Pubdate: Tue, 08 Dec 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: Bill Montgomery
Note: Bill Montgomery is the Maricopa County Attorney.

ASSET FORFEITURE PROMOTES PUBLIC SAFETY

Paul Avelar and Keith Diggs earn an "F" for grossly distorting 
Arizona's civil forfeiture laws with a self-serving, special interest 
"national report card." ("Arizona must end 'policing for profit,' " 
Our Turn, Thursday).

Their critique conflates civil and criminal legal standards to make 
the preposterous claim that law enforcement can seize someone's 
property without due process and force a property owner to prove 
their innocence in order to get it back. If this were truly the case, 
courts would have struck down our forfeiture laws years ago.

Congress established civil asset forfeiture laws in the 1980s to 
remove financial incentives from criminal activity and return 
illegally obtained proceeds to victims and the community. In Arizona, 
asset forfeiture has been used to disable drug trafficking 
operations, shut down prostitution rings and pay back victims of 
large scale financial frauds.

Forfeiture proceeds are not "profit." They are ill-gotten gains that 
are recovered and used to fund community programs that address 
substance abuse, gang prevention, witness protection and prisoner 
re-entry. They also provide needed resources to law enforcement that 
otherwise would come out of taxpayer pockets.

Indeed, without asset forfeiture statutes, it's doubtful whether 
Arizona would currently enjoy the lowest rates of violent and 
property crime in decades.

Our forfeiture laws successfully balance individual property rights 
with the imperative to disrupt criminal activity. Property owners are 
given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard by a court, 
satisfying due process requirements.

They do not have to "prove their innocence," as Avelar and Diggs 
wrongly claim. The state must prove to a judge under the established 
rules of civil procedure that the property at issue was used or 
acquired during the commission of a crime for financial gain, also 
known as racketeering. Courts have clearly found that there are no 
property rights to proceeds from criminal activity.

Avelar and Diggs assert that forfeiture is somehow unjust because it 
does not require a criminal conviction. But under their notion of 
justice, a drug cartel courier would be able to simply claim he was 
unaware of the drugs and cash stashed in his truck to foil a criminal 
prosecution and prevent law enforcement from seizing the contraband 
and drug money.

Forfeiture is designed as a civil action precisely because it targets 
illegal activity in which a criminal conviction would either be 
impossible or ineffective in stopping criminal conduct.

Congress addressed many of the concerns raised by the Institute for 
Justice back in 2000 with the passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture 
Reform Act. And while there may be room for additional, reasonable 
reforms, it would be horribly misguided and potentially disastrous 
"simply to abolish forfeiture," as Avelar and Diggs suggest.

That would be a costly and dangerous step backward that would only 
benefit criminal organizations and those who defend them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom