Ducey signs bill reforming police property seizure
Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill on Wednesday that rewrites large swathes of the state’s civil forfeiture laws and, in many cases, makes it more difficult for the government to keep seized property without a criminal conviction.
The governor’s signing comes five days after the Arizona Legislature sent House Bill 2810 to his desk. The bill amassed wide bipartisan support, having passed both chambers nearly unanimously.
In a letter addressed to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, Ducey said he signed HB 2810 to protect individual rights while still enforcing laws that protect Arizona.
“Currently, this civil process does not require a criminal conviction before a person’s property is forfeited to the state and there are many stories of
property being taken, forfeited, and sometimes sold without the person ever being subject to criminal prosecution,”
Ducey wrote.
The letter continues with Ducey saying that he has a constitutional responsibility to balance individual rights while giving law enforcement the support it needs to protect Arizona.
“H.B. 2810 provides this balance. And it ensures that law enforcement has the ability to seize property pending forfeiture or if the property is evidence of a crime. It ensures that property being taken is truly connected to criminal activity while innocent persons have the ability to get their property back.”
Maricopa County attorney had asked Ducey to veto bill
Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel wrote to Ducey on Friday urging him to veto the bill, claiming it would place Arizona at greater risk to drug cartels and human trafficking while allowing crime syndicates to run rampant, should it be passed into law.
“This bill reflects a gross misunder
Rep. Travis Grantham said the bill will still allow law enforcement to seize assets that are part of a crime or needed as evidence, but bars agencies from keeping money or property in perpetuity when those conditions haven’t been met.
standing of the role civil asset forfeiture plays in keeping our community safe,” Adel wrote. “Civil asset forfeiture is an important and powerful tool, used by law enforcement to efficiently interrupt the money supply of criminal enterprises and quickly recover property for victims of crime.”
Adel told The Arizona Republic she acknowledged the bill’s passage while indicating she might attempt to get new legislation passed next session.
“We respect the decision of the Governor to sign this legislation into law,” Adel said in a written statement. “We hope to have the opportunity to work with the Legislature next session to address some of the technical issues with the drafting of the statute.”
In his letter, Ducey said he’s confident law enforcement will still be able to protect the community.
“Arizona can stand strong in combating organized crime and criminal activity, without sacrificing the rights guaranteed under our Constitution for law abiding citizens,” Ducey wrote.
What the bill does
HB 2810’s primary sponsor, Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, previously told The Arizona Republic that he hopes the bill will prevent law enforcement from seizing assets on mere suspicion of criminal activity.
“I’m anxiously awaiting this practice to come to an end,” Grantham said shortly after the Legislature passed the bill. “Taking people’s belongings when they haven’t been convicted of a crime has got to stop. And it’s my hope that this bill, once signed by the governor, will do exactly that.”
The new law requires the government to return the property to its owner within 10 business days unless it met certain conditions, such as the property was being held as evidence or was illegal for the owner to possess. It also now bars law enforcement from coercing people into signing waiver forms — documents that, when signed by the owner, indicate the property in question isn’t theirs — and threatening to lock them up if they refused.
Grantham said the bill will still allow law enforcement to seize assets that are part of a crime or needed as evidence, but bars agencies from keeping money or property in perpetuity when those conditions haven’t been met.
He added that he refused to entertain proposed amendments that would weaken the bill, such as allowing law enforcement to coerce people into signing waiver forms.
Advocates laud bill’s passage
Advocacy groups that helped write the bill celebrated HB 2810’s passing on Wednesday.
The Goldwater Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Phoenix, posted a message from its president and CEO Victor Riches that said Arizona was in major need of reform.
“One of the most fundamental safeguards found in our Constitution is the guarantee that people are innocent until proven guilty,” Riches wrote. “Given forfeiture’s threat to due process and property rights, the passage of HB 2810 protects this central constitutional right and protects innocent Arizonans against overzealous government officials.”
Lauren Krisai, a senior policy analyst at the bipartisan Justice Action Network — which advocates on various criminal justice issues at the state and national level — also lauded Ducey’s signing.
“This is an historic moment for the due process and property rights in the state of Arizona,” Krisai wrote. “House Bill 2810 finally prohibits law enforcement from permanently taking property from innocent Arizonans never charged or convicted of a crime — an egregious process that has gone on for far too long in the state.”
Man who lost $39,500 to civil forfeiture in Phoenix has case in court
Jerry Johnson, a 45-year-old small-business owner who had flown from Charlotte, North Carolina, to purchase a truck for his shipping company, said a Phoenix police officer threatened to arrest him after arriving at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport if he didn’t sign a waiver form forfeiting the $39,500 in cash he had brought with him to purchase the truck at an auction.
Johnson tried and failed to reclaim the cash in Maricopa County Superior Court and is fighting the ruling in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
While Johnson is fighting to get his money back, many people were unable to afford to before HB 2810 became law.
Russ Richelsoph, a partner at Davis Miles McGuire Gardner PLLC, previously told The Republic that many people didn’t fight to get their property back because it’s often worth less than the legal fees it would take — which can amount to $10,000 or more — to challenge the government.
The system before HB 2810’s passage into law put the burden of proof on the claimant rather than on the government, meaning those impacted had to provide evidence the seized assets weren’t obtained through or involved in criminal activity. HB 2810 turns that around, instead requiring the government to prove otherwise.
Grantham said that while HB 2810 would prevent law enforcement from taking people’s property without a conviction nor using it as evidence, the new law is not retroactive, meaning it won’t impact cases such as Johnson’s.