NEW MEXICO — The unconstitutional procedure of civil forfeiture is being given special attention these days thanks to the Land of Enchantment. The New Mexico legislature passed H.B. 560 to limit civil forfeitures in their State. Governor Susana Martinez, however, has yet to sign it into law. The organization Freedom Works is concerned about the delay.
Recently Eric Holder announced new rules actually restricting civil forfeiture.
According to the End Forfeiture web site, there is a distinct difference between civil and criminal forfeiture.
In a criminal forfeiture, as the name implies, forfeiture of assets occurs when one is convicted of a crime. The action is taken against a person which means the person is given all rights to a criminal trial and a lawyer if one can not be afforded. The burden of evidence is on the government.
In a civil asset forfeiture, “Civil forfeiture cases are in rem proceedings—meaning that they are technically brought against the property itself rather than its owner. This legal fiction means that police and prosecutors can take and sell your cash, cars, homes or other property without having to convict you or even charge you with any wrongdoing. Fighting back means having to pay for a lawyer yourself or go it alone. And instead of the government having to prove your guilt, under civil forfeiture you must prove your innocence. It is an upside-down world that where the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.”
The classic example used is the IRS. If you deposit $10,000 or more regularly, that is reported to the IRS. If one starts depositing just less than that amount, the IRS assumes that you are guilty of attempting to hide something and acts to seize all of your assets. There may be no criminal charges brought against the person, but the burden of evidence is on the person to to prove their innocence. That may require lawyers fees more than the assets are worth, thus allowing the government to keep the seized assets.
The new rules by Eric Holder would require government authorities to act only on probable cause that the funds were generated by illegal activity or planned to be used in future criminal activity. In addition, if the activity does not prove to rise to the level to bring either civil or criminal trial, the agency must return assets in full.
This is a policy change, however, and can be changed by subsequent nominations to the position of Attorney General. This is just one example of why it is important for the Senate to select wisely. Freedom Works is not impressed with the civil asset forfeiture record of Loretta Lynch.
Action at the national level is not restricted to the office of the Attorney General. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has submitted S. 255 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 or the FAIR Act [H.R. 540 in the House submitted by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-7)].
The Senate bill would ensure that a person contesting civil forfeiture has legal representation and increase the burden of proof by the federal government to clear and convincing evidence of a criminal activity.
The act of civil access forfeiture violates not only the due process of the Fifth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in their effects.
Civil asset forfeiture is not restricted to federal abuse. State and local law enforcement agencies have been known to seize assets without due process. The Institute for Justice gave Arizona a grade of D in 2010 for the civil forfeiture procedures in the State.
The New Mexico legislation is being hailed as the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture in the history of the practice.
See Also:
1. New Mexico Nixes Civil Asset Forfeiture: Leviathan Can Be Defeated — Forbes
2. Arizona Earns “D” In “Policing for Profit” Report — Institute for Justice