissan Altima were poker players traveling through Iowa on their way to Las Vegas. The police were state troopers on the hunt for criminals, contraband and cash.
They intersected last year on a rural stretch of Interstate 80, in a seemingly routine traffic stop that would soon raise new questions about laws that allow police to take money and property from people not charged with crimes.
(11/10/14)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Law: Are New Jersey Police Putting Civil Seizures Ahead of Safety?
The head of the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office’s Forfeiture Unit says items seized under a law designed to allow law enforcement to pursue drug traffickers, terrorists and racketeers should tie in with law enforcement needs in a video obtained by the New York Times.
(11/10/14)
Civil asset forfeiture: Policing for profit?
State forfeiture law allows county officials to seize money or property believed to be connected to crime. Here in Lancaster County forfeitures are on the rise. The Lancaster County District Attorney's Office has generated millions in forfeiture proceeds in recent years and is sitting on a $1.75 million surplus.
(11/10/14)
Institute for Justice Calls On New Mexico To Reform Its Civil Forfeiture Laws
As The New York Times reports this morning, a set of shocking videos uncovered by the Institute for Justice exposes New Mexico city attorneys conspiring to trample citizens’ private property and due process rights.
(11/9/14)
Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize
The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.
(11/10/14)
Former DOJ Asset Forfeiture Director: We Shouldn't Be 'Militarizing' Police
Brad Cates joins HuffPost Live to explain why he feels that we shouldn't be militarizing police departments.
(11/7/14)
Department of Justice Seeks Recovery of Approximately $100,000 in Bribes Paid to Former Chad Ambassador
The Department of Justice has filed a civil forfeiture complaint made public late yesterday seeking the forfeiture of $106,488.31 in allegedly laundered funds traceable to a $2 million bribe payment made by a Canadian energy company to Chad’s former Ambassador to the United States and Canada and his wife.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director Joseph S. Campbell of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division made the announcement.
(11/6/14)
New IRS enforcement policy ignites debate on value of bank ‘structuring’ reports
An announcement by the Internal Revenue Service last week that it will no longer try to seize and forfeit money from those who merely evade government-mandated paperwork when making large cash deposits has ignited a debate about the value of bank efforts to document such acts.
Some bankers believe it would be wise to spend less time completing reports on established customers who deal in cash – and those who side-step such paperwork – and instead focus on rooting-out more nefarious criminals, said Rob Rowe, a lawyer with the American Bankers Association (ABA), a trade group.
(11/4/14)
Criminal forfeiture laws need to be reformed, too
In recent months the mainstream news media has rediscovered the abuses of civil asset forfeiture as an issue of concern. A new blog by Brenda Grantland.
(11/3/14)
IRS to Ease Up on Civil Forfeitures for Structured Deposits
Depositors to banks who intentionally limit cash deposits to under $10,000 to avoid triggering information reporting requirements by the bank (currency transaction reports) can be committing a crime, even though they are unaware that such “structuring” is illegal. Such activities can lead to forfeitures of the funds involved.
The Chief of IRS Criminal Investigation, presumably in response to this adverse publicity, has now indicated that it will scale back such forfeitures for structuring.
(11/3/14)
Asset forfeiture laws presented inaccurately
An opinion by William F. Neely, who seems totally clueless as to how the "Real World" operates.
(11/2/14)
The IRS: No crime needed to steal American’s savings via forfeiture
Government, unfortunately for all of us, does not seem to be doing things that are indeed legitimate functions of government very well. But if government is failing to do the things it is legally mandated to do, in some instances it is doing things it is not legally entitled to do. The NSA’s invasion of the privacy of millions of Americans is one example that has been widely discussed. Another government agency that seems to be violating the rights of Americans and acting outside of any legal mandate is the Internal Revenue Service.
(11/2/14)
Turning crime into cash: How forfeiture law works
Forfeiture laws date back hundreds of years. But critics contend law enforcement recently has been using the statutes to bolster budgets as well as to bust bad guys.
Here's how it works: Pennsylvania's civil forfeiture laws allow police to seize money, cars, guns, televisions, jewelry, even real estate, if they believe there is a “nexus” or connection between that property and crime. That is, the assets amount to ill-gotten gains.
District Attorney Craig Stedman said Lancaster County — unlike many other counties — waits until conviction and a direct appeal is denied before filing forfeiture petitions.
(11/1/14)
Forfeiture target calls it 'a violation of civil rights'
Hinders' predicament gained national notoriety after the New York Times published a story that featured her last weekend. Since then, her story has been trending on social media, driven largely by people outraged that the government has the power to seize money and property without what they see as due process.
The issue of civil forfeiture has become a growing concern nationwide. The Washington Post, New Yorker magazine and other news media have reported on seizures similar to Hinders' case. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government has used civil forfeiture to seize some $2.5 billion in cash and property from people never charged with a crime, according to a New York Times investigation.
(11/1/14)
Forfeitures help fund city law enforcement
The Chillicothe Police Department reports a majority of its current forfeiture funds come from criminal forfeitures from 2012 to 2014. In 2012, the department obtained $11,065 directly tied to criminal activity. In 2013, $13,117 in cash and one car were taken, and $19,151 and another vehicle have been seized so far this year.
(11/1/14)
The folly of civil forfeiture
Canuck Karen Selick weighs in on Civil Forfeiture, which is being abused by our Neighbors To The North, as well:
"In 2001, I appeared before a committee of the Ontario legislature and predicted that Bill 155 — the province’s proposed “civil forfeiture” law — would violate the property rights of innocent individuals. The government passed the bill anyway, and other provinces soon followed suit.
