Pubdate: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 Source: Orange County Register, The (CA) Copyright: 2016 The Orange County Register Contact: http://www.ocregister.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321 Author: Sal Rodriguez Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) DON'T MISS CHANCE TO REFORM ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS - AGAIN At least one barrier to asset forfeiture reform has been cleared, as a compromise has been reached between law enforcement groups and state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles. Last year, California seemed set to join a growing number of states in reforming civil asset forfeiture, a means by which law enforcement agencies can seize a person's assets without first obtaining a criminal conviction. As initially conceived, Senate Bill 443, bipartisan legislation authored by Sen. Mitchell and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, would have required a criminal conviction before assets in excess of $25,000 could be seized, granted a right to counsel for the indigent and authorized attorney's fees for those who successfully appeal forfeiture cases, among other requirements. The bill sailed through the state Senate, which approved the bill 38-1, with only Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, in opposition. Leyva, incidentally, represents Pomona, which happened to be a prolific user of asset forfeiture, yielding $14 million in revenue between 2006 and 2013, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. But backlash from law enforcement groups abruptly put to a halt to reform. Groups like the California District Attorneys Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association warned lawmakers against the bill. The CDAA argued that passage of SB 443 "will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers." The messaging worked, as the Assembly rejected the bill 44-24, with 12 members not voting. Nearly a year later, a deal has been reached to make it sufficiently palatable to the state's law enforcement lobby. Amendments were made on August 4 requiring a criminal conviction for seizures valued under $40,000. In cases where seized assets are valued at greater than $40,000, the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is used. "We believe those amendments strike an appropriate balance between addressing the due process concerns of the proponents of SB 443 and making sure that law enforcement retains an important tool to effectively combat large drug trafficking organizations," Sean Hoffman of the CDAA told me via email. The CDAA and the CSSA have dropped their opposition to the bill as a result of those changes. Though not quite what it was when initially proposed, the bill, fortunately, represents a much-needed step in the right direction and adds to existing protections under state law. In 1994, California approved Assembly Bill 114, requiring a conviction before assets up to $25,000 can be seized, and capping the amount of money law enforcement agencies may keep in order to reduce any incentive to focus on cases which might yield financial gain for law enforcement agencies. The reform, however, only applied to seizures undertaken by state and local law enforcement agencies operating within the boundaries of state law. For decades, law enforcement agencies in California circumvented state law by cooperating with federal law enforcement. Through what is called "equitable sharing," state and local police departments that engage in joint investigations with federal agencies have been able to keep up to 80 percent of assets seized, without the burden of having to wait for a criminal conviction. This has incentivized widespread participation in federal law enforcement operations, particularly anti-drug task forces. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, in 2013, California law enforcement agencies yielded nearly $100 million in revenue from federal cooperation, versus roughly $20 million in cases pursued under state law. SB 443 requires a conviction in federal cases before state and local agencies can cash in, and requires the state attorney general to collect information about such seizures. In the interest of justice, hopefully, California will finally do the right thing and adopt the reforms. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom