Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Indianapolis Cops Violated the Constitution by Holding Cars for Six Months Without Filing Forfeiture Paperwork
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/22/ ... is-cops-cant-hold-cars-for-six
Published: Aug 22, 2017
Author: Eric Boehm
Post Date: 2017-08-23 07:16:01 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 990
Comments: 1
A federal judge in Indiana issued a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture abuse on Monday, ruling that the Indianapolis Metro Police Department may no longer hold vehicles for up to six months before deciding whether to file official forfeiture paperwork. Using asset forfeiture, police departments and federal law enforcement are often able to seize property—including cars, homes, cash, jewelry, and other valuables—if they say the property was used in a crime or was purchased with drug money. Though cops claim that forfeiture helps them target drug cartels and other big-time criminals, it is often used to seize small amounts of cash and often targets poor communities where people are less likely to have the resources to regain their assets through the legal system. While police across the country can seize property without first getting a conviction, Indiana law lets cops go even further. They are allowed to seize vehicles and hold them for up to six months without even having to file forfeiture paperwork, leaving individuals who had their vehicles seized with no legal recourse whatsoever for long periods of time. The case decided Monday was a class action lawsuit challenging those seizures, which plaintiffs said violated their right to due process, according to The Indianapolis Star. "The Court concludes that the statutory provisions allowing for the seizure and retention of vehicles without providing an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation are unconstitutional," U.S. District Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled. According to Justice Department data cited by the Star, Indiana State Police seized more than $2.2 million in personal property in 2014. The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) seized roughly $48,022 in personal property that same year. Monday's ruling only applies to vehicles seized by the IMPD, but further reforms to Indiana's civil asset forfeiture laws are working their way through the state legislature. In March, the state Senate passed a bill to require a criminal conviction before police could seize property through forfeiture. The bill would also require "clear and convincing evidence" that the property in question was used in a crime or purchased with the proceeds of a crime, effectively raising the legal standard that cops would have to meet when filing forfeiture actions. Those reforms, if passed into law, would put Indiana near the forefront of asset forfeiture reform. Ten bills dealing with forfeiture were introduced during the 2017 session, but only one passed both chambers this year. That one calls for an interim study committee to examine Indiana's civil forfeiture laws and recommend changes. A separate lawsuit challenging Indiana's forfeiture laws was filed in February by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm. In that suit, the plaintiffs say law enforcement groups must stop using forfeiture funds in their own budgets, citing the fact that the Indiana state constitution says "all forfeitures" must be committed to the state's school fund. Police and prosecutors say they use forfeited funds only to cover expenses, but the suit contends that local prosecutors have cut deals with cops to keep the proceeds of forfeiture actions. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The Order states, "Mr. Washington was ultimately arrested and charged with, among other offenses, dealing in marijuana." The Court stated that the government may hold cars but it must provide an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation. For the lack of such opportunity for the drug dealer to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation of his vehicle, the Indiana law was unconstitutional. Add the opportunity for the drug dealer to challenged the pre-forfeiture deprivation and, legally, all will be well with the Indiana law. The Court stated, Mr. Washington did "not seek a declaration that the Government may not hold vehicles, pending seizure proceedings. Instead, he seeks the opportunity to challenge the propriety of the continued deprivation." The Court stated, And the Court stated, - - - - - - - - - - https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Indiana.pdf LEROY WASHINGTON on his own behalf, and on behalf of a Class of those similarly situated, No. 1:16-cv-02980-JMS-DML ORDER [...] c. The Government’s Interest The final Mathews factor evaluates “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335. The Government has a strong interest in ensuring that vehicles subject to seizure are not removed to another jurisdiction, concealed, or destroyed prior to the forfeiture proceedings. [Filing No. 40 at 9.] Defendants point to Calero-Toledo as dictating the outcome in this case, arguing that the risk of losing the subject vehicles is too great to justify the provision of any procedural safeguards. The Court, however, reiterates that Mr. Washington does not seek a declaration that the Government may not hold vehicles, pending seizure proceedings. Instead, he seeks the opportunity to challenge the propriety of the continued deprivation. First, as the Krimstock court explained, “[t]he critical difference between Calero–Toledo and the present case is that plaintiffs’ vehicles have already been seized and are in the hands of the police. Just as with real property seized by the government in forfeiture proceedings, there is no danger that these vehicles will abscond.” Krimstock, 306 F.3d at 65. Second, Mr. Washington, like the plaintiffs in Krimstock, seeks a determination “only of whether continued retention” of his vehicle “is valid and justified.” Id. In some cases, of course, continued retention will be justified due to the risk that an individual would attempt to conceal or abscond with the vehicle. However, “[c]ontinued retention may be unjustified when other means of restraint would accomplish the City’s goals.” Id. (citing Good Real Property, 510 U.S. at 59). In many cases, the Government may well have “various means, short of seizure, to protect its legitimate interests in forfeitable property,” such as requiring a claimant to post a bond, “or a court could issue a restraining order to prohibit the sale or destruction of the vehicle.” Krimstock, 306 F.3d at 65. As the Krimstock court concluded, “[t]he need to prevent forfeitable property from being sold or destroyed during the pendency of proceedings does not necessarily justify continued retention of all vehicles when other means of accomplishing those goals are available.” Id. The Court acknowledges that requiring a post-seizure hearing would impose an additional administrative burden, but as the Court noted in Smith, due process always imposes some burden on governmental actors. See Smith, 524 F.3d at 838. And the government already has experience with conducting post-arrest probable-cause hearings. For example, when an individual is arrested (a seizure of a different variety) without a warrant, a probable cause hearing must take place following the arrest. See Ind. Code § 35-33-7-2(a) (providing that when a person has been arrested without a warrant, “the facts upon which the arrest was made shall be submitted to the judicial officer, ex parte, in a probable cause affidavit”). [...] For reasons already discussed, the Court concludes that the statutory provisions allowing for the seizure and retention of vehicles without providing an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation are unconstitutional. The Court need not “rewrite” the statute in order to enjoin Defendants from enforcing an unconstitutional state statute. See Buquer v.City of Indianapolis, 2013 WL 1332158, *16 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (enjoining enforcement of Indianastatute held to violate the Fourth Amendment). The Court is mindful that the drafting of forfeiture laws is the responsibility of the Indiana General Assembly, and this Court will not attempt a constitutional rewrite of the statute.8 But it is this Court’s responsibility to adjudicate the constitutionality of a law when properly presented with the question.
Indianapolis Cops Violated the Constitution by Holding Cars for Six Months Without Filing Forfeiture Paperwork
Mr. Washington ... seeks a determination “only of whether continued retention” of his vehicle “is valid and justified.” Id. In some cases, of course, continued retention will be justified due to the risk that an individual would attempt to conceal or abscond with the vehicle. However, “[c]ontinued retention may be unjustified when other means of restraint would accomplish the City’s goals.”
For reasons already discussed, the Court concludes that the statutory provisions allowing for the seizure and retention of vehicles without providing an opportunity for an individual to challenge the pre-forfeiture deprivation are unconstitutional.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR,
MAYOR OF THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS/MARION COUNTY,
CHIEF OF THE INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]