Pubdate: Sat, 24 May 2014
Source: Winnipeg Sun (CN MB)
Copyright: 2014 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: http://www.winnipegsun.com/letter-to-editor
Website: http://www.winnipegsun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/503
Author: Joseph Quesnel
Page: 9

RAISE THE BAR FOR FORFEITURE

Manitoba should follow the example of Minnesota when it comes to civil
forfeiture reform.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton recently signed into law a new policy
stating the state government can only confiscate property if it
obtains a criminal conviction or its equivalent, including a guilty
plea. The bill also shifts the onus of proof onto the government to
justify forfeiture.

Currently in Manitoba as in other provinces, a conviction against any
person is not required to confiscate property and the burden of proof
is along a balance of probabilities rather than the tougher criminal
standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

In 2013, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy released its inaugural
Canadian Property Rights Index, which measured all provinces on their
property rights protections. Civil forfeiture was one dimension and
Manitoba scored on the lower end of that indicator.

There are many examples of Manitobans facing forfeiture without a
criminal conviction. The example of Steven Skavinsky comes to mind.
Skavinsky is a former youth soccer coach from Winnipeg who eventually
pleaded guilty to sexrelated charges involving a young girl. However,
Manitoba's Justice Department attempted to confiscate his home in 2010
because the alleged criminal acts took place there. The province
attempted to confiscate the property before the trial even began.

Provincial authorities always claim that the purpose behind civil
forfeiture laws is to disrupt criminal enterprises. However, the claim
that civil forfeiture is effective in reducing organized crime is
quite suspect. While the government likes to point to the amount of
money forfeited in its press releases, they are not as capable of
pointing to actual reductions in crimes.

In April 2013, a news piece in the Winnipeg Sun stated that since
2010, Manitoba Justice has confiscated $4.5 million of property
allegedly gained through, or used to commit, criminal acts. But,
whether this actually placed a dent in organized crime is not known.

Civil forfeiture also disproportionately targets the wrong
people.

Consider the case of Chris Bachewich. He is a 51-year-old who was
suspected of running a marijuana grow operation out of his Winnipeg
home. Bachewich said the pot was for his own personal and medicinal
purposes. In addition to being charged criminally, the Manitoba
government tried to confiscate his home. However, he has claimed that
his home is only asset and his retirement plan. He has also stated
that no illegally obtained money was ever used to finance his mortgage
for this home.

Manitoba's civil forfeiture regime - just like many Canadian provinces
- - has a unique element among Western countries that allows forfeiture
in cases where the property caused or was likely to cause serious
bodily harm. This bodily harm aspect allows the province to go after
property beyond illegal drugs and gang-related activity.

Manitoba is certainly not the only province dealing with civil
forfeiture abuse. Eight provinces in total allow this practice. In all
of them, there are the risks associated with disproportionate
punishments.

It's time all provinces looked at their civil forfeiture laws and
ensured they respected individual rights.

Manitoba can become a leader in civil forfeiture reform. It needs to
look no further than Minnesota.

Joseph Quesnel is a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public
Policy. http://www.fcpp.org/
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt