Pubdate: Thu, 15 Aug 2013
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2013 The Edmonton Journal
Contact: 
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html
Website: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134

DO SEIZURE LAWS REACH TOO FAR?

There is something almost poetic about the seizure of ill-gotten 
booty. For most law-abiding citizens, making the bad guys pay seems 
like a perfectly sound course of action. As with so many things, 
though, the devil lies in the details. The No. 1 detail, of course, 
is that before we make these villains surrender their goods, let's 
make certain they are truly villainous.

In a U.S. courtroom earlier this week, mobster James (Whitey) Bulger 
waived his right to contest the forfeiture of $822,000 in cash, along 
with guns and personal possessions found in his California hideaway 
when he was captured in June 2011 after 16 years on the lam. The 
former head of Boston's notorious Winter Hill Gang sought only to 
hold onto one personal item: a 1986 Canadiens' Stanley Cup ring. Most 
of us would happily rip that ring from his bloody hands as well. 
Bulger was found guilty Monday of a host of gangland crimes, 
including 11 murders.

Closer to home, Alberta's forfeiture laws have also been making news. 
In what they characterized as an unprecedented case Tuesday, Edmonton 
police said they had seized a luxury SUV after arresting and charging 
its owner on July 31 following an investigation into nine separate 
road-rage incidents over a two year period. Few details of the case 
were released but one thing is certain - the man has yet to be found 
guilty in court.

The seizure is part of a recent pattern in this province. In June, 
Solicitor General Jonathan Denis rejected a request by Alberta police 
chiefs for the power to seize the vehicles of excessive speeders, an 
enforcement action that would have been solely at the discretion of 
the roadside officer. Nine months earlier, under amended Traffic 
Safety Act regulations, Alberta police were given the power to 
immediately seize vehicles of drivers caught with a blood-alcohol 
level between .05 and .08, even though that is not a Criminal Code violation.

Concerns have been expressed that this sort of legislation eliminates 
the due-process protection when it comes to policing the police. But 
in fact Albertans should expect more of this sort of thing in the future.

Recent changes to provincial forfeiture laws will make it even faster 
and easier for authorities to seize money, cars and houses from 
people they allege to be criminal in nature. As an example, if police 
in the course of an investigation discover over $10,000 in bulk cash, 
and there is no evidence that money was connected to legitimate 
activity, then it can be presumed to be a proceed of crime, and taken away.

Alberta started allowing police to seize "tools" or proceeds of crime 
in 2008 under the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act. 
The goal was to disrupt criminal activity, drug dealing in 
particular, and divert that money to help victims of crime. Indeed, 
the civil forfeiture office has seized about $25 million in property 
and cash over the past five years.

Forfeiture laws, imported to Canada over the years from the U.S., now 
exist in seven provinces but the B.C. experience might be most instructive.

Two years ago, B.C. became the first province to stretch its 
appropriation powers to "administrative forfeiture" - the authority 
to confiscate money or goods valued at less than $75,000 so long as a 
provincial justice official deems them to be the proceeds of crime. 
No conviction necessary. Such seizures can take place without a 
judge's say-so - and they're permanent as long as no one makes a 
claim for the goods within 60 days.

There have been questions raised about the fairness and legitimacy of 
the B.C. legislation, the capriciousness of its application, and its 
flipped presumption of guilt. Given those concerns, it seems unwise 
to write a blank cheque for a fast-tracked forfeiture process in 
Alberta. Especially so when Alberta authorities said the laws here 
needed tweaking primarily to eliminate costly and frivolous stalling 
tactics by those individuals contesting the seizure of their assets.

Few would argue with the suggestion that where a crime has been 
committed, the proceeds of that crime should go to victims or crime 
prevention. But snatching the property of people who have not been 
convicted or even charged with an offence violates the very essence 
of due process, and that is a practice worthy of the same suspicion 
that appears to serve as its fundamental principle.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom