"x x x.
Under the umbrella of fighting drug crimes, state governments have created a profitable if nefarious business from seizing the assets of people who are not responsible for the crimes.
Pennsylvania’s law is among the most draconian. If the government can show that property is even tangentially connected to a crime, it can seize the material. And the law imposes only a civil standard based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the criminal standard of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to seize cash, cars, houses and anything else. The burden of proof is on the property owner, rather than on the government seizing the property.
Pennsylvania averages about $14 million a year in such civil asset forfeitures.
Nationwide, the power is widely abused by state and federal police agencies. The laws provide an incentive for that abuse, in that money derived from the asset forfeitures go directly to those police agencies for whatever purposes they choose.
Some local courts have been cautious about allowing such seizures. But in those cases local police agencies often have skirted that obstacle by inviting federal law enforcement agencies into the investigation, which then enables the government to shop for the least restrictive venue in which to bring the forfeiture case. The feds and local police then split the proceeds.
New Mexico, where the practice had become egregious, is the first state to establish sweeping reforms based on due process and actual proven criminality of the property owner.
Reform bills based on New Mexico’s new law were introduced this year in both houses of the state Legislature, with bipartisan support from libertarian property-rights advocates and progressive advocates of criminal justice reform. They have not moved from committees.
The bills would require the criminal conviction of the property owner to trigger asset forfeiture and close the “equitable sharing” loophole by which local agencies hand off cases to the feds.
Also, to end the incentive, the bills require proceeds from forfeitures to be deposited in the general fund of the government where the action takes place, rather than directly into the police agency’s account.
The Legislature should restore fairness and accountability to the system by adopting these badly needed reforms.
x x x."
