Pubdate: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 Source: Washington Post (DC) Copyright: 2016 The Washington Post Company Contact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491 Author: Christopher Ingraham POLICE CAN STILL TAKE MOST PEOPLE'S PROPERTY ON SUSPICION Good news for Nebraska residents worried about state and local police taking their stuff when they haven't been convicted of any crime: They can't do it anymore. This week, Nebraska's Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, signed into law a bill that all but abolishes the practice of civil asset forfeiture in that state. Civil asset forfeiture allows authorities to seize cash and property from someone they suspect of committing a crime. In most states, and under federal law, authorities may get to keep the proceeds regardless of whether the person is ever convicted, or even charged, with a crime. But that's no longer the case in Nebraska. Now, authorities must obtain a criminal conviction before they can seize a person's belongings. Nebraska is just the 10th state to require this level of protection for property owners. In the 40 other states plus the District of Columbia, police can still take and keep an individual's property without a criminal conviction - and in many cases, without even charging someone with a crime. In six states- Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico-and-Vermont-changes to require conviction before forfeiture were passed just in the past two years, a sign of growing public unease with the practice. Advocates are hailing Nebraska's measure as a major victory. "Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on due process and private property rights in America today," said Lee McGrath, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm that represents forfeiture defendants. The decision to abolish forfeiture "will ensure that only convicted criminals - and not innocent Nebraskans-lose their property to forfeiture." One major reason that the practice may persist is that most Americans do not know that it happens. According to a 2015 Huffington Post/YouGov poll, three-quarters of Americans had not even heard of the term "civil asset forfeiture." So pollsters then asked a specific question: "To the best of your knowledge, when can law enforcement permanently seize money or other property from a person?" Forty percent of respondents thought property could be seized only after a conviction, and 12 percent said police could seize property after charging someone with a crime. Eighteen percent had no idea. Fewer than a third of Americans knew that police could seize and permanently keep a person's belongings without ever charging the person with wrongdoing. In Nebraska, reformers took their case to the public by highlighting particularly egregious cases of forfeiture abuse. In 2013, Nebraska sheriff 's deputies took more than $14,000 in church donations from a pastor at a traffic stop, according to the American Civil Liberties-Union of Nebraska. That money was later returned. In 2011, Nebraska officers seized more than $60,000 from an Air Force veteran after saying they smelled marijuana in his car. No drugs were found and no charges were filed, but the veteran's money was not returned. Even law enforcement officials, who are typically the staunchest opponents of changing forfeiture laws, offered some support for Nebraska's law. The Nebraska attorney general's office told the Lincoln Journal Star that the change was a "step forward." Police in Lincoln said that the law would "create additional work" but that they would comply with it. Nebraska's measure means that now more than 73 million Americans - nearly 23 percent of the U.S. population - live in states where police cannot take their cash without a conviction at trial. But for everyone else, a bad experience with civil asset forfeiture may be just a traffic stop away. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom