Posted on 04/10/2015 1:44:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez signed a bill to abolish civil asset forfeiture Friday.
She signed just before the noon deadline that would have pocket vetoed the legislation.
“As an attorney and career prosecutor, I understand how important it is that we ensure safeguards are in place to protect our constitutional rights,” Martinez said in a letter announcing her decision. “On balance, the changes made by this legislation improve the transparency and accountability of the forfeiture process and provide further protections to innocent property owners.”
Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where police can seize your property and keep it even if they don’t convict or charge you with a crime. Then, you must go through the difficult, and often unsuccessful process to get your property–whether it’s a vehicle, cash or your home–back from the police.
The new law makes two important changes:
1. Currently, when police seize property they can keep it even if you are innocent. Under the new law, police can still take property from you for a short period, but would need a conviction or a guilty plea in order to keep it.
2. The law changes the incentive structure for police. Under the new law, if police do get a guilty verdict and your property is forfeited, it goes to the state’s general fund rather than the police department’s budget. The difference at least adds a layer of bureaucracy and oversight between police and the funds they seize.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
good, every state should ban it. It’s just theft.
One down, 49 to go.
So now, instead of just having your property stolen, they will work triple time to coerce you into a plea deal by piling on murder charges to jaywalking, or do everything in their power to get you to confess, bring out the bright lights and rubber hoses. I’m not sure this is an improvement.
Great. Now how about Constitutional protections for people of faith?
The new law makes a hell of a lot more sense. Why should someone have their assets taken if they are not found guilty?
Why was this signed “just before noon”?
Odd & risky way of drawing attention to the signing...
EXACTLY
The country was founded on religious freedom and yet when it comes to the homosexuals there is no religious freedom.
Good!
Because if she didn't sign it by then, it would be vetoed automatically.
Good VP for Ted???
I’d like to see more of Susana Martinez in the presidential race. I go to NM fairly often, so I know it’s a difficult balance there. Lots of NE raving liberal retirees, lots of dysfunctional people (Indian reservations, thank you Federal Government) who seem to have found their source of income in the casinos, Indians with heroin problems, rural whites making meth in a less glamorous Breaking Bad scenario...in other words, it’s a complicated place.
But she seems to be doing a pretty good job, although she has some positions with which I disagree. But, like Reagan, she might become more conservative if she runs for national office.
This is an improvement, but the title is misleading.
Good. I don’t care for criminals, but the asset grab never seemed right
If I’m understanding logi-cal869, (s)he is asking why the Gov. didn’t sign it earlier. I’m curious about that, also.
VP and takes out the war on women crap they will pull plus the left can’t say we hate Hispanics either
Geeze. I think this law should go even further. Shouldn't someone be found guilty FIRST , BEFORE they steal all their stuff and screw up their life?
Ping.
Thanks for that. You are correct. (as is ‘masculine’, to clarify)
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.