Civil Forfeiture Law Protects Public, Cuts Into Law Enforcement Budgets

[bobandtorey]

FARMINGTON — A state law intended to prevent police from seizing money or assets from people unless they're convicted of a crime took effect this month, and law

 

enforcement officials say it's going to cut deeply into their budgets.

 

Before House Bill 560 became law, most police departments and other local law enforcement agencies in New Mexico could auction items they had seized and use the

revenue to pay for training or equipment. That process funds a fourth of the Region II Narcotics Task Force's operational finances each year — which was approximately

$100,000, according to its director, Sgt. Kyle Dowdy.

But now, Region II will lose that money each year, and many other law enforcement agencies also will lose out. Under the new law, they're required to store seized items

and then ship them to the state Treasurer's Office in Santa Fe or auction them locally. Either way, all the associated revenues are transferred to the state's general fund.

And agencies won't be compensated for storage or shipment of seized items, an expense the Farmington Police Department hasn't yet calculated, Chief Steve Hebbe said.

That is an unfunded mandate, he said.

"We're going to try not to seize," he said.

Rep. Zach Cook, R-Ruidoso, sponsored the bill in the recent legislative session, and it passed the House and Senate unanimously. Efforts on Thursday to reach Cook by

phone were unsuccessful.

The new law prevents police from seizing the property of someone they arrested without first proving they committed a crime, a practice that was legal before. And it

addresses a philosophical question, said Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington: "Should people's property be seized and potentially even sold without there being a trial and

proof of guilt?"

Montoya answers, "no," and the new law protects the average citizen from such seizures, he said.

 

Montoya, a new legislator who made law enforcement his primary focus in the recent regular legislative session, said lawmakers weren't aware of the bill's negative

impacts until late in the process. No law enforcement officials testified in the House about its impacts, he said. Sen. Steve Neville, R-Aztec, said he can't recall any debate

occurring in the Senate.

Hebbe said no police chiefs were asked about the potential impact of the bill, and none gave testimony.

"I don't think that they anticipated how much it's going to hit local law enforcement, and we're still trying to figure out how bad it's going to hit us," he said.

Montoya said he wants to talk with law enforcement officials to find a solution to their problems, but their suggestions must consider the essence of the law — protecting

the public.

"If this is going to affect them this adversely, we need to take a look at it," he said. "I'm not suggesting repeal."

 

Region II's Dowdy said the new law siphons money from local law enforcement and sets up conflicting demands.

 

Because he's going to lose about a quarter of his revenue, he has to figure out how to compensate for that. He's considering asking the federal government for more money,

but nearly every local law enforcement agency in the state will probably be doing the same thing, he said. He could also ask the Aztec and Bloomfield police departments

for more funding — as they already provide some funding for the task force — but those budgets are already tight, he said.

 

He said the task force may have to reduce the amount of equipment it buys, such as wiretaps and cameras, and train less often. And training, he said, is essential to

catching criminals who are constantly changing the methods they use to distribute drugs.

The law also complicates the task force's relationship with the federal government, which stipulates that the items the task force seizes, such as vehicles, are to be used for

law-enforcement purposes. But now those items are to be liquidated, with the money from those sales going to the state's general fund.

"On one hand, you'll have to break the state law, and on the other, you'll have to break a federal mandate," he said. "And neither one of them you want to do."

 

http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/ci_28433209/civil-forfeiture-law-protects-public-cuts-into-law

Edited July 28, 2015 by bobandtorey

[+Malamute]

 

 

He said the task force may have to reduce the amount of equipment it buys, such as wiretaps and cameras, and train less often. And training, he said, is essential to

catching criminals who are constantly changing the methods they use to distribute drugs.

The law also complicates the task force's relationship with the federal government, which stipulates that the items the task force seizes, such as vehicles, are to be used for

law-enforcement purposes. But now those items are to be liquidated, with the money from those sales going to the state's general fund.

"On one hand, you'll have to break the state law, and on the other, you'll have to break a federal mandate," he said. "And neither one of them you want to do."

 

http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/ci_28433209/civil-forfeiture-law-protects-public-cuts-into-law

 

 

WATB

[trichcycler]

um....that old system of the war on drugs has failed. No amount of stolen items from the guilty and the innocent has slowed the sales of dangerous drugs in our country or world in past decades. The whole thing was a joke, and we were their punchline.

 

 the pilfering of innocents citizens will be tolerated no more?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Way to go Arizona. Let's hope that similar legislation comes to a state near us soon.

[GregS]

We are turning the forfeiture bus around. It's a tough slog, and LE is whining like a bunch little kids whose candy is being taken away while they are on a berserk sugar high. The obvious solution is to bring police personnel numbers in line with reduced budgets. You know. Like Walker did in Wisconsin with all government employees. When, not if, we succeed in ending prohibition, departments should be downsized dramatically. Until that point we can expect them to continue to pout and whine.

Edited July 30, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

LANSING, MI — The Michigan Senate on Wednesday voted unanimously to increase civil asset forfeiture reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies and make it harder for the government to keep confiscated property.

The seven-bill package represents a first step in a larger effort to reform the state's civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow police agencies to profit from seized property even if the owner is never charged or convicted of a crime.

The legislation, now heading to the governor's desk, would require law enforcement agencies to file an annual report with the state detailing their forfeiture cases and proceeds, which supporters say will shed more light on a practice that can be difficult to track.

It would also increase the burden of proof required to keep seized property during civil court proceedings related to drug and public nuisance cases, requiring "clear and convincing" evidence that it was related to a crime. Current law requires "a preponderance" of the evidence.

"Those were unique bills that both the far left and the far right love," said Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, a former sheriff who saw the bills through the Judiciary Committee. "Whenever you find a combination like that, you must be doing some pretty good work."

The reform push has brought together groups from various sides of the political spectrum — including conservatives, liberals and libertarians — who ultimately want to see even bigger changes.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, in a recent joint report, recommended eliminating civil asset forfeiture entirely, requiring a conviction before property can be forfeited in criminal court.

The report also recommended Michigan stop allowing local law enforcement agencies to pad their own budgets through forfeiture, eliminating any profit motive by directing revenues to a separate government department.

But the ACLU and Mackinac Center, along with national partners in a "Fix Forfeiture" alliance, have also championed the bills approved Wednesday, including the uniform reporting requirements, calling them a solid step in the right direction.

"The state should not be able to take ownership of someone's property unless they have been convicted of a crime through the criminal system," said Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst and co-author of a recent report on forfeiture in Michigan. "These bills are a great first step towards improving Michigan's forfeiture regime, but to fully protect Michigan residents, the state should eliminate civil forfeiture altogether."

Michigan police agencies reported $24.3 million in civil asset forfeitures in 2013, according to the Michigan State Police, but those figures only include drug-specific cases, and eight percent of agencies never filed a report.

"Michigan's law enforcement community has done an outstanding job of stripping drug dealers of illicit gain and utilizing these proceeds to expand and enhance law enforcement efforts to protect our citizens," said the 2013 report.

Civil asset forfeiture has helped cash-strapped police departments to boost their budgets. But critics say the policy, which allows law enforcement to keep proceeds from cash, cars, homes and other property, invites abuse.

In one notorious case, police raided the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit, seizing the cars of 44 patrons who had attended a dance party because organizers had served alcohol without a liquor license.

"I think every so often, instead of seizing the assets of a bad guy, they seize the assets of a grandma by mistake, and that's what we need to guard against, to make sure appropriate seizures are being done," said Jones. 

Asked about the broader push to eliminate civil asset forfeiture, Jones said he thinks the Legislature has more pressing criminal justice reforms to consider. During his time as Eaton County Sheriff, he said, a tri-county narcotic union that preformed seizures was "about as squeaky clean as you could get."

"It's always easy to throw rocks at law enforcement," Jones said. "You could say they're writing too many (traffic) tickets because there's a profit motive. I think for the most part, the average police officer or sheriff deputy wants to go out and do their job to the best of their ability and they're not in it for profit."

 

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/10/forfeiture_package_sails_throu.html#incart_river_home

[bobandtorey]

A U.S. Department of Justice audit has found improprieties in the way Plymouth Township accounted for forfeited cash, cars and other property under a federal “Equitable Sharing” program that lets local police agencies share in the proceeds of property seized in joint investigations.

Plymouth Township received $1.9 million from the program between January 2010 and September 2014. It is not clear what prompted the audit.

The Justice Department has strict rules on how local agencies account for the profits from the sale of forfeited property, and the audit found a number of violations including who controlled the funds, how they were used, and the fact that the proceeds appear to have been earmarked for certain uses before they were received. Some of the township’s share of forfeiture proceeds were used to buy furniture, clothing, truck rentals and other disallowed expenditures.

The township police chief is responsible for filing accounting reports to the DOJ, and told auditors he was not allowed to receive copies of the bank statements associated with the program. Instead, the audit found that the township treasurer and governing body had much of that control and responsibility, which is contrary to the program’s rules.

Township Treasurer Ron Edwards is notorious in the area for his behavior.  He has abused 911 operators before for blocked roads during heavy traffic, and has been accused of assaulting a township clerk before.

In general, the funds from the federal sharing program are to be used for law enforcement, but the audit found thousands of dollars being used for non-law enforcement expenses such as $1,574 for floor mats, $3,272 for conference room chairs, $29,792 for civilian salaries (not uniformed officers) and other general township expenses.

At another time, the township used funds to purchase police vehicles, which was allowed, but failed to reimburse the forfeiture fund when it received $96,506 in manufacturer rebates for the cars. Additionally, the township recorded $21,591 in law enforcement expenses before the money from forfeited seizures was actually in hand.

The township was also cited for filing late reports and not promptly reimbursing the fund for non-law enforcement expenses.

 

http://truthvoice.com/2015/10/michigan-township-misused-millions-in-asset-forfeiture-funds/

[Kingdiamond]

"enforcement officials say it's going to cut deeply into their budgets."

 

Boo freaking Hoo cry me a river long overdue and will make cops stop targeting those with property for petty possession charges and actually concentrate on  real crime .

[+Malamute]

"enforcement officials say it's going to cut deeply into their budgets."

 

Boo freaking Hoo cry me a river long overdue and will make cops stop targeting those with property for petty possession charges and actually concentrate on  real crime .

 

Yea. Have a bake sale aye.

[bobandtorey]

I saw something yesterday that said they can still take your stuff even if you are not convected so the  new Bill's don't go far enough 

[+Malamute]

The new bills don't really do much of anything. Require half arsed reporting is about it

[bobandtorey]

The new bills don't really do much of anything. Require half arsed reporting is about it

 

 

Right i agree more work is needed and people need to start voting 

[trichcycler]

should more of us vote for the greater evil of the two candidates now,
or more of us just continue to vote for the lesser of two evils ?

[bobandtorey]

More of us just continue to vote for the lesser of two evils ? sadly true 

 

But do vote and if someone signs up to vote they can do it at home you don't even need to leave your house thats how i do it so i can do some home work and get a better idea witch of the  two Evils 

[t-pain]

should more of us vote for the greater evil of the two candidates now,

or more of us just continue to vote for the lesser of two evils ?

i talk to a lot of people who say they dont vote.

 

its this kind of thinking that gets people to stop voting. maybe. who knows.

 

your vote does not count unless it counted in 2008 when we got medical marijuana

[trichcycler]

It was MY vote that allowed us all to use cannabis medially !  you're welcome!

[bobandtorey]

It was MY vote that allowed us all to use cannabis medially !  you're welcome!

 

 

What about Bob's Vote i do count   Ha Ha Ha

[bobandtorey]

LANSING -- Gov. Rick Snyder signed an eight-bill package Tuesday aimed at curbing abuses in the use of civil forfeiture laws, under which police can seize property from people who were never even charged -- let alone convicted -- of a crime.

The bipartisan legislation is supported by groups as diverse as the ACLU of Michigan and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Both say the bills Snyder signed today are a significant improvement but don't go far enough.

House Bills 4499 and 4500, and HBs 4503-4507, which Snyder signed in a brief private ceremony attended by bill sponsors and supporters, raise the standard of proof required for police and other agencies to seize property through civil forfeiture from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence. They also significantly increase the amount of public reporting required of forfeiture activities, to increase transparency.

“Michigan residents deserve transparency from government, and these new reporting requirements will raise the bar so that a fair balance is struck between private property rights and law enforcement’s effective ability to do their job in pursuing criminal activity,” Snyder said in a news release.

The Free Press highlighted abuses in the use of civil forfeiture laws in Michigan in a front-page story in February.

 

"The ultimate goal is to get rid of civil forfeiture, but this is really a good first step," Anne Scheiber, a senior investigative analyst with the Mackinac Center, said Tuesday.

Michigan law allows government agencies to seize property suspected to have been used for or purchased with proceeds from certain crimes such as drug trafficking, prostitution, gambling or racketeering. Though  citizens  can  petition  a  court  to  have  their property returned when it is not connected to the commission of a crime, many citizens cannot afford the costs, including the posting of a bond and legal fees, to  do  so.

Police and prosecutors say the laws, used properly, act as a deterrent to crime, strip criminals of assets that can be used to commit further crimes, and save taxpayers money.

But some of the proceeds from forfeited property are used by the law enforcement agencies that seized the property, raising concerns and criticism about "policing for profit."

Ed Boyke, 70, of Saginaw Township, who has a medical marijuana card following brain surgery and also is licensed to grow for other patients, said police seized his car, TV set, cash and other items during a 2010 raid, but never charged him with a crime. He said he eventually got back some, but not all, of what was taken. He said he is still out $5,000 he paid to get his car back.

"I wish they would have changed it a long time ago," Boyke, a Vietnam veteran and GM retiree said Tuesday of the state's civil forfeiture law.

One of the better-known and most controversial uses of civil forfeiture occurred in Detroit in 2008, when a police SWAT team raided the city's Museum of Contemporary Art, where 130 patrons were celebrating Funk Night, a monthly party of dancing, drinking and art gazing. The patrons were forced to the ground at gunpoint and, in some cases, purses were searched. All of the patrons were issued tickets for "loitering in a place of illegal occupation," because the museum had failed to get a permit to serve alcohol.

Then police began confiscating their cars, having them towed away under the city's nuisance-abatement program and insisting that patrons pay $900 apiece to get them back. The ACLU filed suit and the city agreed to drop the criminal charges but refused to return the cars.

The ACLU filed a second suit in 2010, demanding that the cars be returned. In 2012, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts agreed, saying illegal searches and seizures were a "widespread practice" and a "custom" of the Detroit Police Department.

There have also been widespread complaints of abuse of civil forfeiture in connection with enforcement of Michigan's medical marijuana law.

A few law enforcement agencies spoke out against HB 4505, which raises the threshold for seizure of property in connection with drug laws from a "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence."

Cullen Harkness, an Okemos attorney who handles civil forfeitures as prosecuting attorney for Meridian Township and city attorney for Albion, said "raising the burden of proof basically protects the drug dealers" and makes it more difficult for law enforcement to do its job.

Harkness said he hopes the increased reporting requirements will help show legislators and the public the importance of civil forfeiture and how it is used to combat crime.

Michigan law enforcement agencies seized at least $24.3 million in property and cash from residents in 2013.

Prior to the changes signed into law Tuesday, Michigan ranked among the five most likely states to abuse civil forfeiture, according to a 2010 study by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Arlington, Va., which gave the state a grade of D-.

"With this package, we’ve brought transparency to the system, creating new reporting requirements for all government agencies involved in seizing property to ensure that innocent Michiganders are not treated like criminals," said Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, sponsor of one of the bills.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/20/snyder-signs-forfeiture-reform-laws/74260754/