"These civil forfeiture laws — which few Canadians have even heard of — allow provincial governments to seize property that has allegedly been used in crime, or may constitute the proceeds of crime, even if nobody has ever been charged with, let alone convicted of, a related offence."
(10/31/14)
Civil Forfeiture Abuse–Why You Should Keep Cash Under Your Mattress
If the term “civil forfeiture” means nothing to you yet, you had better start learning about it fast, especially if you operate a business that accepts a significant amount of payment in cash. The IRS is on a mission to find any excuse they can to literally rob you of your hard-earned money.
(10/31/14)
Concern At IRS Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
Following a recent report in The New York Times, lawmakers have expressed concerns about the Internal Revenue Service's use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small business owners.
(10/28/14)
Walberg introduces legislation to reform civil asset forfeiture laws
Our political representives are finally getting a clue about the pernicious effects of unrestrained forfeiture.
On July 28, Rep. Tim Walberg introduced H.R. 5212 – the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act – which, according to a release, seeks to restore personal property rights under the Fifth Amendment and ensure due process of law by reforming long-standing civil forfeiture policy.
(10/28/14)
IRS' Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Small Business Owners
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, made the following comment on a New York Times story describing the IRS’ use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small business owners without suspicion of a crime:
“When I hear about legitimate business owners’ having their money seized without judicial review, it reminds me of the taxpayer abuses that led Congress to create taxpayer bill of rights laws and the IRS restructuring commission."
(10/27/14)
Civil Asset Forfeiture
More on John Oliver's and the Washington Post's reporting on government abuse of forfeiture law.
(10/26/14)
The too-long arm of the law, cont’d
The heat is slowly turning up on the government’s use of civil asset forfeiture procedures to extort money out of innocent individuals without the messy need to actually show that they did anything wrong or wrongful. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago, and today’s New York Times has a front page article detailing another wrinkle in the civil forfeiture scam: seizures of funds deposited in violation of the “anti-structuring” provisions of the federal code.
With both the Washington Post and The New York Times on their case, the I.R.S.'s abuse of forfeiture statutes gets some real ink.
(10/25/14)
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
New Yorks Times busts I.R.S. for confiscating money from innocent victims. I.R.S. replies that they will stop SOMETIME soon...
(10/24/14)
State lawmaker targets civil forfeiture
Virginia State Delegate Mark Cole thinks enough is enough. “Current Virginia law allows for seizure of personal property without a criminal conviction. My legislation would require criminal conviction before property could be taken.”
Cole’s legislation, House Bill 1287, has support from right-leaning tea party groups, as well as the liberal American Civil Liberties Union.
(10/22/14)
Civil forfeiture perverts justice
Another article referencing HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's exposé on civil asset forfeiture. That show has generated a lot of consciousness regarding how out-of-control things have become.
(10/22/14)
Federal Forfeiture Program: What's It Funding?
Cops are increasingly looking and acting more like soldiers. How are they paying for all this militarized equipment? One source of funding is particularly disconcerting for Americans’ constitutional rights: equitable sharing.
Under this federal forfeiture program, local and state law enforcement can seize—and keep—cash, cars and other property they suspect have links to crime. Yet the taken property overwhelmingly came from people who have done nothing wrong. According to a new investigation by The Washington Post, the government never charged property owners with a crime in 81 percent of equitable sharing cases. Since 2008, 5,400 police departments and task forces have spent $2.5 billion in federally forfeited property.
(10/15/14)
The real reason Oregon’s Sheriffs oppose legalization: Money
Russ Belville blogging for High Times claims to have the real reason why Oregon’s State Sheriffs’ Association oppose cannabis legalization in the state: they stand to lose millions of dollars they seize from folks who aren’t convicted of a crime.
(10/11/14)
Asset seizures fuel police spending
Police agencies have used hundreds of millions of dollars taken from Americans under federal civil forfeiture law in recent years to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear. They have also spent money on luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.
The details are contained in thousands of annual reports submitted by local and state agencies to the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, an initiative that allows local and state police to keep up to 80 percent of the assets they seize. The Washington Post obtained 43,000 of the reports dating from 2008 through a Freedom of Information Act request.
(10/6/14)
Civil Forfeiture in Philadelphia
The City of Brotherly Love is not so brotherly when it comes to civil forfeiture. Consider this case, which began in September of 1993. The police stopped Ossie Younge for a traffic infraction, speeding. Nothing unusual about that, but what was unusual (although not in Philadelphia) is that the police then seized $22,080 from his vehicle. The prosecutor never filed a petition to forfeit the money. At that proceeding, the prosecutor would have had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the money was contraband. Instead, the police just seized it, which forced Mr. Younge to file suit seeking its return. The trial court rejected Mr. Younge’s petition. Its opinion repeatedly referred to Mr. Younge as the “defendant,” although he was the plaintiff in a civil case. Mr. Younge offered his testimony, his fiancée’s testimony, and various documents to show that he had lawful possession of the money.
He appealed. Pennsylvania, the appellate court observed, “offered no relevant evidence to the issue of who might have a superior claim to the seized cash, if not appellant.” It concluded that the lower court’s seizure of Mr. Younge’s money is “state-sanctioned theft.” Mr. Younge eventually won, but the gears of justice move slowly. It was not until November of 1995 (more than two years after the police seized the money) that the court ordered it returned.
(10/3/14)
Another civil asset forfeiture outrage
The Des Moines Register has the story of William “Bart” Davis and John Newmerzhycky, two gamblers who had more than $100,000 seized from them after they were pulled over by Iowa state police.
(10/06/14)
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture
Forfeiture got some notice and some airtime with John Oliver and Jeff Goldblum.
Funny and informative.
(10/3/14)
Forfeiture law shows cops out of control
Thanks to The Des Moines Register for exposing the unconstitutional and abusive use of civil asset forfeiture laws against U.S. citizens by the Iowa State Patrol, county attorneys and the Iowa attorney general.
KILL THE PROGRAM WE HELPED START
(9/23/2014)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Was a Good Idea - Until Government's Self-Interest Corrupted It
Last week, The Post published a series of in-depth articles about the
abuses spawned by the law enforcement practice known as civil asset
forfeiture. As two people who were heavily involved in the creation
of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department in the
1980s, we find it particularly painful to watch as the heavy hand of
government goes amok. The program began with good intentions but now,
having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.
Asset forfeiture was conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive
that fueled rampant drug trafficking by cartels and other criminal
enterprises, in order to fight the social evils of drug dealing and
abuse. Over time, however, the tactic has turned into an evil itself,
with the corruption it engendered among government and law
enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits.
The idea seemed so simple: Seize the ill-gotten gains of big-time
drug dealers and remove the financial incentive for their
criminality. After all, if a kingpin could earn $20 million and stash
it away somewhere, even a decade in prison would have its rewards.
Make that money disappear, and the calculus changes.
Then, in 1986, the concept was expanded to include not only cash
earned illegally but also purchases or investments made with that
money, creating a whole scheme of new crimes that could be prosecuted
as "money laundering." The property eligible for seizure was further
expanded to include "instrumentalities" in the trafficking of drugs,
such as cars or even jewelry. Eventually, more than 200 crimes beyond
drugs came to be included in the forfeiture scheme.
This all may have been fine in theory, but in the real world it went
badly astray. First, many states adopted their own forfeiture laws,
creating programs with less monitoring than those at the federal
level. Second, state law enforcement agencies and prosecutors started
using the property - and finally even to provide basic funding for
their departments.
Even at the outset, the use of seized property was an issue. Drug
Enforcement Administration agents, for example, might see a suspected
dealer in a car they wanted for undercover work and seize it. But if
the car had an outstanding loan, the DEA could not keep it without
paying the lien. This led to distorted enforcement decisions, with
agents choosing whom to pursue based on irrelevant factors such as
whether the target owed money on his car.
As time went on and states got into the forfeiture game, the uses
became more personally rewarding for law enforcement. Maintaining an
undercover identity was often no longer even part of the
justification for seizures.
Law enforcement agents and prosecutors began using seized cash and
property to fund their operations, supplanting general tax revenue,
and this led to the most extreme abuses: law enforcement efforts
based upon what cash and property they could seize to fund
themselves, rather than on an even-handed effort to enforce the law.
Many Americans are familiar with oldtime speed traps, which became so
notorious that most state legislatures reformed their systems to
require local police and courts to deposit traffic fines into the
state treasury to avoid the appearance of biased justice. Today, the
old speed traps have all too often been replaced by forfeiture traps,
where local police stop cars and seize cash and property to pay for
local law enforcement efforts. This is a complete corruption of the
process, and it unsurprisingly has led to widespread abuses.
The Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000 to rein in
abuses, but virtually nothing has changed. This is because civil
forfeiture is fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and
notions of fairness. It is unreformable.
In America, it is often said that it is better that nine guilty
people go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted. But our
forfeiture laws turn our traditional concept of guilt upside down.
Civil forfeiture laws presume someone's personal property to be
tainted, placing the burden of proving it "innocent" on the owner.
What of the Fourth Amendment requirement that a warrant to seize or
search requires the showing of probable cause of a specific violation?
Defendants should be charged with the crimes they commit. Charge
someone with drug dealing if it can be proved, but don't invent a
second offense of "money laundering" to use as a backup or a pretext
to seize cash. Valid, time-tested methods exist to allow law
enforcement to seize contraband, profits and instrumentalities via
legitimate criminal prosecution.
Civil asset forfeiture and money laundering laws are gross
perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The
individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic,
and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to "prove" anything
to the government. If the government has probable cause of a
violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government
has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be
proclaimed by 12 peers.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
(9/10/2014)
We need to repeat this warning twice every day. Today’s example comes from a three-part series in The Washington Post on the use and abuse of civil forfeiture by the police. Our free press is an essential pillar of our liberty.
The police, whose job is to protect us and enforce the law, can catch criminals more easily if they can freely search our private properties (our homes, cars, email, etc). It is more difficult to get away with unwanted crimes in a totalitarian state than in a liberal democracy that respects privacy as an important protection against the abuse of state power. We have wisely chosen not to live in a totalitarian state and have struck a balance between privacy and state/police intrusiveness that favors privacy. This makes it more difficult for the police to find criminals, but reduces the number of innocent citizens falsely accused. This is the way we like it, and we need to remain vigilant to keep it that way.
Local Governments Increase Revenue by Seizing Property Belonging to those not Charged with Crimes
(9/9/2014)
Using a program developed to combat drug trafficking, local governments across the United States have boosted their budgets with monies and property forfeited by individuals who were never charged with breaking the law.
Federal law is supposed to prevent local governments from using seized cash from supplementing budgets for law enforcement. Nevertheless, the newspaper found nearly 300 departments that had “seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.”
In Philadelphia, those seeking restitution are forced to report to a “courtroom,” run by not a judge but a prosecutor, repeatedly in order to have a chance to have their property returned. And since the hearings are in civil court, plaintiffs don’t have a right to a court-appointed attorney.
“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” Mark Overton, police chief in Bal Harbour, Florida, who ran a federal drug task force in South Florida, told The Post. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”
Stop and seize
(9/7/2014)
Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes.
Stop and Seize: In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.
Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of “highway interdiction” to departments across the country.
One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.
Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government’s burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.
“All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book:
In Roads: A Working Solution to America's War on Drugs
--under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt.
One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing . Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use. There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion.
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percentof cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
As the drug trade ramped up throughout the 1980s, money deposited into Justice’s federal forfeitures fund increased from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993. (It reached $2.6 billion in 2007.) Some of that increase was driven by Operation Pipeline, a nationwide DEA program launched in 1986 that promoted highway interdiction training for state and local police.
Several newspapers later wrote exposés about innocent people being caught up in the forfeiture net and police spending on luxuries. The Orlando Sentinel won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for pointing out that the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office had used state seizure laws to take $8 million from motorists, nine out of 10 of them minorities.
Philadelphia Earns Millions By Seizing Cash And Homes From People Never Charged With A Crime
by Nick Sibilla, Forbes Magazine, 8/26/14
In March of this year, the Sourovelis family of Philadelphia was forcibly evicted from their house, and their house was seized -- without any advance notice to them -- for asset forfeiture. The triggering offense -- their son allegedly sold $40 worth of drugs outside the home. Fortunately the Institute for Justice has filed a class action suit to rein in Philadelphia's abuses of the civil forfeiture statute.
Just two decades ago, the US Supreme Court held that seizing real estate prior to notice and a hearing violates the Constitution, in United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). Why are they defying this clear precedent in Philadelphia? Greed! Civil forfeiture is a big money maker.
Every year, the city collects almost $6 million in revenue from forfeiture. According to data collected by the Institute for Justice, between 2002 and 2012, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office seized and forfeited over 3,000 vehicles, nearly 1,200 homes and other real estate properties and $44 million in cash. Altogether, Philadelphia has generated a staggering $64 million in forfeiture proceeds, which equals one-fifth of the DA Office’s entire budget. Forty percent of those funds—$25 million—pay law enforcement salaries, including the salaries for the prosecutors who have used civil forfeiture against families like the Sourovelises....
Villalba calls for DA office audit
Dallas, TX, 8/21/2014
Focus Daily News reported today that Texas State Representative Jason Villalba (District 114) asked for an independent audit of the Dallas County DA's Office over improper expenditure of asset forfeiture funds to pay a settlement in a civil suit brought against District Attorney Craig Watkins. Watkins has been driving a county-owned vehicle to a private speaking engagement when he rear-ended another vehicle while checking a text message. Rather than have the vehicle repaired by a county-approved repair facility, the DA dipped into asset forfeiture funds to have it repaired at a private facility, at a cost of $11,000. He also used $52,000 in county asset forfeiture funds to pay the settlement in the civil suit brought against him by the accident victim and his employer. Noting several violations of law and policy, Rep. Villalba asked for an independent audit, stating, "we deserve to know if this is an error in judgment or a larger pattern of abuse and cover-ups."
Ferguson’s military equipment not used by local law officers
Martinsville VA, 8/21/2014
Trying to distance Martinsville VA police from the police in Ferguson, Missouri, an article today in the Martinsville Bulletin reports that Martinsville Police had not accepted donations of excess military equipment such as that used by the Ferguson Missouri police. Local police can get free miliary equipment "through the Pentagon’s Excess Property Program, which has supplied police departments nationwide with more than $4.3 billion in military gear since 1997." "In October, Perry said, the county sheriff’s office will take possession of a new armored vehicle. Although the office had the opportunity to get a military armored vehicle, he said, the decision was made to instead get a smaller vehicle specifically designed for police use." ... "Many agencies nationwide have received free military equipment, Perry said, but Henry County was fortunate to have enough asset forfeiture funds to get a piece of equipment more suited to the needs of the sheriff’s office."
Taking the profit out of drug crime, part I
Coeur d'Alene, ID, 8/21/2014
The CDAPress.com website today published the first in a series of three articles about asset forfeiture in Idaho. The first story talks about a driver pulled over on I-90 for having tinted windows and driving onto the shoulder. The search turned up marijuana and $2,515 in cash, which was forfeited -- a fairly routine case, not particularly news worthy from the forfeiture angle. More newsworthy is how forfeited funds are distributed:
Law enforcement agencies are able to use these funds for, according to Wolfinger, anything in the "drug enforcement nexus." This includes training, new equipment, banquets and contributions to organizations such as the Idaho Meth Foundation.
The prosecutor's office receives 15 percent of the proceeds in the event that funds are obtained as a result of the case.
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Protection of Private Property in Civil Forfeiture Cases
An Institute for Justice press release posted 8/20/2014, reports that "today the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled squarely in favor of property rights. The case, Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, is a victory in the nationwide battle against civil forfeiture." The Institute for Justice had filed an amicus brief in the case.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling did not make any new expansion of property rights, but rather re-affirmed the validity of a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case, One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which held that the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule applied to civil forfeiture cases because of their quasi-criminal nature. It might sound like a no-brainer, since the U.S. Supreme Court has not overruled its own case -- and lower courts are supposed to honor Supreme Court precedent until the Supreme Court overrules it -- but the lower court had decidedPlymouth Sedan was no longer good law, and had ruled it was okay for the government to use illegally seized evidence in forfeiture cases.
In the Minnesota Supreme Court the government argued that the court "should not apply Plymouth Sedan because the Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to cases in which exclusion of the evidence has a significant deterrent benefit." The court rejected that argument, holding:
The current trend toward a more limited application of the exclusionary rule, however, does not mean that the Court has abandoned its decision in Plymouth Sedan. Cf. Brist, 812 N.W.2d at 57 (“Casting doubt on an opinion’s reasoning, however, is not the same as overruling the holding of a prior decision.”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled, modified, or clarified Plymouth Sedan.
The court also rejected the government's argument that the Supreme Court had implicitly overruled Plymouth Sedan in United States v. Ursery, holding:
Further, the County argues the Supreme Court implicitly overruled Plymouth Sedan in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). The County’s argument is without merit.
In Ursery, the Supreme Court concluded that federal civil in rem forfeitures are not “punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Ursery, 518 U.S. at 292. The Court’s decision in Ursery did not involve the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, and the Court did not discuss or cite Plymouth Sedan. We therefore must follow the Supreme Court’s dictate that “[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, [courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989).
Civil Asset Forfeiture Looks Like A Criminal Enterprise
Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, 8/13/2014
"...In recent years, policing for profit — which looks a lot like a criminal enterprise — has raked in the spoils. The Justice Department's forfeiture fund has gone from $94 million in 1986 to more than $1 billion today. State and local authorities also benefit richly, but it's hard to know to what extent, as not all report their "profits." We do know Philadelphia alone takes in about $6 million a year.
To end the abuse, the Institute for Justice this week filed a federal lawsuit against Philadelphia. Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Tim Walberg have introduced bills to reform the law. For the sake of the law-abiding in America, we hope they're successful."
Philadelphia: Class Action Suit Filed Against Philadelphia District Attorney's Office For Gross Abuses of Asset Forfeiture
Courthouse News Service reported today, 8/12/2014, that a class action suit was filed against The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, claiming it
... unconstitutionally seizes property without a hearing and sells it without due process, to raise millions of dollars to pay its employee's salaries, a class action claims in Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Christos Sourovelis claims Philadelphia abuses the process of civil asset forfeiture, in which property used in a crime is charged with the crime and seized.
Sourovelis's house was seized because of his son's arrest for possessing drugs. The DA then obtained an ex parte seizure order (without the home-owner having notice or the ability to argue against seizure), the family was instantly evicted and a lock placed on the door. The says the DA took them to a "hearing" without a judge or jury, where they were told they would have to relinquish their innocent owner defense and bar their son from entering the family home, in order to get back into their house.
This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of a violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court held in the landmark 1993 case United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, that Due Process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard before real property can be seized. This ended the practice of kicking forfeiture victims out of their real property while the forfeiture case was pending. If the Philly DA's Office is running this amok, I can imagine what other kinds of corruption and abuses the suit will uncover. This will be worth watching.
The Daily Show covered asset forfeiture
On 7/23/2014 The Daily Show did a humorous segment on a not-so-humorous subject.www.cc.com/video-clips/pjxlrn/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-highway-robbing-highway-patrolmen
(10/31/14)
Civil Forfeiture Abuse–Why You Should Keep Cash Under Your Mattress
If the term “civil forfeiture” means nothing to you yet, you had better start learning about it fast, especially if you operate a business that accepts a significant amount of payment in cash. The IRS is on a mission to find any excuse they can to literally rob you of your hard-earned money.
(10/31/14)
Concern At IRS Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
Following a recent report in The New York Times, lawmakers have expressed concerns about the Internal Revenue Service's use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small business owners.
(10/28/14)
Walberg introduces legislation to reform civil asset forfeiture laws
Our political representives are finally getting a clue about the pernicious effects of unrestrained forfeiture.
On July 28, Rep. Tim Walberg introduced H.R. 5212 – the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act – which, according to a release, seeks to restore personal property rights under the Fifth Amendment and ensure due process of law by reforming long-standing civil forfeiture policy.
(10/28/14)
IRS' Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Small Business Owners
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, made the following comment on a New York Times story describing the IRS’ use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small business owners without suspicion of a crime:
“When I hear about legitimate business owners’ having their money seized without judicial review, it reminds me of the taxpayer abuses that led Congress to create taxpayer bill of rights laws and the IRS restructuring commission."
(10/27/14)
Civil Asset Forfeiture
More on John Oliver's and the Washington Post's reporting on government abuse of forfeiture law.
(10/26/14)
The too-long arm of the law, cont’d
The heat is slowly turning up on the government’s use of civil asset forfeiture procedures to extort money out of innocent individuals without the messy need to actually show that they did anything wrong or wrongful. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago, and today’s New York Times has a front page article detailing another wrinkle in the civil forfeiture scam: seizures of funds deposited in violation of the “anti-structuring” provisions of the federal code.
With both the Washington Post and The New York Times on their case, the I.R.S.'s abuse of forfeiture statutes gets some real ink.
(10/25/14)
Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required
New Yorks Times busts I.R.S. for confiscating money from innocent victims. I.R.S. replies that they will stop SOMETIME soon...
(10/24/14)
State lawmaker targets civil forfeiture
Virginia State Delegate Mark Cole thinks enough is enough. “Current Virginia law allows for seizure of personal property without a criminal conviction. My legislation would require criminal conviction before property could be taken.”
Cole’s legislation, House Bill 1287, has support from right-leaning tea party groups, as well as the liberal American Civil Liberties Union.
(10/22/14)
Civil forfeiture perverts justice
Another article referencing HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's exposé on civil asset forfeiture. That show has generated a lot of consciousness regarding how out-of-control things have become.
(10/22/14)
Federal Forfeiture Program: What's It Funding?
Cops are increasingly looking and acting more like soldiers. How are they paying for all this militarized equipment? One source of funding is particularly disconcerting for Americans’ constitutional rights: equitable sharing.
Under this federal forfeiture program, local and state law enforcement can seize—and keep—cash, cars and other property they suspect have links to crime. Yet the taken property overwhelmingly came from people who have done nothing wrong. According to a new investigation by The Washington Post, the government never charged property owners with a crime in 81 percent of equitable sharing cases. Since 2008, 5,400 police departments and task forces have spent $2.5 billion in federally forfeited property.
(10/15/14)
The real reason Oregon’s Sheriffs oppose legalization: Money
Russ Belville blogging for High Times claims to have the real reason why Oregon’s State Sheriffs’ Association oppose cannabis legalization in the state: they stand to lose millions of dollars they seize from folks who aren’t convicted of a crime.
(10/11/14)
Asset seizures fuel police spending
Police agencies have used hundreds of millions of dollars taken from Americans under federal civil forfeiture law in recent years to buy guns, armored cars and electronic surveillance gear. They have also spent money on luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.
The details are contained in thousands of annual reports submitted by local and state agencies to the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, an initiative that allows local and state police to keep up to 80 percent of the assets they seize. The Washington Post obtained 43,000 of the reports dating from 2008 through a Freedom of Information Act request.
(10/6/14)
Civil Forfeiture in Philadelphia
The City of Brotherly Love is not so brotherly when it comes to civil forfeiture. Consider this case, which began in September of 1993. The police stopped Ossie Younge for a traffic infraction, speeding. Nothing unusual about that, but what was unusual (although not in Philadelphia) is that the police then seized $22,080 from his vehicle. The prosecutor never filed a petition to forfeit the money. At that proceeding, the prosecutor would have had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the money was contraband. Instead, the police just seized it, which forced Mr. Younge to file suit seeking its return. The trial court rejected Mr. Younge’s petition. Its opinion repeatedly referred to Mr. Younge as the “defendant,” although he was the plaintiff in a civil case. Mr. Younge offered his testimony, his fiancée’s testimony, and various documents to show that he had lawful possession of the money.
He appealed. Pennsylvania, the appellate court observed, “offered no relevant evidence to the issue of who might have a superior claim to the seized cash, if not appellant.” It concluded that the lower court’s seizure of Mr. Younge’s money is “state-sanctioned theft.” Mr. Younge eventually won, but the gears of justice move slowly. It was not until November of 1995 (more than two years after the police seized the money) that the court ordered it returned.
(10/3/14)
Another civil asset forfeiture outrage
The Des Moines Register has the story of William “Bart” Davis and John Newmerzhycky, two gamblers who had more than $100,000 seized from them after they were pulled over by Iowa state police.
(10/06/14)
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture
Forfeiture got some notice and some airtime with John Oliver and Jeff Goldblum.
Funny and informative.
(10/3/14)
Forfeiture law shows cops out of control
Thanks to The Des Moines Register for exposing the unconstitutional and abusive use of civil asset forfeiture laws against U.S. citizens by the Iowa State Patrol, county attorneys and the Iowa attorney general.
KILL THE PROGRAM WE HELPED START
(9/23/2014)
Civil Asset Forfeiture Was a Good Idea - Until Government's Self-Interest Corrupted It
Last week, The Post published a series of in-depth articles about the
abuses spawned by the law enforcement practice known as civil asset
forfeiture. As two people who were heavily involved in the creation
of the asset forfeiture initiative at the Justice Department in the
1980s, we find it particularly painful to watch as the heavy hand of
government goes amok. The program began with good intentions but now,
having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.
Asset forfeiture was conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive
that fueled rampant drug trafficking by cartels and other criminal
enterprises, in order to fight the social evils of drug dealing and
abuse. Over time, however, the tactic has turned into an evil itself,
with the corruption it engendered among government and law
enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits.
The idea seemed so simple: Seize the ill-gotten gains of big-time
drug dealers and remove the financial incentive for their
criminality. After all, if a kingpin could earn $20 million and stash
it away somewhere, even a decade in prison would have its rewards.
Make that money disappear, and the calculus changes.
Then, in 1986, the concept was expanded to include not only cash
earned illegally but also purchases or investments made with that
money, creating a whole scheme of new crimes that could be prosecuted
as "money laundering." The property eligible for seizure was further
expanded to include "instrumentalities" in the trafficking of drugs,
such as cars or even jewelry. Eventually, more than 200 crimes beyond
drugs came to be included in the forfeiture scheme.
This all may have been fine in theory, but in the real world it went
badly astray. First, many states adopted their own forfeiture laws,
creating programs with less monitoring than those at the federal
level. Second, state law enforcement agencies and prosecutors started
using the property - and finally even to provide basic funding for
their departments.
Even at the outset, the use of seized property was an issue. Drug
Enforcement Administration agents, for example, might see a suspected
dealer in a car they wanted for undercover work and seize it. But if
the car had an outstanding loan, the DEA could not keep it without
paying the lien. This led to distorted enforcement decisions, with
agents choosing whom to pursue based on irrelevant factors such as
whether the target owed money on his car.
As time went on and states got into the forfeiture game, the uses
became more personally rewarding for law enforcement. Maintaining an
undercover identity was often no longer even part of the
justification for seizures.
Law enforcement agents and prosecutors began using seized cash and
property to fund their operations, supplanting general tax revenue,
and this led to the most extreme abuses: law enforcement efforts
based upon what cash and property they could seize to fund
themselves, rather than on an even-handed effort to enforce the law.
Many Americans are familiar with oldtime speed traps, which became so
notorious that most state legislatures reformed their systems to
require local police and courts to deposit traffic fines into the
state treasury to avoid the appearance of biased justice. Today, the
old speed traps have all too often been replaced by forfeiture traps,
where local police stop cars and seize cash and property to pay for
local law enforcement efforts. This is a complete corruption of the
process, and it unsurprisingly has led to widespread abuses.
The Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000 to rein in
abuses, but virtually nothing has changed. This is because civil
forfeiture is fundamentally at odds with our judicial system and
notions of fairness. It is unreformable.
In America, it is often said that it is better that nine guilty
people go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted. But our
forfeiture laws turn our traditional concept of guilt upside down.
Civil forfeiture laws presume someone's personal property to be
tainted, placing the burden of proving it "innocent" on the owner.
What of the Fourth Amendment requirement that a warrant to seize or
search requires the showing of probable cause of a specific violation?
Defendants should be charged with the crimes they commit. Charge
someone with drug dealing if it can be proved, but don't invent a
second offense of "money laundering" to use as a backup or a pretext
to seize cash. Valid, time-tested methods exist to allow law
enforcement to seize contraband, profits and instrumentalities via
legitimate criminal prosecution.
Civil asset forfeiture and money laundering laws are gross
perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The
individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic,
and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to "prove" anything
to the government. If the government has probable cause of a
violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government
has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be
proclaimed by 12 peers.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
(9/10/2014)
We need to repeat this warning twice every day. Today’s example comes from a three-part series in The Washington Post on the use and abuse of civil forfeiture by the police. Our free press is an essential pillar of our liberty.
The police, whose job is to protect us and enforce the law, can catch criminals more easily if they can freely search our private properties (our homes, cars, email, etc). It is more difficult to get away with unwanted crimes in a totalitarian state than in a liberal democracy that respects privacy as an important protection against the abuse of state power. We have wisely chosen not to live in a totalitarian state and have struck a balance between privacy and state/police intrusiveness that favors privacy. This makes it more difficult for the police to find criminals, but reduces the number of innocent citizens falsely accused. This is the way we like it, and we need to remain vigilant to keep it that way.
Local Governments Increase Revenue by Seizing Property Belonging to those not Charged with Crimes
(9/9/2014)
Using a program developed to combat drug trafficking, local governments across the United States have boosted their budgets with monies and property forfeited by individuals who were never charged with breaking the law.
Federal law is supposed to prevent local governments from using seized cash from supplementing budgets for law enforcement. Nevertheless, the newspaper found nearly 300 departments that had “seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.”
In Philadelphia, those seeking restitution are forced to report to a “courtroom,” run by not a judge but a prosecutor, repeatedly in order to have a chance to have their property returned. And since the hearings are in civil court, plaintiffs don’t have a right to a court-appointed attorney.
“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” Mark Overton, police chief in Bal Harbour, Florida, who ran a federal drug task force in South Florida, told The Post. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”
Stop and seize
(9/7/2014)
Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes.
Stop and Seize: In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.
Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of “highway interdiction” to departments across the country.
One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.
Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government’s burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.
“All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book:
In Roads: A Working Solution to America's War on Drugs
--under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt.
One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing . Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use. There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion.
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percentof cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
As the drug trade ramped up throughout the 1980s, money deposited into Justice’s federal forfeitures fund increased from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993. (It reached $2.6 billion in 2007.) Some of that increase was driven by Operation Pipeline, a nationwide DEA program launched in 1986 that promoted highway interdiction training for state and local police.
Several newspapers later wrote exposés about innocent people being caught up in the forfeiture net and police spending on luxuries. The Orlando Sentinel won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993 for pointing out that the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office had used state seizure laws to take $8 million from motorists, nine out of 10 of them minorities.
Philadelphia Earns Millions By Seizing Cash And Homes From People Never Charged With A Crime
by Nick Sibilla, Forbes Magazine, 8/26/14
In March of this year, the Sourovelis family of Philadelphia was forcibly evicted from their house, and their house was seized -- without any advance notice to them -- for asset forfeiture. The triggering offense -- their son allegedly sold $40 worth of drugs outside the home. Fortunately the Institute for Justice has filed a class action suit to rein in Philadelphia's abuses of the civil forfeiture statute.
Just two decades ago, the US Supreme Court held that seizing real estate prior to notice and a hearing violates the Constitution, in United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993). Why are they defying this clear precedent in Philadelphia? Greed! Civil forfeiture is a big money maker.
Every year, the city collects almost $6 million in revenue from forfeiture. According to data collected by the Institute for Justice, between 2002 and 2012, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office seized and forfeited over 3,000 vehicles, nearly 1,200 homes and other real estate properties and $44 million in cash. Altogether, Philadelphia has generated a staggering $64 million in forfeiture proceeds, which equals one-fifth of the DA Office’s entire budget. Forty percent of those funds—$25 million—pay law enforcement salaries, including the salaries for the prosecutors who have used civil forfeiture against families like the Sourovelises....
Villalba calls for DA office audit
Dallas, TX, 8/21/2014
Focus Daily News reported today that Texas State Representative Jason Villalba (District 114) asked for an independent audit of the Dallas County DA's Office over improper expenditure of asset forfeiture funds to pay a settlement in a civil suit brought against District Attorney Craig Watkins. Watkins has been driving a county-owned vehicle to a private speaking engagement when he rear-ended another vehicle while checking a text message. Rather than have the vehicle repaired by a county-approved repair facility, the DA dipped into asset forfeiture funds to have it repaired at a private facility, at a cost of $11,000. He also used $52,000 in county asset forfeiture funds to pay the settlement in the civil suit brought against him by the accident victim and his employer. Noting several violations of law and policy, Rep. Villalba asked for an independent audit, stating, "we deserve to know if this is an error in judgment or a larger pattern of abuse and cover-ups."
Ferguson’s military equipment not used by local law officers
Martinsville VA, 8/21/2014
Trying to distance Martinsville VA police from the police in Ferguson, Missouri, an article today in the Martinsville Bulletin reports that Martinsville Police had not accepted donations of excess military equipment such as that used by the Ferguson Missouri police. Local police can get free miliary equipment "through the Pentagon’s Excess Property Program, which has supplied police departments nationwide with more than $4.3 billion in military gear since 1997." "In October, Perry said, the county sheriff’s office will take possession of a new armored vehicle. Although the office had the opportunity to get a military armored vehicle, he said, the decision was made to instead get a smaller vehicle specifically designed for police use." ... "Many agencies nationwide have received free military equipment, Perry said, but Henry County was fortunate to have enough asset forfeiture funds to get a piece of equipment more suited to the needs of the sheriff’s office."
Taking the profit out of drug crime, part I
Coeur d'Alene, ID, 8/21/2014
The CDAPress.com website today published the first in a series of three articles about asset forfeiture in Idaho. The first story talks about a driver pulled over on I-90 for having tinted windows and driving onto the shoulder. The search turned up marijuana and $2,515 in cash, which was forfeited -- a fairly routine case, not particularly news worthy from the forfeiture angle. More newsworthy is how forfeited funds are distributed:
Law enforcement agencies are able to use these funds for, according to Wolfinger, anything in the "drug enforcement nexus." This includes training, new equipment, banquets and contributions to organizations such as the Idaho Meth Foundation.
The prosecutor's office receives 15 percent of the proceeds in the event that funds are obtained as a result of the case.
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Protection of Private Property in Civil Forfeiture Cases
An Institute for Justice press release posted 8/20/2014, reports that "today the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled squarely in favor of property rights. The case, Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, is a victory in the nationwide battle against civil forfeiture." The Institute for Justice had filed an amicus brief in the case.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling did not make any new expansion of property rights, but rather re-affirmed the validity of a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case, One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which held that the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule applied to civil forfeiture cases because of their quasi-criminal nature. It might sound like a no-brainer, since the U.S. Supreme Court has not overruled its own case -- and lower courts are supposed to honor Supreme Court precedent until the Supreme Court overrules it -- but the lower court had decidedPlymouth Sedan was no longer good law, and had ruled it was okay for the government to use illegally seized evidence in forfeiture cases.
In the Minnesota Supreme Court the government argued that the court "should not apply Plymouth Sedan because the Supreme Court has limited the application of the exclusionary rule to cases in which exclusion of the evidence has a significant deterrent benefit." The court rejected that argument, holding:
The current trend toward a more limited application of the exclusionary rule, however, does not mean that the Court has abandoned its decision in Plymouth Sedan. Cf. Brist, 812 N.W.2d at 57 (“Casting doubt on an opinion’s reasoning, however, is not the same as overruling the holding of a prior decision.”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled, modified, or clarified Plymouth Sedan.
The court also rejected the government's argument that the Supreme Court had implicitly overruled Plymouth Sedan in United States v. Ursery, holding:
Further, the County argues the Supreme Court implicitly overruled Plymouth Sedan in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). The County’s argument is without merit.
In Ursery, the Supreme Court concluded that federal civil in rem forfeitures are not “punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Ursery, 518 U.S. at 292. The Court’s decision in Ursery did not involve the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, and the Court did not discuss or cite Plymouth Sedan. We therefore must follow the Supreme Court’s dictate that “[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, [courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989).
Civil Asset Forfeiture Looks Like A Criminal Enterprise
Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, 8/13/2014
"...In recent years, policing for profit — which looks a lot like a criminal enterprise — has raked in the spoils. The Justice Department's forfeiture fund has gone from $94 million in 1986 to more than $1 billion today. State and local authorities also benefit richly, but it's hard to know to what extent, as not all report their "profits." We do know Philadelphia alone takes in about $6 million a year.
To end the abuse, the Institute for Justice this week filed a federal lawsuit against Philadelphia. Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Tim Walberg have introduced bills to reform the law. For the sake of the law-abiding in America, we hope they're successful."
Philadelphia: Class Action Suit Filed Against Philadelphia District Attorney's Office For Gross Abuses of Asset Forfeiture
Courthouse News Service reported today, 8/12/2014, that a class action suit was filed against The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, claiming it
... unconstitutionally seizes property without a hearing and sells it without due process, to raise millions of dollars to pay its employee's salaries, a class action claims in Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Christos Sourovelis claims Philadelphia abuses the process of civil asset forfeiture, in which property used in a crime is charged with the crime and seized.
Sourovelis's house was seized because of his son's arrest for possessing drugs. The DA then obtained an ex parte seizure order (without the home-owner having notice or the ability to argue against seizure), the family was instantly evicted and a lock placed on the door. The says the DA took them to a "hearing" without a judge or jury, where they were told they would have to relinquish their innocent owner defense and bar their son from entering the family home, in order to get back into their house.
This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of a violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court held in the landmark 1993 case United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, that Due Process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard before real property can be seized. This ended the practice of kicking forfeiture victims out of their real property while the forfeiture case was pending. If the Philly DA's Office is running this amok, I can imagine what other kinds of corruption and abuses the suit will uncover. This will be worth watching.
The Daily Show covered asset forfeiture
On 7/23/2014 The Daily Show did a humorous segment on a not-so-humorous subject.www.cc.com/video-clips/pjxlrn/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-highway-robbing-highway-patrolmen