Salt Lake Tribune – by Jessica Miller
A Utah lawmaker set a goal to remove any incentive any Utah police officer could have to unnecessarily take money from someone.
State law allows officers to seize property — even from people who are never charged, let alone convicted of a crime — under a process called civil asset forfeiture.
Concerned about the potential for abuse, Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, had hoped SB109 would put more safeguards in place.
But even the insinuation that an officer would improperly seize cash or items from a suspect brought a big backlash from Utah’s police agencies, where leaders argue the tool, used largely against drug dealers, is not abused.
At the end of the day, Utah’s laws aren’t going to change — at least not this year.
Yet, the public policy debate isn’t going away.
‘It’s highway robbery’
Police in Utah have taken millions of dollars in recent years under a law that allows officers to seize property and cash if they believe it is connected to criminal activity. In 2016, police seized $1.6 million in cash and property. In 2017, the last full year of data, police seized $2.5 million.
And officers don’t need to get a conviction to keep it — though the most recent state data shows 87 percent of the time, prosecutors do at least file criminal charges.
So far this year, police departments have filed court documents detailing 30 asset forfeiture cases, all in connection to suspected drug activity.
The smallest sum of money was $201, taken from a man stopped by a police officer for riding his bicycle at night without proper lighting. He had warrants for his arrest, so an officer searched him and found a few dozen prescription pills and six grams of methamphetamine. Officers took the man’s money, claiming in court papers that it was “believed to have facilitated the illegal possession or distribution of a controlled substance.”
The man has filed a handwritten response in court, saying the money had been withdrawn from his bank account a day earlier and was “legal and legitimate” income.
The biggest recent seizure was more than $90,000 that a Tooele officer took after pulling over a driver for a traffic infraction. A police dog “indicated” an odor of drugs in the vehicle. Police found no drugs — but did find bundles of cash.
The traffic stop happened more than four months ago, but prosecutors have never filed criminal charges against him. That motorist hired an attorney, Jim Bradshaw, to fight to get his money back. Bradshaw has argued in court papers that his client is an “innocent owner” whose rights were violated.
The Salt Lake City attorney said this man’s case was similar to many of his other clients: Out-of-state drivers who are pulled over for traffic infractions and are found to have large amounts of money — but no drugs — in their cars.
Bradshaw said there’s lots of reasons for people to be carrying large amounts of money, such as having cash to invest in a business or a restaurant. And sure, he said, there may be times when someone is driving to go buy marijuana.
But police aren’t supposed to just take the money, Bradshaw said. They’re supposed to be able to show how it is tied to some sort of crime. He argues that doesn’t always happen.
“It’s highway robbery,” he said. “It is. There are certain places on the road where you’re likely to get pulled over if you’re driving an out-of-state car, particularly a rental car.”
Critics, like Bradshaw, are concerned that Utah’s asset forfeiture law may allow police to seize items from innocent people who don’t have the resources to fight the government to get their property back. And some say Weiler’s bill would only have been a small step toward their goal of requiring a criminal conviction before police can keep the cash or property.
‘We as a state are being laughed at by cartels’
Police agencies that seize property are required to deposit cash or profits into a state account that doles out grants to law enforcement agencies.
But the rules are different in federal court. So if a Utah police agency brings a civil asset case there, the federal government gets a portion of the funds and the rest is given directly to the police agency that seized it.
Weiler’s bill would have done two things, both actions he said would help ensure police in Utah aren’t given extra incentives to take people’s property.
The first clarified in the state law that an agency can apply for those grants, even if the agency did not seize property from anyone that year. Currently, only agencies that seized assets can apply for the funds.
“That has a pay-to-play feel to it,” Weiler said.
The bill also would have required police to ask a state court judge for permission to move an asset forfeiture case to the federal system. This potential change was prompted by a Utah Supreme Court ruling where there was a question about whether the federal court can have jurisdiction over $500,000 seized by the Utah Highway Patrol during a 2016 traffic stop. The motorist in that case, Kyle Savely, had his money returned to him after the high court ruled in his favor.
But at a legislative committee hearing Friday, law enforcement officials came out in force to testify against Weiler’s bill. They called the accusation that there was a “pay-to-play” system in Utah offensive to their profession and a myth.
“It does not exist,” Ogden Police Chief Randy Watt said.
Most of the officers’ testimony was not specific to the changes that Weiler was proposing, but broadly defended the validity of asset forfeiture laws.
They said stripping criminals of money earned from drug-dealing or other crimes is important to stymie illegal activity. And the funding they receive from seizing that money, they say, is critical for task forces that target drug crimes.
Without that money, they say, officers won’t be able to work their cases as effectively.
Several police officers said Utah’s asset forfeiture laws are already lax — and coupled with criminal justice reforms in recent years, it’s made the state a more enticing place for big drug dealers to set up shop.
“We as a state are being laughed at by cartels,” said Orem Lt. BJ Robinson. “We hear them talking about it on our wires. We hear them talking about it in interviews. We hear it from confidential informants.”
And many of the officers said it’s only criminals who are being targeted by these practices, not innocent people.
“I’m concerned about the trajectory of where we are going,” said Brian Besser, assistant special agent in charge of Utah’s Drug Enforcement Administration office. “If we are seeking to incentivize criminals, then pass this bill.”
The House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee on Friday decided not to do that. But it didn’t reject the bill either. Instead, it opted to send the bill for further study over the next year — a move that was disappointing to Weiler and those advocating for change.
Connor Boyack, president of Libertas Institute, a libertarian think tank, said he felt the police’s opposition was based on “hysteria and drama.”
He said Weiler’s bill tried to update the laws to match the Utah Supreme Court ruling, and pointed to another recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that was critical of asset forfeiture practices.
Boyack promised that Friday’s vote wasn’t the end of this debate. More reform efforts, he said, will be coming.
“Law enforcement is on the losing side,” he said. “It is very clear where the momentum is headed.”
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/03/highway-robbery-or-way/
Poster Comment:
The biggest recent seizure was more than $90,000 that a Tooele officer took after pulling over a driver for a traffic infraction.
A police dog “indicated” an odor of drugs in the vehicle. Police found no drugs — but did find bundles of cash.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
What?! What?! I've never heard of this! I'm outraged! How can they do this?
I mean, aside from 300 years of legal precedent.
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 09:31:02 Reply Private Reply
#2: A K A Stone To: misterwhite (#1)
Bullshit.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-03-07 09:40:16 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
It “shows to go you” that people learn new things every day. Why Jessica just learned only 2 days ago that Utah state law allows officers to seize property.
And she is acting like this is breaking news.
Whew …
Gatlin posted on 2019-03-07 12:23:23 Reply Private Reply
#4: Gatlin To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#2)
I agree with you that 300 years of legal precedent is bullshit.
I believe it has only 299 years of legal precedent.
Gatlin posted on 2019-03-07 12:26:46 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: A K A Stone (#2)
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 14:14:21 Reply Private Reply
#6: Liberator To: misterwhite (#5)
Even from people who are never charged with any particular crime, let alone convicted of a crime??
Arbitrary theft of assets, liberty, and natural rights *should* deeply disturb any moral, ethical person.
Btw, please name the 300 years worth of historical entities and authorities who have confiscated assets.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 14:52:07 Reply Private Reply
#7: misterwhite To: Liberator (#6)
Correct. If they committed a crime, their assets would be seized under criminal asset forfeiture laws.
Civil asset forfeiture laws are directed at the property, not the individual, thus a lower standard of proof is required -- usually reasonable suspicion.
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 15:02:30 Reply Private Reply
#8: Liberator To: Deckard (#0)
IF this quote is to be attributed to Authoritahs and Politicians to justify their (illegal) asset and property seizure, maybe they ought to re-focus on building The Wall, deportations, and stopping thousands of drug cartel gangstas and millions illegals carte blanche from invading and plundering the USA to begin with.
These same criminal, oath-breaking globalist legislators are using this issue as a sledgehammer to quash the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans and steal the citizenry's wealth and liberties (while at the same time enriching themselves.)
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:03:35 Reply Private Reply
#9: Liberator To: misterwhite (#7)
Civil asset forfeiture laws are directed at the property, not the individual, thus a lower standard of proof is required -- usually reasonable suspicion.
Assets and property don't own themselves. PEOPLE own them.
The fact remains; Assets and properties which are seized BEFORE determining whether crimes were actually committed and BEFORE due process is itself CRIMINALITY and breaking the law.
Are you on record as supports confiscation BEFORE due process?
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:07:37 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: Liberator (#6)
Are you saying that our civil asset forfeiture laws are immoral and unethical, but you are willing to change your stance if I can supply enough historical entities and authorities who have confiscated assets? Really? Your convictions can be erased if I give enough examples?
If not, then giving you this list is a waste of my time.
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 15:07:41 Reply Private Reply
#11: Liberator To: misterwhite (#7)
"Reasonable suspicion" = Purely arbitrary determination = Stalinist
NOT. DUE. PROCESS.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:09:48 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: Liberator (#9)
Property is seized before due process.
Do you support locking people up in jail before due process?
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 15:10:12 Reply Private Reply
#13: Liberator To: misterwhite (#10)
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:10:25 Reply Private Reply
#14: Liberator To: misterwhite (#10)
You are ALREADY wasting my time, btw.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:14:01 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: Liberator (#11)
Correct. The property is temporarily seized if there is reasonable suspicion that the property was involved in a crime.
The property is not confiscated until a trial is held (due process) and the owner cannot show the property was acquired legally.
misterwhite posted on 2019-03-07 15:14:23 Reply Private Reply
#16: Liberator To: misterwhite (#10)
Lol -- you can't be serious.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:14:39 Reply Private Reply
#17: Liberator To: misterwhite (#15)
Again: Purely arbitrary determination = Stalinist
Do me a favor -- let's not have a circle-jerk argument here.
The property is not confiscated until a trial is held (due process) and the owner cannot show the property was acquired legally.
BUZZZZZ! FALSE!
Property is OFTEN conficated and seized well before any trial.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-07 15:16:21 Reply Private Reply
#18: GrandIsland To: Liberator (#11)
Due process starts a probable cause & reasonable suspicion... and ends with a jury of your peers. That’s for criminal charges against Americans... Criminal court actions require due process... but CIVIL asset forfeiture is not a “criminal” action... it’s CIVIL.
Thus, no “due process” is required. White is correct... that doesn’t mean you are wrong. States laws could be written to require criminal level due process for asset forfeiture... and your answer is solved.
Why is it that the bulk posters on this site, can’t find it within themselves to make the change they feel is right, through LEGISLATION? You do know, using the WALL for example, the libtards are doing what you are doing on this thread. Demanding change and ignoring immigration laws instead of CHANGING them the way it suits them.
Don’t be like a liberal.
GrandIsland posted on 2019-03-07 16:06:11 Reply Private Reply
#19: Liberator To: GrandIsland (#18)
HUH?? The "criminality".... is perpetrate BY THE STATE.
Moreover, isn't it true that "Forfeiture" by its very definition is the act of a power authorized to *confiscate* another's asset or property simply due to an inferred "criminal" or violation of law?
Tell me -- why should any confiscation of asset or property preclude any requisite for "due process" or proof-positive?
What if three MIB knocked on your door and proceeded to search for and confiscate your little toy collection? Based on, "We hoid dings." You gonna stop them?
Why is it that the bulk posters on this site, can’t find it within themselves to make the change they feel is right, through LEGISLATION?
So you actually still believe our elected congress-people vote IN OUR INTEREST?? Lol -- REALLY?? Are you paying attention to how our duly-elected reps are NOT voting on our wishes? And allowing the murder of babies, refusing to fund The Wall, etc -- while refusing to abide in their oath of office? SUGGESTION: Put down the Fairy Tale book and koolade and return to Kansas (DO NOT PASS GO.)
Don’t be like a liberal.
Wait a minute; You happen to concur WITH the same fascist "Liberals" and heavy-handed acts and policies you claim to disdain.
Btw -- Some of us are merely trying to support and uphold the letter of the USCON (which include the 4A.) Stop being a cop and join the fight; You no longer need to be bound to enforce bad laws and unfair policies.
Liberator posted on 2019-03-10 16:33:56 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: GrandIsland (#18)
Some folks conflate the two –while thinking there is only one – and take positions without understanding the differences.
You of course are correct in your statement that “no ‘due process’ is required” in civil asset forfeiture.
But you already knew that while others probably did not.
It is to be noted that civil asset forfeiture laws are evolving.
Gatlin posted on 2019-03-10 18:17:11 Reply Private Reply
#21: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#20)
Paultards, aren’t the best at critical thinking. They can’t sell their pro drug agenda without creating LE fear.
GrandIsland posted on 2019-03-10 19:31:10 Reply Private Reply
#22: Gatlin To: GrandIsland (#21)
That is so pathetically true and it evokes in me a trifle bit of pity, a little sympathetic sadness and a some sorry for these lost creatures.
Fortunately, that emotion only lasts for a split second before I break out in an almost uncontrollable laugh when I think how much fun you and I have kicking their asses with knowledge and truth.
Edit:
I just coined a new catch phrase.
“Truth through knowledge and experience."
Pretty good – Eh?
Gatlin posted on 2019-03-10 19:53:10 Reply Private Reply
#23: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#22)
Yes...spot on.
Too bad FTP doesn’t subscribe to that ideology
GrandIsland posted on 2019-03-10 20:28:35 Reply Private Reply