Pubdate: Fri, 20 May 2016
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.utsandiego.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Note: Seldom prints LTEs from outside it's circulation area.
Author: Jeff McDonald
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

BILL WOULD REWRITE ASSET-SEIZURE RULES

Days Officials Would Have to Notify Property Owners of Seizure

A bipartisan group of federal lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday 
that would rewrite the rules on civil asset forfeiture, the federal 
program that allows police officers and sheriff's deputies to seize 
cash and property from people who have not been arrested or convicted.

Thirteen members of Congress joined to sponsor the legislation, which 
they called the Due Process Act of 2016.

"Civil forfeiture remains one of the greatest assaults to property 
rights and due process in America today," said Rep. Darrell Issa, 
R-Vista, one of the representatives to co-introduce the bill. "What 
was once intended to ensure drug dealers couldn't keep the fruits of 
their illegal activities has now become grossly misused."

Under existing federal law, local law enforcement agencies can 
confiscate houses, cars, boats, aircraft, cash and other property if 
they suspect the assets were obtained through criminal activity. The 
law does not require that suspects be convicted or even charged with a crime.

After the property is seized, local police and sheriff's departments 
are entitled to retain a percentage of the proceeds and spend the 
money on virtually any law enforcement-related expense they see fit.

When the program was established in the early 1980s, it generated 
about $100 million in seized assets. By 2012, local law enforcers 
seized more than $4.5 billion in assets.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego police and San 
Diego District Attorney's Office are the three largest participants 
in the civil asset-forfeiture program in California, as measured by 
the number of cases they participated in between 2001 and 2014.

Combined, the three agencies collected more than $15 million to boost 
their annual budgets, according to a study released this week by the 
American Civil Liberties Union.

The bill, backed by 10 Republicans and three Democrats, would cut the 
amount of time the government has to notify property owners that 
their assets have been formally seized to 30 days from the current 60.

It would also make it easier for property owners to contest seizures 
by giving them more time to respond, providing the opportunity for a 
hearing before a magistrate judge and guaranteeing them the right to 
a lawyer if they cannot afford one.

The law would also increase the burden of proof on law enforcers who 
want to confiscate property from "a preponderance of evidence" to 
"clear and convincing" and allow for recovery of attorney's fees in 
certain cases.

"Though there are still issues to be addressed, the legislation we're 
putting forward today is a great starting point for a conversation on 
how we're going to stop these abuses," Issa said.

Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, is the only other California 
delegate to co-sponsor the bill.

San Diego attorney Richard Barnett has built his practice defending 
people who had their assets confiscated without ever being charged 
with a crime. He said the legislation sounded like a step in the 
right direction.

"The right to a hearing early in proceedings to determine whether 
there is probable cause for the seizure of property is very 
significant," he said. "Under the current law, you don't have a 
chance to test whether the government had probable cause until the 
summary judgment of the case. At best, that's not happening until six 
or nine months after the property has been seized."

Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, the ACLU of California policy director, said 
Congress should reform the federal civil asset forfeiture law, but 
she also said state lawmakers should pass a state bill that would 
prevent California police and sheriffs from seizing assets without a 
criminal conviction.

"California cannot and must not wait for that," she said. "Assembly 
members should support SB 443 now to protect Californians from this 
outrageous practice."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom