Posted on 05/27/2016 7:12:43 AM PDT by MichCapCon
The federal government is seizing a historic Detroit recording studio under its forfeiture laws. It appears to be a case where forfeiture may be justified, but provides us with an example to talk about how forfeiture should be used.
The Detroit Free Press sums up the case:
United Sound Systems may be the country’s oldest independent recording studio and has hosted legendary artists such as Miles Davis, George Clinton and The Rolling Stones.
Yet the downtown property on Second Avenue may end up seized by federal prosecutors, who say it was purchased with funding from a known cocaine trafficker. They also claim the studio has been the site of drug deals.
The allegations are part of a forfeiture complaint filed in federal court on April 25, which says that Dwayne Richards, a “known drug trafficker and money launderer” who distributed cocaine through metro Detroit, paid for the studio years before he was convicted of conspiring to distribute more than five kilos of cocaine.
The studio is owned by Danielle Scott, the cousin of a convicted drug trafficker. According to prosecutors, “It appears that Dwayne Richards, a known cocaine trafficker, used Danielle Scott to try to conceal the movement of money and property that are the proceeds of his drug trafficking activities by purchasing the (studio).”
Though this forfeiture case will be pursued under federal laws, it provides a way to think about Michigan’s current forfeiture laws if this case were to be handled under state law, as it should be.
Under Michigan's forfeiture law, state or local law enforcement officials could seize the recording studio while they investigate the alleged crime. State prosecutors could then have the property transferred to the government under current civil forfeiture laws.
Before a court case, Scott would be required to pay a bond of up to $5,000 within 20 days if she wished to challenge the forfeiture. The prosecutors would then have to prove with “clear and convincing” evidence that the property was garnered with illegal drug money. (Before laws passed last year, the standard would have been merely a “preponderance of the evidence”).
This could all happen even if Scott were not convicted of or charged with any crime. Ten states and the District of Columbia require a conviction before the property could be transferred to the government.
But New Mexico and Nebraska have the ideal system. In both states, state legislators eliminated civil forfeiture and only allow criminal forfeiture. That means that when prosecutors convicted Richards of drug crimes in criminal court, they would then have to show in the same court that Scott’s ownership of the property was involved in a money laundering scheme and purchased with profits from illegal drug sales. If the court agreed, then the state could take ownership of the property.
Those states also adopted rules that limit the federal government’s program called “equitable sharing,” which has been problematic. This program enables the federal law enforcement agencies to “share” the proceeds of their forfeiture cases with local and state agencies. Under the model adopted by New Mexico and Nebraska, law enforcement agencies still have sufficient tools to arrest, charge, convict, seize and forfeit property under state law. Michigan policymakers should impose similar restrictions so that law enforcement agencies here do not outsource forfeiture activities to the federal government.
Michigan has been making great strides on the issue of forfeiture. Last year, legislators passed laws requiring a higher standard of evidence and increased transparency. Recently, House and Senate committees passed a bill that would outlaw a bonding requirement for forfeiture. The state is moving in the right direction, but there’s still work to be done, with the best models still being New Mexico and Nebraska.
Civil forfeiture creates an incentive structure to go after people with assets that can be seized with the least hassle and risk to the officers. For example, the home of a middle-class family whose son sold even a tiny amount of drugs.
The police are much less likely to seize the property of a real drug lord (the official original purpose of the seizure laws), who might react by killing the families of the police chief and prosecutor.
The way it should work?
The studio should not be seized until the OWNERS are convicted of crimes.
“Forfeiture” is theft.
If there’s no due process it is not a system of justice, it’s a system of predation.
Government steals more through “forfeiture” than actual thieves do - that’s a genuine stat and not hyperbole.
Exactly. No criminal conviction, not civil liability.
That civil standards are more lax than criminal is precisely the reason that things should be as you suggest.
The purpose of the Justice system is not to insure that people or the government can get its pound of flesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.