Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Connecticut Just Banned Civil Forfeiture Without A Criminal Conviction
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instit ... without-a-criminal-conviction/
Published: Jul 15, 2017
Author: Nick Sibilla
Post Date: 2017-07-15 06:50:53 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 5261
Comments: 17
Under the new law, in order to permanently confiscate property with civil forfeiture, the property must be first seized in connection to either a lawful arrest or a lawful search that results in an arrest. If prosecutors do not secure a guilty verdict, a plea bargain or a dismissal from finishing a pretrial diversion program, the government must return the property to its rightful owner. With the stroke of a pen, Connecticut now becomes the 14th state to require a criminal conviction for most or all forfeiture cases. “Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on Americans’ private property rights,” Institute for Justice Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath said. “The bill is a solid first step to ensure that innocent people do not lose their property to this use of 17th Century admiralty law applied to the 21st Century war on drugs.” According to data obtained by the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation, police and prosecutors generated more than $17.8 million in forfeiture revenue from 2009 to 2016. Nearly two-thirds of those proceeds came from civil forfeiture cases, where the owner did not have to be convicted. Law enforcement predominantly confiscated cash, but also seized dirt bikes, gold chains, and electronics like iPads, TVs and cell phones. Although civil forfeiture is often defended as a way to stop large-scale drug cartels and criminal enterprises, in Connecticut, half of all civil forfeitures were under $570 in 2016. These small amounts suggest that many victims don’t have the means to fight back against a seizure in court. The state’s conviction requirement should protect many innocent Connecticutians. But even with the new safeguard, there are several glaring defects in Connecticut’s forfeiture laws. For starters, the state still allows police and prosecutors to collect 69.5 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property. That provides a strong incentive to seek cases with a hefty payout. Moreover, Connecticut agencies can spend forfeiture money without any public oversight or accounting, leaving both the public and lawmakers (who are supposed to control the power of the purse) completely in the dark. And unlike recent reforms in seven states, the bill does not address the federal equitable sharing program, which has long acted as a loophole to bypass state reforms. To curb the temptation to police for profit, lawmakers should look to Maine, which sends forfeiture proceeds away from police coffers and towards the general fund. And to hold law enforcement accountable, Connecticut should copy recent reforms enacted in Arizona and Colorado, which force agencies to detail their forfeiture expenditures, including for salaries, overtime, travel, victim compensation, and drug treatment. Both states also mandate regular audits of forfeiture accounts and penalize noncompliant agencies. Nevertheless, Connecticut’s new reform is an important step to curtail an constitutionally problematic practice. With the governor’s signature, Connecticut joins a growing, nationwide movement that has emerged in recent years to protect property rights from abusive seizures. Since 2014, the Constitution State is the 10th state to enact a conviction safeguard and the 24th state that tightened its forfeiture laws. “No one should lose their property unless they are first convicted of a crime,” McGrath added. “Along with our bipartisan coalition partners at the ACLU of Connecticut and the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, we will keep fighting until civil forfeiture in Connecticut is abolished, once and for all.” Poster Comment: "With the stroke of a pen, Connecticut now becomes the 14th state to require a criminal conviction for most or all forfeiture cases." 
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed HB 7146 on Monday, which curbs the state’s civil forfeiture laws. Not only did the bill earn endorsements from the Yankee Institute for the Public Policy and the state chapter of the ACLU, HB 7146 even passed both the House and the Senate without a single no vote.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)
So I rob a liquor store of $10,000. No cameras, no witness ID, no evidence. A few miles away I get pulled over for speeding and the cop sees the $10,000 in the back seat and I can't explain why I have it. Unless they charge AND convict me of the robbery it's all mine, free and clear.
So if you have $500 and can't prove on the spot where you got it, it's fine with you if Connecticut just seizes it? You really like the whole guilty-until-proven-innocent concept. You're un-American.
According to the article, half of all civil forfeitures were under $570. So it could be 5 bucks. Get pulled over, the cops asks you how much you got, you say $12.95, and the cop takes it under civil asset forfeiture. According to you.
To you, it's fine if they seize it whether it's $5, $500, $5000, $50000, etc. Is there any form of police abuse you actually object to? Even trying to discuss this stuff with you is like talking to a mentally ill person.
Well, I would set a practical lower limit. But if circumstances indicate that the money was acquired illegally, yeah, it's fine with me if they seize it. After all, that seizure is only temporary until the owner can show it's legally his. You know as well as I do that civil asset forfeiture has zero effect on legal owners. You're just pissed that these laws have the effect of getting some justice when there's not enough evidence to convict these scumbags of a crime. Next you'll be complaining that law enforcement is arresting more people for crimes in order to enact criminal asset forfeiture. Can you say, "unintended consequences"?
So, you wouldn't want to waste the time of the cops seizing people's properties without a conviction unless there was enough loot to justify the costumed bandits' time? I know no such thing and we have had endless stories on seizures of legit property and money. Then the owners have to fight in the courts to get it back because they were falsely accused.
I would phrase it differently, but yeah. "I know no such thing and we have had endless stories on seizures of legit property and money. Then the owners have to fight in the courts to get it back because they were falsely accused." I've read and commented on those endless stories. They're all similar to, "I borrowed $50,000 cash from a friend -- whose name I can't remember -- to buy a car from a guy -- whose name I also can't remember."
There are no replies to Comment # 11. End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
Although civil forfeiture is often defended as a way to stop large-scale drug cartels and criminal enterprises, in Connecticut, half of all civil forfeitures were under $570 in 2016. These small amounts suggest that many victims don’t have the means to fight back against a seizure in court.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
Get pulled over, the cops asks you how much you got, you say $12.95, and the cop takes it under civil asset forfeiture. According to you.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
To you, it's fine if they seize it whether it's $5, $500, $5000, $50000, etc.
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
Well, I would set a practical lower limit.
You know as well as I do that civil asset forfeiture has zero effect on legal owners.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#8)
(Edited)
So, you wouldn't want to waste the time of the cops seizing pe people's properties without a conviction unless there was enough loot to ju justify the costumed bandits' time?
Replies to Comment # 11.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]