County prosecutors have taken bipartisan fire for opposing a bill that would ban law enforcement from seizing private property without a criminal conviction.

The debate this week highlighted the complexity of an issue that some describe as un-American.

“I’ve struggled this entire time to wrap my head around the fact that there is a process by which we can take someone’s property based on the suspicion of a crime, but without ever charging them with a crime,” said Rep. Robert McColley, R-Napoleon.

But prosecutors who testified before the House Judiciary Committee say McColley’s House Bill 347 would eliminate a vital tool in getting cash and other valuable possessions away from criminals, including drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists.

The bill seeks to do away with civil asset forfeiture — the process by which law enforcement can go to court to seize vehicles, cash, residences and other possessions that are found to be part of criminal activity. The bill would make it part of the criminal process, requiring that a person is convicted and increasing the burden of proof on law enforcement.

John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said it’s a bill that drug dealers would back. In cases where a criminal charge is not sought, perhaps because the suspect can’t be located or already is the subject of a federal investigation, “under this proposal the property would be returned to — the criminals?”

But lawmakers grilled prosecutors from a few Ohio counties, focusing on a 2013 case out of Wood County involving a man stopped driving with more than $350,000 in cash and blank money orders found in four trash bags.

The driver was charged with three felonies, but those charges were dropped and, instead, prosecutors went ahead with a civil forfeiture, seizing money they said was tied to a Pennsylvania corporation that was a front for a drug and money-laundering operation.

Rep. Jeff Rezabek, R-Clayton, said it appeared that prosecutors were “doing an end-around” to get hold of the money.

“You want to give them criminal punishment in the civil system because it’s easier,” Rezabek said to Wood County Prosecutor Paul Dobson. “Punish the gentleman for what he did, if you can prove it. Do you see where something like this could raise concerns, where you have criminal charges, but you dropped them so you could go an easier way?”

Others also questioned the process, including Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miamisburg, who told Dobson: “That’s your job to make that conviction. I do not believe this bill completely abolishes this process. It makes it a criminal process instead of a civil process.”

Dobson said he is willing to discuss potential reforms to Ohio’s asset-forfeiture law, although prosecutors said many of the complaints nationally relate to federal property seizures. “But to just completely eradicate the procedure is not a reasonable response.”

He said it sounded as if bill supporters want law enforcement to just let someone go if they find huge sums of cash hidden in a vehicle that appears to be linked to criminal activity.

Thomas Matuszak, assistant Wood County prosecutor, said there were jurisdictional issues involved with a criminal case against the driver stopped in 2013. He also stressed that, whether it’s drug traffickers or terrorists, taking an organization’s cash hurts more than a conviction or seizing drugs.

“You can second-guess my judgment, but that’s my experience,” he told lawmakers.

Union County Prosecutor David Phillips, who also opposes the bill, noted that a warehouse in his county used by a drug cartel had two vehicles whose owner likely will never be found. In another case, 200 computers and $730,000 located in dozens of bank accounts were seized from illegal Internet cafes. All parties agreed to forfeit the money and property.

“Repeal of the civil forfeiture process is unnecessary,” he said.

Published originally on http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/11/11/civil-forfeiture-bill.html

As the legality of civil asset forfeiture continues to be debated and authorities wrestle with the possible civil rights violations, studies continue to show that Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately targeted by cops. Civil asset forfeiture occurs when cops take cash, cars and other valuable items from people who may or may not be suspects. Despite the fact that many of these people have not been found guilty of a crime, law enforcement authorities are still allowed to take anything deemed an asset and not have to return it, even if the person is never charged with or found guilty of a crime.

Cops are only required to “suspect” that the property is in some way tied to illicit activity. When civil asset forfeiture is coupled with racial profiling, Blacks and Hispanics are left to be victimized by a criminal justice system that steals their cash and valuable items without no legal recourse for getting it back.

More and more, people of color are finding that their interactions with cops are not because they are there to serve and protect them, but rather to seize and profit. Oklahoma Watch recently conducted an analysis of high-dollar forfeiture cases and found that officers are using racial profiling, whether consciously or subconsciously, when deciding whose vehicles they will search and whose money and assets they will seize. Officers deny using racial profiling, and Oklahoma officials claim they are not sure why the majority of their seizures involve Blacks and Hispanics.

The Oklahoma statistics reflect a national trend uncovered by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, who reports that minorities comprise nearly 90 percent of drug trafficking convictions in federal courts. Oklahoma Watch specifically reviewed forfeiture cases between January 1, 2010 and August 11, 2015 involving seizures of cash that amounted to $5,000 or more. Sixy-five percent of the 401 cases were minorities, with 31 percent of cases being Black people, 29 percent Hispanic and 31 percent white.

The group specifically chose forfeiture cases of $5,000 or more because those types of cases usually happen during highway drug interdictions. ACLU-Oklahoma legal director Brady Henderson spoke about the data, stating, “The (data) matches what we would expect from our knowledge of who is profiled in these kinds of stops, of who tends to be a victim of asset forfeiture. It (race) is a major factor.”

Making matters worse is that cops do not just seize cash; they can also seize people’s homes. Leon and Mary Adams are just one couple to have their home seized by police. Cops are driven to make such forfeitures because the money generated by seizures is used to bankroll their police departments, and in some cases event fund their salaries. Some cops are even allowed to drive vehicles they have seized while on the job.

Many of those who fall victim to the seizures do not fight back for fear of being jailed, and they are generally not provided an attorney, with many unable to afford one either. Based on this most recent study and many before it, civil asset forfeiture is just one more way the criminal justice system victimizes people of color with little recourse for them to fight back.

Former Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins is accused of misusing asset forfeiture funds for personal use. The Dallas Morning News got hold of an audit expected to be released later on today showing Watkins gave cash to everything from lawyers to travel expenses to a sponsorship for a football league.

Watkins also impermissibly donated money forfeited by drug and other offenders to local groups — $3,000 to Bishop Dunne Catholic School in Oak Cliff and $300 to sponsor a veterans group’s display at a parade, state Auditor John Keel reports.

In the final two years before the Democrat lost to Republican Susan Hawk, Watkins and his office spent an additional $71,000 of forfeiture money on public service announcements, other promotional activities, legal fees and travel…

In 2011, The News reviewed Watkins’ use of the money and found more than $50,000 for cellphone bills and $46,891 for bar association dues. Other expenses included $270.55 for “snacks/supplies for children waiting area” and $617.50 for 650 gold-plated whistles.

Here’s why this is a big issue: civil asset forfeiture is NOT seizing cash or other items from criminals. It’s grabbing things from people who authorities claim to suspect of maybe, possibly thinking about committing a crime, but don’t arrest them. It’d be like if a police officer walked up to someone and thought it odd they had thousands of dollars in cash, so they decided to seize it. Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened to a 22-year-old who was taking a train through New Mexico. Joseph Rivers was headed to Hollywood to make a music video. Albuquerque Journal picks it up from there.

A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied…

In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope.

“I even allowed him to call my mother, a military veteran and (hospital) coordinator, to corroborate my story,” Rivers said. “Even with all of this, the officers decided to take my money because he stated that he believed that the money was involved in some type of narcotic activity.”

This is government theft and what’s shocking is how flippant authorities are about this. A DEA agent even admitted to ABQJ how easy it is to get away with (emphasis mine).

“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty. It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

Anyone see the problem here? The Fourth Amendment guarantees people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizures. TheFifth Amendment says people shouldn’t have their life, liberty, or property taken from them without due process. Law enforcement, the folks who are supposed to protect us from criminals, are basically becoming the criminals themselves by grabbing the cash or items. They’re stretching the definition of reasonable to as far as they can get away with and not even allowing people to challenge in court because of how nebulously named the court cases are. Did you know in 2014 only $679M was seized in criminal asset forfeiture in the entire U.S.? That’s from people who were charge with crimes. You want to know how much was grabbed in civil asset forfeiture? $39B as in BILLION.

There is good news because movement is happening on the federal and state level on civil asset forfeiture reform. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is pretty involved in reform and pushing it through the Senate Judiciary Committee. One thing he found was the “Department of Justice” (note sarcasm) pretty much acts as an enabler for law enforcement theft.

The Justice Department administers a program called the Equitable Sharing Program.  It allows local law enforcement to keep up to 80 percent of the assets that they seize.  The trajectory of the program has climbed considerably in recent years, by the billions of dollars.  Those who have been mistreated by forfeiture have their lives and livelihoods turned upside down.  It has put law-abiding citizens in the cross hairs of an unfair process that produces profits for police but undermines the value of the forfeiture laws to target crime.  Legislation is needed to rein in abuses and prevent government overreach.

For those wondering what the Equitable Sharing Program is, it’s basically an end around past state civil asset forfeiture laws. Local law enforcement can grab items and give 20% of it to the federal government. The proposed FAIR Act would do plenty toward reform to civil asset forfeiture by requiring a hearing on the seized property within 14 days. Law enforcement would be forced to prove why they seized the property and present probable cause. It’d also end the Equitable Sharing Program. But police unions are pushing really, really hard against any reform. Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury told the Senate how the FAIR Act would make things much more difficult for them.

“We can be sure of only one thing if the draft bill is enacted as written: there will be even fewer resources available to State and local law enforcement and fewer State and local law enforcement agencies will be able to participate in Federal task forces to combat regional and organized criminal threats, including domestic and foreign terrorist threats.”

Basically ending the sharing of seized cash means police (and states) would have to show…financial responsibility! The cash cow of being able to grab money from people who aren’t even charged with a crime, would be replaced by the local or state budget. Jason Pye at FreedomWorks sums up why civil asset forfeiture needs to be curtailed by telling me reforms “ensure the burden of proof falls on the government, and take away the profit motive often associated with forfeiture by directing the proceeds to the general fund or neutral accounts.” If conservatives and libertarians get angry about the government misusing taxpayer dollars, they need to be angry about federal, state, and local governments stealing from people who aren’t even charged with a crime. The Fifth Amendment exists for a reason. It’s time the government remembers it exists too.

By Taylor Millard

A national bipartisan coalition is pushing legislators in Ohio and other Midwestern states to overhaul civil forfeiture laws that critics say are ripe for abuse by governments and can leave innocent people stripped of their property.

A pair of Ohio House Republicans, backed by 17 GOP co-sponsors, introduced legislation onTuesday that would eliminate civil asset forfeiture under state law and allow forfeiture under criminal proceedings only if a defendant is convicted.

‘It should never be enough in Ohio or anywhere else in America for an agent of the government to say, ‘You look guilty, we think you’re guilty, so we’re going to take your property,’?’ said HollyHarris, leader of the national Fix Forfeiture coalition of conservative and liberal organizations.

Forfeiture laws traditionally are used to fight large drug-trafficking organizations. Complaints of abuse have grown louder over a civil-forfeiture process that allows law enforcement to take assets such as cash, vehicles or homes without obtaining a criminal conviction if the asset is suspected of being involved in a crime.

Both Ohio prosecutors and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio have raised concerns about the bill.

State Rep. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, a prime sponsor of the bill, said he is not alleging any specific abuse in Ohio. But when a law allows the state to take people’s property without a conviction, it’s an ‘affront to one of our country’s most-basic principles of justice: that people are innocent until proven guilty.’

The bill does not affect law enforcement’s ability to seize evidence, McColley said. It would bar forfeiture of property to the state without a conviction. Also, for assets to be held during a criminal proceeding, the bill would require the state to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture.

Harris said Ohio law enforcement has taken in about $80 million in assets during the past decade through the federal Equitable Sharing Program. The bill also seeks to rein in use of that federal program in Ohio, saying cash seizures could not be made under federal law unless the value exceeded$50,000.

Jason Pye, director of justice reform for the conservative group FreedomWorks, a member of theFix Forfeiture coalition, called asset forfeiture ‘an egregious example of government overreach.”

Mike Brickner, senior policy director for the ACLU of Ohio, called the bill ‘long-overdue’ relief for people who lose their property with little hope of recouping it. Forfeiture ‘runs counter to many of the most precious rights, such as due process,’ he said.

The issue has been gaining national attention. Last September,TheWashington Post found that under the federal program, police had seized $2.5 billion since2001 from people not charged with a crime.

John Murphy said he is well aware of the horror stories, but the executive director of the OhioProsecuting Attorneys Association said Ohio law protects against those kinds of problems and does not need to be changed.

The process is supervised by the courts, and the taking of property cannot be out of proportion with the nature of the offense, Murphy said.

‘We’re being tagged with the sins of others,’ he said.

Limiting civil forfeiture to cases in which a conviction occurs will cause problems, Murphysaid. He pointed to situations in which property is recovered in a search warrant, or property that is in transit where the owner might not be known, ‘but we can show pretty convincingly these are proceeds from criminal activity. We ought to be able to do something with that even though we can’t get a criminal prosecution going.’

If vehicles or large sums of cash derived from criminal activity cannot be seized, ‘I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with the stuff. Return it to the criminals?’ he said.

Michael Weinman of the FOP of Ohio said forfeiture is used in cases such as that of a drug runner from Mexico who makes his sale but is caught with $250,000 in cash. There might be no charge to file in such a situation.

‘It’s useful when you can take the profits from these drug transactions and hurt them in their bottom line,’ Weinman said.

By Jim Siegel for http://www.indeonline.com/

The Business of Marijuana

A sweet new bill with bipartisan support is seeking to cut off all funding for the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) generated through asset seizures.

According to Forbes, The “Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding for Marijuana Suppression Act” was introduced mid-September by (D) California Representative Ted Lieu, and (R) Michigan Representative Justin Amash. The DEA’s new legislative nemesis would work like this; the bill would preclude the DEA from utilizing any and all federal forfeiture resources to further its domestic campaign of terror, a.k.a. the Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.

In 1979, Hawaii and California were the first states to feel the sting of the feds new tool used in the War on Drugs. Shortly thereafter, the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Act had spread like a disease throughout all 50 states in the US. Since it’s unfortunate introduction, the program has been responsible for widespread misery from coast-to-coast; in 2014 alone there were 6,310 arrests, $27.3 million seized, and more than 4.3 million plants destroyed. Currently, the asset-freezing program collects approximately $18 million annually in federal funding, largely from accused marijuana cultivators and their distributors.

What has people concerned over this money-grab of a program is the bulk of its asset seizures are anything but criminal. Rather most of these transgressions are civil in nature. In the real world, an individual must be convicted of a crime for criminal forfeiture to occur. Unfortunately, civil forfeiture lacks the requirement of any conviction or criminal charge for the federal government to grab your personal assets, cash, or other items of monetary value.

The ugliest and most simplistic explanation of civil forfeiture is this, the police aren’t required to demonstrate you’re guilty of anything to seize your property … However, you will need to prove your lack of guilt to get it back.

This newest bill is similar to another defensive piece of legislation passed last year, an amendment authored by (D) California Rep. Sam Farr and (R) California Rep. Dana Rohrbacher. Their anti-seizure legislation was added to the 2014 and 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Spending Bill. Working towards the same goal, their amendment banned the use of any federally seized assets from being utilized for raids in states that have reformed their marijuana laws.

The most notable change in the newly offered Bill, is the new program would provide a permanent fix to problem of overzealous federal government illegally grabbing cash from those legally operating a marijuana business in states that are sanctioned their operations. Rather than having to renew each year by vote the Omnibus Appropriations Spending Bill.

*Not one to miss an opportunity to shine the light of irony of our legal system, John Oliver rips into the unjust nature of civil forfeiture in the below video.

As a result of a concerted effort by law enforcement, the California Assembly last week voted down common-sense civil asset forfeiture reforms.

Senate Bill 443, by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, would have significantly reinforced the notion that property rights and constitutional rights still matter in this day and age. The bill, among other provisions, would have required a conviction before seizing someone’s assets, barring state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving revenue in cases involving joint efforts with federal law enforcement agencies until there is a conviction.

Though the bill cleared the Senate 38-1 in June, the proposal was rejected by the Assembly 44-24 with 12 abstentions. “Apparently, many of our elected representatives do not want to uphold the due-process protections guaranteed to us in the Constitution,” Lynne Lyman, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement.

The bill did not deny law enforcement the opportunity to use asset forfeiture, nor did it take away any ability to tackle street gangs or transnational criminal organizations. Yet that’s what law enforcement organizations like the California District Attorneys Association wanted legislators to think.

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking,” the CDAA warned in a letter to Mitchell.

Such arguments were repeated on the Assembly floor by Assemblymen Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, and Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, a former cop.

“You would take away one of the most important tools to deal with those folks who are creating havoc and who are creating murders and other violent crimes in your own districts,” warned Alejo.

Upon defeat of the bill, Marc Debbaudt, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, declared, “Passage of the bill would have caused a severe public safety threat – it would have been a license to expand for drug cartels and narcotics trafficking on all levels, endangering our communities and schools.”

As is often the case, law enforcement’s tried-and-true method of stirring up fears over public safety served as cover for the real concern: money.

District attorneys and police chiefs reportedly made personal calls to legislators, warning them against the measure, and the assertion was widely circulated that SB443 would make California law enforcement ineligible to receive money from federal investigations. This was, at best, disingenuous and simply untrue. Waiting for a conviction before getting their money, however, apparently is too much for law enforcement.

Yet state lawmakers seemed to buy those claims after talking to their local district attorneys or police chiefs, including Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine, who took to the Assembly floor in opposition.

“We have the opportunity today to restore a core principle of American justice,” argued Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, co-author of the bill. “And that is that no person’s property can be taken from him or her without due process of law, without a trial and a conviction.”

Unfortunately, most Assembly members and law enforcement put petty politics and greed before principle.

“What this really shows is that the law enforcement lobby puts their own organizational self-interest ahead of the public,” said retired Redondo Beach police lieutenant Diane Goldstein, board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “Law enforcement is moving away from their mission from only enforcing the laws to making the laws.”

It certainly appears that way, though Californians, fortunately, are no longer buying all the claims of law enforcement anymore, as shown by the passage of Propositions 36 and 47, three-strikes reform and reduced penalties for nonviolent crimes, respectively. Hopefully, legislators will wise up soon.

SWAT team members surround a home on Eisenhower Dr. that a possible robbery suspect ran into following a chase in Santa Clara, Calif. on Monday, Nov. 11, 2013.

We have heard too many cases of law enforcement abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, like the young Michigan man whose $16,000 life savings for his dream of starting a music video company was seized by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents on an Amtrak train on his way to Los Angeles, or the two California poker players who had their $100,000 in winnings seized by Iowa State troopers.

So it was welcome news when state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, introduced Senate Bill 443, which would have required a conviction before the seizure of any property and closed a loop-hole that allows state and local police to bypass current state law to keep more of the proceeds of their seizures and operate under a lower standard of evidence by partnering with federal agencies.

The bill sailed through the Senate 38-1 in June, but then the police lobbies, eager to keep the gravy train rolling, descended upon Sacramento. Never mind that, according to a 1995 Cato Institute study, in 80 percent of federal civil asset forfeiture cases the property owner was never even charged with a crime.

Federal law enforcement agencies even entered the fray, threatening to ban all state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving any forfeiture proceeds when they partnered with the feds, the same way they have blacklisted New Mexico after it passed its own reform law.

The police lobbies showed their strength, as the bill failed soundly in the Assembly, 44-24, with 12 members not even casting a vote.

“This grab-and-grip practice thwarts our democratic process, violates the right to due process, disrespects property rights and reeks of corruption,” Sen. Mitchell said in a statement on Thursday. “It’s simple: No conviction, no confiscation. The lengths to which law enforcement is willing to go to defend this odious practice and to evade our state laws that protect property owners are outrageous.”

Police and district attorneys who support the current forfeiture regime like to argue that it is needed to combat dangerous drug trafficking organizations, but they ignore the perverse incentives it provides to abuse the property rights of those who are never even charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. We strongly urge Sen. Mitchell to bring back the bill next year, and hope that justice will then win out over police union lobbying.