Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jul 2015
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2015 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Megan Cassidy
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

LAWSUIT: PINAL COUNTY EXPLOITS FORFEITURE LAWS

ACLU Says Profits From Seized Goods Are Put into Slush Fund

Pinal County attorneys and sheriff's officials are accused of 
funneling profits gleaned by seized property into a slush fund to 
bankroll personnel costs, retirement benefits and County Attorney 
Lando Voyles' personal home-security system, according to a lawsuit 
filed in federal court Wednesday.

The suit, filed by attorneys from Perkins Coie and the American Civil 
Liberties Union, alleges Voyles, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and 
court officials have exploited Arizona's forfeiture laws and violated 
citizens' constitutional rights to due process.

Arizona's forfeiture laws direct proceeds from seized items into the 
coffers of the prosecutors and law-enforcement agencies involved in 
seizing them. The laws additionally provide little to no oversight on 
spending, plaintiff's attorneys say, creating a powerful economic 
incentive to aggressively pursue the practice.

The policy is a stark contrast to other states and the federal 
system, according to plaintiff's attorney Jean-Jacques Cabou.

"The federal system has pretty strict guidance making sure there's a 
break between the seizing officers, and that the (proceeds are) paid 
into the treasury, and appropriated through unilateral action later," he said.

Pinal County sheriff's officials said they have no comment, citing 
pending litigation. Pinal County attorney officials said they have 
not yet had time to review the documents.

The suit tracks the forfeiture of a $600 used pickup truck owned by 
Rhonda Cox, a San Tan Valley woman who had loaned the vehicle to her son.

Cox's son was arrested in August 2013 on suspicion of stealing a 
Tonneau cover and white hood and attaching it to the truck, prompting 
deputies to seize the vehicle, along with the stolen items.

A deputy told Cox they were initiating forfeiture proceedings on the 
truck, sparking a convoluted legal battle that pitted Cox against the state.

Cox, the suit says, was forced to pay a $304 filing fee for the right 
to defend her property and was told that, if she lost her fight, she 
also would be responsible for the state's attorney fees. She 
eventually gave up her efforts.

The complaint asks for nominal financial damages for Cox - the value 
of her truck. Moreover, the suit asks a federal judge to prohibit 
deputies from employing forfeiture laws so long as proceeds go to the 
agency and not a general fund.

The suit additionally highlights the fees required to defend seized 
property, and the attorney fees that defendants can be liable for, 
should they unsuccessfully pursue a claim.

Both are extremely rare in other court systems, plaintiff's attorneys say.

"Pinal County is very aggressive in its use and threats with the 
attorneys' fee provision," said Emma Andersson, an attorney with the 
ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project.

"Both in Rhonda's case and also in an e-mail from a different case, 
we see (Deputy) County Attorney Craig Cameron using that attorneys' 
fees provision, not just as it's written on its face but in an 
explicitly threatening way," she said.

Plaintiff's attorneys also are asking that deputies be prohibited 
from employing the forfeiture law as long as this system of court and 
attorney fees are in place.

According to the suit, the forfeiture money has paid for Voyles' 
personal security system, retirement contributions of employees in 
his office, as well as funding a private foundation that assists in 
fundraising for the Sheriff's Office.

Cabou said he believes Pinal is not the only government that abuses 
the system. He said he hopes the lawsuit sheds more scrutiny on the practice.

"The complaint discussion about one entity being both the prosecutor 
and the profiteer is at the heart of challenge," he said. "This 
system is inherently broken in a constitutional way."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom