New Mexico Ended Civil Asset Forfeiture. Why Then Is It Still Happening?

NPR ^ | MARTIN KASTE Twitter

[nickcarraway]

New Mexico passed a sweeping overhaul of civil asset forfeiture. Legislators say some cities' budgets are so dependent on seized assets that they disregarding the law.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

Let's revisit a state law that emerged out of criticism of the process police use to seize assets they suspect are linked to crimes and keep those assets without having to convict the owner of anything. It's called civil asset forfeiture. Critics say it's abused by local police departments that see forfeiture as a source of funding. And New Mexico made news last summer when it passed a law ending that practice. NPR's Martin Kaste reports on how the new law is working out.

MARTIN KASTE, BYLINE: The change in New Mexico's law is pretty straightforward. It says you can't lose your stuff to the government without being convicted of a crime. And yet, that's exactly what may happen to the Martinez family.

ASHLEY MARTINEZ: I, like, was begging the cop.

KASTE: That's Ashley Martinez describing the scene last December when Albuquerque police took her parents' 2006 Pontiac. She was out on a test drive to diagnose a transmission problem. A mechanic friend was at the wheel. He got pulled over. And that's when she found out that he had a revoked license for DWI. The officer told her that in Albuquerque, you can lose your car for that.

A. MARTINEZ: It didn't seem like he really wanted to take my car from me. It seemed like he kind of wanted to let me just take it. And then other cop came. And he was like no, she needs to get what she can out of that car. And that's it because she's not going to see it for a very long time.

KASTE: Now she and her parents sit around the dining table sifting through all the paperwork from the city. Her mother Cynthia doesn't understand the legal logic here, the fact that they stand to lose their car for the actions of somebody else. But that's how civil forfeiture works. The government can take possession of something that's believed to be connected to a crime, regardless of who actually owns that thing and whether or not there's been a conviction.

CYNTHIA MARTINEZ: Why should they take something that we worked hard for, you know, that I had nothing to do with and because they don't want to go by the laws that they're supposed to be following right now? They did away with this, right?

KASTE: Well, that's a question. Did New Mexico really do away with this kind of civil forfeiture? Lisa Torraco thought so. She's the family's lawyer in this. And she's also a Republican state senator. She helped to push through the new law that banned civil forfeiture without a conviction. So she was stunned when she found out Albuquerque was still taking cars like this.

LISA TORRACO: You know, it's kind of like one of those dreams. And you're just screaming and no one can hear you. You know, you're, like, stop. You know, this is a legal.

KASTE: She and another legislator sued the city to try to force it to obey the new state law. The suit was dismissed on technical grounds. But they may appeal with the help of an anti-civil forfeiture organization called the Institute for Justice. But Torraco says the city seems dead set on keeping its vehicle forfeiture program as is.

TORRACO: The only thing that I can think is that it is so much money. The cities and the counties are making so much money off of forfeiture that they don't want to give it up.

KASTE: Civil forfeiture is a growing moneymaker for local governments. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year nationally, though statistics for individual states are hard to get. Albuquerque raises about half a million a year from car forfeitures. And they're baked into its budget with annual targets. City officials wouldn't comment on tape. But in the past, they've called forfeitures an important weapon against drunk driving. And they say their municipal program is not affected by the new state law.

The police chiefs and sheriffs, meanwhile, are still puzzling over how this new state law even happened. Law enforcement's usually pretty good at defending civil forfeiture at state capitols. But somehow, this legislation got past them.

STEVE HEBBE: Nobody really knew about. The first I ever heard of it, it had already passed. It was waiting on the governor's signature. You know, we're like, oh, my God.

KASTE: That's Steve Hebbe, the police chief in Farmington, N.M. He's also on the executive board of the police chiefs association. Now, the chiefs are criticizing the law. But they don't say it's because they believe is civil forfeiture. Instead, they're going after it on logistical grounds. For instance, Hebbe says the police department's evidence rooms are filling up because the law has made it harder for police to dispose of things.

HEBBE: These would be things we would have maybe sold at auction or purged in some way. We would have maybe donated them to charities locally. But with the law in effect and with the wildly different interpretations of it, we haven't gotten rid of a thing.

KASTE: But the law's supporters suspect that these complaints are red herrings, a way for police to undermine the law without actually admitting that they're more concerned about the lost revenue. Democratic state Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto says he's open to tweaking the details, but the main goal of the law should remain in place.

DANIEL IVEY-SOTO: What I don't want want is for law enforcement to be put in a position, which I think is unfair position. And that is where they end up having to seize property and sell it to make their budget.

KASTE: He says it's time for states and cities to be honest about what law enforcement really costs and to fund it fully instead of expecting police to rely on forfeiture to pay some of the bills. Martin Kaste, NPR News.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

What ends it is when someone who has had their assets forfeited sues the pluperfect hell out of those who seized them unlawfully. Not just for the amount stolen, but with considerable punitive damages.

[dware]

What ends it is when someone who has had their assets forfeited sues the pluperfect hell out of those who seized them unlawfully.

Which, in this case, would likely cost them $10,000+ for the return of a $2500 car.

Sure, the law say they can't have their stuff seized until conviction, but right now, that car is evidence and will be impounded and held as such. Technically, the cops have not officially "seized" the car - it's impounded as evidence. The actual seizure will occur once the screwball mechanic gets convicted.

The cost of litigation to return one's property is the number one reason asset seizure laws continue to exist. That, and the fact that we are entirely unwilling to actually stand and fight - and die, if necessary - protecting our rights.

[Glad2bnuts]

The way to handle this would have been to call the County Sheriff and plead your case before they even left the scene. By all rights, if LE is stealing what is yours, you should be able to defend yourself using any means necessary. YES, that does include a gun. Cops have a gun and they would kill you if necessary to enforce a regulation. Citizens have the right to enforce their right to property and due process.

[baltimorepoet]

Eventually, people’s lack of legal recourse for injustice such as civil asset forfeiture is going to result in retaliation and bloodshed, and the people causing the injustice will be to blame.

If the authorities don’t want trouble, then they shouldn’t start any.

[nickcarraway]

People don’t seem to care about it anymore.

[jdege]

Which, in this case, would likely cost them $10,000+ for the return of a $2500 car.

This is why the law forbidding the practice needs to have teeth. Say, perhaps, 10% of the value of the property for each and every day that the property has not been returned to the owners.

Just to make it interesting, make it compound.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

That’s my point, to strip it of the profit, and make it a loss. Using your example, they take your $2500 car. It takes you $10000 to get it back. You are out $12500. So you then sue them for triple damages over attorney’s fees, *and* court costs.

This would need to be permitted by the state legislature, but would stop such nonsense cold.

[bkopto]

Take the cops to small claims court.

If that doesn’t work, the owner should ask to see the car to get some personal property from it . Then dump sugar in the gas tank, take off engine parts, etc. Let the .gov termites deal with the hulk they stole.

[monkeyshine]

Asset forfeiture without conviction is one of the many things I cannot believe the courts allow. It is so obviously a violation of our Constitutional civil rights. We have grown so large and the government so powerful, and it has for a long time now been that the government writes laws to expand and protect its interests, and against the interests and needs and wants of the people. We have to start turning this craziness back.

[CedarDave]

Well, I've gotten behind in Pinging the list again so instead of doing each story individually, here are recent New Mexico stories and their links:

EPA Pollutes River, Uses Scare Tactics To Take Control Of A Colorado Town

Turns Out Trump Has Always Liked Susana Martinez

Afghan national tied to Taliban, attack plot smuggled into US

Smuggling network guided illegals from Middle East terror hotbeds to U.S. border

Is Libertarian Gary Johnson a Good Alternative to Trump or Clinton?

Byron York: Why Trump attacked Martinez

An Unforgettable Day with Michelle Obama at Santa Fe Indian School

Libertarians pick ticket, slam Trump

Trump aide Lewandowski defends Martinez criticism, says focus should be jobs and economy

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention

Progressives just made the best argument possible for voting Trump

14-Year-Old Trump Protester Charged With Two Felonies

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez Planning to Meet With Donald Trump?

Clergy gather at Capitol to bash transgender bathroom policy (Santa Fe)

Great #NeverTrump hope Gary Johnson: I side with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time, you know

Why Gary Johnson will steal more votes from Clinton than Trump

If you have comments on any of the above articles, please make them at the associated link. Thanks.

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

[CedarDave]

My apology for the long NM PING post; don’t mean to hijack the thread. I got behind with so many NM posts so instead of pinging each thread individually, this method takes care of them all at once.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I’d sue everybody, including the mechanic and the shop he works for!

[oldbrowser]

The actual seizure will occur once the screwball mechanic gets convicted.

Not only that, but should the conviction fail, the family can go down to the local tow yard to claim their car after they pay the $1500/mo storage fee and tow bill.
The storage fee to be shared with law enforcement in some cases.

[dware]

This is why the law forbidding the practice needs to have teeth. Say, perhaps, 10% of the value of the property for each and every day that the property has not been returned to the owners.

Still wouldn't matter. The bottom line is, the cops have impounded the car for evidence. They haven't "seized" it, per se, just yet - it's just evidence. The asset forfeiture law wouldn't even come into play in this case, as the vehicle has not been "forfeited". It's just evidence. These folks can scream and kick all they want about the asset forfeiture law, but it does not apply in this particular case.

In essence, the lesson to be learned is that new laws are not going to fix the problem. The problem is beyond laws.

[dware]

Not only that, but should the conviction fail, the family can go down to the local tow yard to claim their car after they pay the $1500/mo storage fee and tow bill.

Exactly. And when that happens, the new 'asset forfeiture" law will have been followed to the letter.

[dware]

End ALL asset forfeiture

Still wouldn't change anything in this case. At this point, asset forfeiture has nothing to do with it. The car was impounded as evidence. The asset forfeiture law DOES NOT APPLY in this case.

[dware]

but would stop such nonsense cold.

In this case, the asset forfeiture laws have NOTHING to do with the situation. There's the problem. The car has been impounded as evidence. The police have not "seized" the car, nor has the family "forfeited" it. At this point, the family can talk with a lawyer about suing, and just for grins and giggles, let's say they DO sue. The court will kick the lawsuit out, as the car has not actually been seized, it is merely impounded for evidence and, due to an ongoing investigation/criminal case, the car will remain impounded.

Once the mechanic is convicted of his crime, there's the conviction. Under the new asset forfeiture law, the cops are well within their "rights" to then seize and keep the car.

If, on the off chance the mechanic is NOT convicted, then the family can immediately drive their car out of impound, AFTER paying the $$$$ for "storage fees" and such.

The only way the family could sue under the new law is:

1. The mechanic is NOT convicted, and

2. The police department keeps the car anyhow.

At that point, the family would then need to shell out the $10k for their $2.5k car. At that point, yes, your idea would come in handy.