Posted on 02/13/2018 10:09:35 AM PST by nickcarraway
By Brian McVeigh, Calhoun County District Attorney and president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association; and Dave Sutton, Sheriff of Coffee County and president of the Alabama Sheriffs Association
The Alabama Legislature is considering legislation that would change the way civil asset forfeitures are handled in Alabama. While well-meaning, some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is an effective crime-fighting tool while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. The result would be more crime.
Unfortunately, several special interest groups have pushed a narrative that law enforcement - police, sheriffs and other authorities - are using civil asset forfeiture to unfairly take money and property from innocent Alabamians.
That narrative is false. Law enforcement uses civil asset forfeiture only to go after criminals, and state law already guarantees a process that is clear and fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court. State law also provides built-in safeguards that protect the property of those who have committed no crime.
Dave Sutton.jpg Sheriff Dave Sutton c/o Dave Sutton
What is civil asset forfeiture and why is it necessary?
First and foremost, civil asset forfeiture is a crime-fighting tool. It is used to both deprive criminals of the ill-gotten gains of crimes like drug-dealing and attack the means by which these crimes are committed.
Consider, for example, money seized in a drug raid. Drug dealers trade in cash. Not only do dealers sell their drugs for cash, they also use this cash to buy drugs from their suppliers. Taking just a few thousand dollars in drug money off the street means there is less money to buy drugs and, thus, less drugs being sold.
But it is also important to prevent criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime. We know drug money as well as cash derived from the sale of stolen goods are used to buy vehicles, guns, houses, jewelry and other items. It makes no sense to allow those who traffic in crime to keep the proceeds of their crimes. That would reward criminality.
It is critical that civil asset forfeiture remains a staple in the crime-fighting toolbox.
Here are some important facts to keep in mind.
Law enforcement and prosecutors can't go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime. Alabama law lays out a clear process that prosecutors must follow in going after a criminal's assets and an easy process for people to challenge the forfeiture.
More important, no asset can be forfeited in state court without the approval of a judge who weighs evidence both for and against forfeiture. Even in cases in which the property owner doesn't contest the forfeiture, a judge must still sign off on it. These proceedings begin with public document filings in circuit court and are disposed of in an open and public forum, with all proceeds subject to audit.
In fact, the procedures used in civil forfeitures are the same as those used in every civil lawsuit filed in Alabama. If there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we handle civil forfeitures, then there is also something fundamentally wrong with the way all lawsuits are handled.
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement. Though these changes may sound good, they would hurt public safety and make civil forfeiture less fair.
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
Prosecutors and law enforcement take issue with other parts of the proposed legislation. Alabama passed meaningful asset forfeiture reform in 2014 that strengthened safeguards and built on existing due process protections for criminal defendants, innocent owners and bona fide lienholders. We are always willing to work with lawmakers to strengthen Alabama's laws to fight crime and protect our citizens.
;-)
Anyone for pre-conviction civil asset forfeiture has never had to forfeit their civil assets....
Asset forfeiture without conviction is legalized theft and should be abolished everywhere , not just Alabama.
Seems like a weird begging of question for them to talk about “taking from criminals” when there was no conviction.
So who’s telling the truth and who’s lying?
If it’s the gummit that’s lying, then clean it out with the rest of the swamp.
Forfeiture after conviction? No problem. The evil is when it occurs before guilt has been established.
There does need to be a way to prevent the real criminals from disposing of assets, leaving nothing to forfeit.
If you think this abominable practice is abused now, wait until the pension and debt bubbles burst for states and local municipalities.
It seems to be about building little police kingdoms... in the same areas where the 2nd Amendment is seeing the most desuetude.
We’ve got so much plain ungodliness going on.
Another BS argument. Addicts and people arrested for possessing small quantities of drugs are the ones who are being offered Diversion" or treatment programs. Dealers of any substantial quantity whatsoever should already be facing criminal charges - and those are the only dealers who have assets worth seizing.
So, they are either admitting they are not very good at arresting real drug dealers (aka "their job") - or they are telling us they routinely use "civil" asset forfeiture in cases of small-time drug possessors and/or junkies. Either way, they are going about it wrong.
What are they going to seize from a junkie - his "works" and his vomit and piss-stained sleeping bag?
Better every thug and dealer to hide ALL of their cash and goods than one honest American Citizen be stripped of a single cent by they fascist jackwagons.
The second thing is a risk all around. What shall we do to recompense people to whom this happened, only for no conviction to follow?
Even that would provide some partitioning of the interest. Well, unless it was police pension and debt, in which case the unions would keep all of this stuff unified, untrammeled by competing interests.
What’s legal isn’t always what’s moral.
Gut it.
No civil asset forfeiture without FIRST having a related conviction.
None. Not one thin dime.
Also make it a point of law that ONLY the financial institutions are responsible for reporting large transactions, not the folks doing business at the banks.
Moreover, along with gutting non-monetary damages in civil suits I would even also go with limiting asset forfeiture to only the stated fines allowed by statute.
Gut it.
In cases of major busts (e.g. bringing down a large drug ring) I think authorities should be able to freeze most of the assets of those charged with crimes while the criminal proceedings play out.
However, final seizure of assets must wait until after conviction or it is our Constitution which is being gutted.
from the article:
“Law enforcement and prosecutors can’t go after property unless it can be shown it was used in a crime, was gained through criminal action or bought with the proceeds of a crime. Alabama law lays out a clear process that prosecutors must follow in going after a criminal’s assets and an easy process for people to challenge the forfeiture.”
agree with this policy as long as the seizure is lawful, with complete transparency and accountability of those authorizing and executing the seizure and with due process for any claimants. i’ve got zero problem with keeping criminals from continuing to profit and commit additional crimes using their ill gotten gains.
fair for any person to challenge forfeiture in court.
They have to pay to get there money back? I don’t see anything fair about that.
I like the changes.
Sure the current rules help to fight crime but so does unlawful search and seizure.
Well, a rather vivid exposure of the abuse of 4th Amendment rights of Mr. Trump and Mr. Flynn has been exposed, exposing the abuse of actual court evidence to receive warrants— by major high level police elements. Thus taking the 4th Amendment abuse procedurally down to the level of getting seizure warrants from a local judge by crooked police— and as a motivator— pre-conviction civil asset forfeiture overcoming the ability of the individuals to defend themselves.
In much the same way that Michael Flynn was ground down financially by a series of “faked” evidence (lying to the FBI on some minor point about activities which were not illegal at the time in his job)— he was being bankrupted by the costs (not pre seizure but... pre-elimination of any consulting business he could have obtained to make a living and cover his legal fees).
This is why the 4th Amendment violations of private individuals, on any level, must be fully investigated, and cleared— otherwise, we will march to a police state that the LEFT and the RIGHT can abuse procedurally from now on.
It is loved by both the left and the right. Kamala Harris AND Sessions.
This is an editorial written by Brian McVeigh, Calhoun County District Attorney and president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association; and Dave Sutton, Sheriff of Coffee County and president of the Alabama Sheriffs Association
The 7 Most Egregious Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
I know... by the right to look “tough on crime” and by the left for the feeling of control.
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.