Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jul 2015
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2015 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: EJ Montini
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

A NECESSARY LAW OR A 'RACKET' USED TO PROFIT FROM ARIZONA PROPERTY?

The wording in the complaint filed in federal court is blunt. "This 
racket has to stop," write attorneys from the ACLU, the ACLU of 
Arizona and the firm of Perkins Coie. They aim to shut down a 
statewide operation that each year confiscates millions of dollars in 
property from Arizona residents and keeps the money for itself. "We 
expect a fight," attorney Jean-Jacques Cabou said. "There is a lot at 
stake here for very powerful people." That's especially true knowing 
the people running this so-called "racket" are prosecutors and 
law-enforcement agencies.

The complaint claims that Arizona's civil asset forfeiture laws 
violate the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments and should be 
declared unconstitutional. That would be a good thing.

Going after the assets of bad guys is a worthy goal for prosecutors 
and cops. The problem in Arizona is that our law allows those 
agencies to keep the money. Which gives those agencies what the 
plaintiffs in the case call "an unconstitutional incentive."

In other words, the more of these cases they pursue, the more money 
they have to use for their agencies.

The plaintiff in this particular case is a woman named Rhonda Cox, 
whose truck was seized after Pinal County Sheriff's deputies arrested 
her son on suspicion of replacing the truck's hood and cover with stolen parts.

Her lawyers argue that "even though Rhonda was an innocent owner, she 
was denied the return of her truck."

The lawsuit names as defendants the Pinal County attorney and sheriff.

There are many people like Rhonda in Arizona. They're not drug lords 
or mob bosses. They have a tough time challenging the agencies that 
seize their possessions. First, because they don't have the money. 
Second, because the law threatens them with having to pay the state's 
attorney fees should they lose the case.

"The original purposes of these laws was to attack large-scale 
narcotics trafficking and other large-scale high-dollar racketeering 
activity," Cabou said. "What we now see is that a huge number of 
seizures are of a low dollar amount. And those people can't fight 
back. And in the aggregate it is a lot of money."

Prosecutors and police agencies have come to rely on forfeiture money

That's a very dicey situation. Particularly when the agencies 
involved get to keep the money and, as the lawsuit claims, use it for 
"everything from traditional law-enforcement equipment to office 
supplies, furniture, office refreshments and even toilets."

Also, handing out monetary gifts to local organizations. And even 
funneling funds into a foundation.

"I don't disagree with targeting the economic gains of criminal 
enterprises," Cabou said. "But there is something wrong with having a 
law-enforcement agency unilaterally appropriating a huge amount of 
money. Those are choices to be made by legislative policy makers."

There is also something wrong with policy makers too weak in the 
knees to assert their authority.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom