Rules on seizures:
Legislative proposal calls for higher proof standard
The Arizona Senate moves forward with a bill that would tighten the rules on how police can seize civil assets. The legislation would increase the reporting requirements for spending and require a higher standard of proof before police grab property.
The Arizona Senate has moved forward a bill that would reform the state’s controversial policies on civil-asset forfeiture, increasing the reporting requirements for spending and requiring a higher standard of proof before police can seize property.
HB 2477 was passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon. It has passed the Arizona House of Representatives and will need a final vote of approval in the Senate before going to Gov. Doug Ducey’s office.
The bill faced strong opposition from about half of those who testified, primarily people representing law-enforcement and prosecutors’ groups that benefit from the funds.
RICO, or anti-racketeering, laws allow law-enforcement officers to seize assets from those suspected of a crime. Once that property is forfeited, the proceeds are funneled back into police and prosecutors’ coffers.
The laws have recently come under fire from both Republicans and Democrats, as critics say the system leads to a “policing for profit” model. Further, officers can seize property based on just the suspicion of criminal activity, without a requirement of a conviction or even a charge.
In Arizona, those whose property is taken by the government are left with little recourse. Claimants who attempt to do so can be charged with the state’s costs of arguing the claim, regardless of whether they make their case.
Bill intended to prevent ‘abuses’
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, acknowledged on Thursday that the bill was at odds with his usual allies in law enforcement and county attorneys’ offices. He said the bill was not intended to “hamstring” police.
“What it is about is creating an environment where people facing this kind of forfeiture have some rights and some protections,” he said. “This is something that’s happening across the country because there have been abuses in the criminal asset-forfeiture arena.”
Pima and Pinal counties have faced recent inquiries into whether county officials misused such profits. Federal authorities recently launched a probe into Pinal County’s former Sheriff Paul Babeu and former County Attorney Lando Voyles, and a former chief deputy for the Pima County Sheriff’s Office was indicted last year.
Farnsworth said RICO laws have devolved from their initial intent, which was to target cartels and large criminal enterprises.
“Now it has been filtered down,” he said. “Now we’re seeing people who have an ounce of weed on their front seat and their car gets taken.”
Farnsworth said the bill was heavy on the front end, by ramping up reporting requirements for spending.
A recent report by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting found that nearly $200 million had been seized in Arizona in the past five years, but lax oversight makes it difficult to see where that money is spent.
Critics of the bill who spoke Thursday largely underscored certain portions of the legislation rather than opposing it outright.
Rebecca Baker, legislative liaison for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, criticized measures that would prevent “circumvention” of the laws by directing the funds to federal agencies, and that required county board of supervisors’ approval before using the money.
Baker said the former could affect joint partnerships with state and federal law enforcement. The latter, she said, would pose logistical difficulties.
“We cannot go to the board every time we want to spend some of those monies,” she said. “We would request that the sponsor consider an audit of those funds after the fact.”
Some of the critics also questioned the burden-of-proof measure, which would boost the standard for seizures from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”
Representatives from the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arizona Sheriffs Association opposed the bill as well.
Mark Dannels, Cochise County sheriff and president of the sheriffs’ association, took issue with the negative light some had cast on RICO laws. Dannels suggested that claims of excessive seizures had been exaggerated.
“A comment was made earlier about somebody who was stopped with an ounce of marijuana losing their house,” he said. “In my 33 years, I have never seen that.”
Instead, he said, local and federal authorities are “looking at those big people causing epidemics in our communities.”
$8,000 per forfeiture
The bill was strongly supported by criminal-justice reform advocates on both sides of the aisle, including the conservative group Right on Crime as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
Paul Avelar, a senior attorney in the Institute for Justice’s Arizona branch, directly disputed Dannels’ contention that seizures only targeted major criminal enterprises.
Avelar relayed data showing that the state, county and local agencies reported 3,968 completed forfeiture cases in their fiscal-year 2016 hedge report. He then compared that with the $33.5 million they collected that year through RICO, working out to a little more than $8,000 per forfeiture.
“That doesn’t sound like the big fish are the only ones getting fried through this system,” he said.
The bill must pass through the Senate Rules Committee and the Republican caucus before it goes to the floor.
“What it is about is creating an environment where people facing this kind of forfeiture have some rights and some protections.” REP. EDDIE FARNSWORTH R-GILBERT