Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

Police Are Taking More Than Thieves-Legally

One of the most troubling recent scenes from Sacramento came as the California state legislature reached the end of its session. A simple bill that would rein in abuses of the civil-asset forfeiture processi.e., when police agencies take property from people, even if they’ve never been accused of a crimecame far short of passage after the law-enforcement lobby pulled out all the stops.

 

The final vote was about money, not justice.

 

Police organizations argued they would lose a significant amount of funding if a law passed requiring that they secure a conviction before taking property. They often take homes, cars and cash from people after claiming the property was used in the commission of a crime.

They need only prove the low standard of “probable cause.” (For instance, one Anaheim couple almost lost a $1.5 million commercial building after an undercover cop bought $37 in marijuana from a tenant, but the feds dropped that case after bad publicity.)

Created in the early days of the nation’s war on drugs, asset forfeiture was designed to grab the proceeds from drug kingpins. But most of the money now is grabbed from ordinary citizens. According to a study last year, about 80 percent of the time, seized property is taken from people who have never been charged with anything. That same study, by the Drug Policy Alliance, found wanton abuses in California cities. Police are not supposed to budget forfeiture proceeds, but they increasingly depend on the revenues to fund their operations.

The study also found “multiple instances of cash grabs by law enforcement being incentivized over deterring drug sales, wherein police wait until a drug sale concludes and then seize the cash proceeds of the sale rather than the drugs, as drugs must be destroyed and are of no monetary value to law enforcement.” It also found that some Los Angeles County cities “were found to be prioritizing asset forfeiture over general public safety concerns … .” In other words, police skew their policing strategies around these lucrative takings.

California’s law actually requires, in property seizures of more than $25,000, that the police agency gain a conviction and the legal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

California law-enforcement agencies don’t like that higher standard, so they circumvent the state law. They participate in something called “equitable sharing”—i.e., they invite the feds into their operation, take the property using the lower federal standard, and then split the loot.

A new national study by the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based civil-liberties group, gave California a “C+” in its civil-forfeiture laws. That leads to an obvious question: Given the terrible problems documented in California, how bad must things be in other states? Only seven states had better protections than California and the preponderance of states received “D” grades.

 


Have you been charged with a drug crime or violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act? Remain Silent and Contact Komorn Law Immediately to protect your rights and freedom 800-656-3557.

 


An economic consulting firm reported on data last week showing that the approximately $4.5 billion in annual forfeitures now exceeds the $3.9 billion Americans lose in robberies each year. The clear point: Your local police or sheriff’s department is more likely to take your stuff than a robber. The Institute for Justice report found the problem getting worse. “It’s exploding, despite the fact that the issue is getting a lot of attention,” said Dick Carpenter, one of the study’s authors. According to the report, forfeiture revenues have more than doubled between 2002 to 2013. California agencies collected approximately $280 million over the 11-year study periodand an additional $696 million by partnering with federal agencies.

These are big dollars to local police departments, which explains the arm-twisting and lobbying as that reform bill made it to the Assembly floor. Critics of asset forfeiture agree that agencies will lose money, but argue that the government is supposed to promote justice. Their agencies should be funded through general tax proceeds, not by grabbing the homes and cars of people who may not have done anything wrong.

The problem is the incentive. The agencies that do the taking get to keep lots of the money. How can we expect just results when agencies have such a strong financial incentive to take more and more property? In New Mexico, a video of a city attorney bragging that “this is a gold mine” helped build public support for wider-ranging reforms there. As a result, the Land of Enchantment received the highest grade on the Institute for Justice study.

Last year in California, SB 443 would have, among other things, prohibited “state or local law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency seeking adoption by the federal agency of the seized property.” Expect something like it to return next year. As abuses mount, maybe legislators will be more likely to think about justice and not just money.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

C.J. Ciaramella|9.18.18

C.J. Ciaramella|8.17.18

Scott Shackford|8.06.18

MORE ARTICLES BY Steven Greenhut

9.21.18 12:00 am

9.14.18 12:00 am

9.07.18 12:30 am

About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.

Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law

 

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

Michigan 2017 House Bill 4158 – Require conviction for property forfeiture

 

To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug crime is not subject to forfeiture unless the individual is actually convicted. The bill would also prohibit officials from requiring a person to negotiate for return of their property.

 

However, the conviction requirement would only apply to forfeitures of less than $50,000 (meaning police and prosecutors could still take and keep those assets using a lower burden of proof).

 

Introduced by Rep. Peter Lucido (R) on February 2, 2017

Passed 83 to 26 in the House on May 8, 2018. 

 

See Who Voted – Yes / No – below to establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug crime is not subject to forfeiture unless an individual is actually convicted. 

 

IN FAVOR

 

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Brinks (D) Byrd (D) Camilleri (D) Chang (D) Clemente (D)
Durhal (D) Ellison (D) Garrett (D) Gay-Dagnogo (D) Geiss (D)
Greig (D) Hammoud (D) Hertel (D) Hoadley (D) Jones (D)
LaGrand (D) Lasinski (D) Liberati (D) Moss (D) Pagan (D)
Peterson (D) Phelps (D) Rabhi (D) Robinson (D) Scott (D)
Singh (D) Sneller (D) Sowerby (D) Wittenberg (D) Zemke (D)

 

 HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Afendoulis (R) Albert (R) Alexander (R) Allor (R) Barrett (R)
Bellino (R) Bizon (R) Brann (R) Calley (R) Canfield (R)
Chatfield (R) Cole (R) Farrington (R) Frederick (R) Glenn (R)
Griffin (R) Hauck (R) Hernandez (R) Hoitenga (R) Hornberger (R)
Howell (R) Howrylak (R) Hughes (R) Iden (R) Inman (R)
Johnson (R) Kahle (R) Kelly (R) LaFave (R) Lauwers (R)
Leonard (R) Leutheuser (R) Lilly (R) Lower (R) Lucido (R)
Marino (R) McCready (R) Noble (R) Pagel (R) Reilly (R)
Rendon (R) Roberts (R) Runestad (R) Sheppard (R) Tedder (R)
Theis (R) VanderWall (R) VanSingel (R) Vaupel (R) Verheulen (R)
Wentworth (R) Whiteford (R) Yaroch (R)

 

AGAINST

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Cambensy (D) Chirkun (D) Cochran (D) Dianda (D) Elder (D)
Faris (D) Green (D) Greimel (D) Guerra (D) Kosowski (D)
Love (D) Neeley (D) Sabo (D) Santana (D) Yancey (D)
Yanez (D)

 

 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Cox (R) Crawford (R) Garcia (R) Graves (R) Kesto (R)
LaSata (R) Maturen (R) Miller (R) Victory (R) Webber (R)

 

Official Government Site


Michael Komorn is an advocate for Forfeiture Reform

 

 

 

See the Michigan House Judiciary Committee hearing on Asset Forfeiture legislation on HOUSE TELEVISION


About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.

Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law

ERAD – Is it real?

ERAD – Is it real?

I don’t know…But here is a story about it.  Your on your own to find the truth.  After the article there will be some links to other sites that will present the device in a different light.

Police Use Device to Strip Money from Drivers’ Debit Cards

Police officers are using a new technology, called ERAD machines, to siphon funds directly from drivers’ pre-paid cards in the course of ordinary traffic stops.

The tactic, which cops have deployed for months in states like Oklahoma, is a new twist in “civil forfeiture,” a controversial legal process that lets police seize funds from motorists if they suspect money is tied to a drug crime. Critics, however, liken the practice to banditry—noting the police use forfeiture to pay themselves, and that citizens must take extraordinary legal measures to get their money back.

The arrival of the handheld ERAD machines, which stands for Electronic Recovery and Access to Data, comes at a time when fewer people are carrying cash. They work by imitating the payment terminals found at ordinary retailers, and allowing cops to slurp up the values found on pre-paid cards for Visa (V, +1.40%) , Starbucks (SBUX, +0.80%) and so on.

For now, it appears the ERAD devices are only able to siphon funds from pre-paid cards, and not from a driver’s personal bank account or credit card.

According to Matt Miller, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, the advocacy group first became aware of the ERAD machines several months ago. Miller says law enforcement groups have been touting them as a way to seize funds from drug dealers, many of whom use pre-paid debit cards to move funds around.

Indeed, a recent press release from the Department of Homeland Security talks up the benefits of ERAD technology.

“[L]aw enforcement seized approximately 1,000 cards from a suspected drug trafficker. With this technology they were able to identify more than $48,000 in funds that were loaded onto the cards,” said the release. “Since it was put into field testing, the Prepaid Card Reader has resulted in approximately $1 million dollars being seized by state and local law enforcement agencies from suspected criminal activity. ”

The trouble, says Miller, is that drug dealers are far from the only ones who use pre-paid debit cards. He points out that a growing number of employers are using services such as Visa Payroll, which encourages them to pay workers through the cards.

Miller says that law enforcement typically offers an example of using ERAD in order to seize funds in the event a driver is found with a suspicious stack of 50 pre-paid Starbucks cards in the truck of a car. But in reality, the police may also be using it to suck up funds from a single card in a driver’s wallet.

“The tech seems to have come out of nowhere and there’s no oversight of this,” he said. “A whole lot of these cases are for forfeitures of $500 or $800.”

He adds that the overwhelming majority of the seizures result in default court judgments, often because people don’t have the means or will to fight the police in court.

Americans Stripped of Cash, Cars—and now Cards

The controversy over civil forfeiture soared to national attention in 2013, in part thanks to a scorching New Yorker article called “Taken” that described how certain police departments are effectively using traffic stops to rob citizens of cash. Comedian John Oliver also took up the subject in a widely-watched 2014 episode of Last Week Tonight.

Most of the incidents arise in so-called “forfeiture corridors” in states like Texas and Pennsylvania, where police officers confiscate cash from motorists, even though many of them were using the cash for legitimate small businesses or personal matters.

Typically, the police do not even bother filing a criminal drug charge, but instead just bring a forfeiture case to keep the cash. In the event the motorist who once held the cash wants to recover it, he or she is required to intervene in the case, the time and cost of retaining an attorney and attending court is often not a viable option. The cops win almost every time.

Civil liberties groups like the Institute for Justice have notched a few victories. In February, for instance, the group forced an Oklahoma Sheriff’s Department to return $53,000 it lifted from a Christian rock band during a stop over a broken tail-light.

While civil forfeiture raises numerous due process questions, a broad-based Constitutional victory has proved elusive, in part because governments have been quick to walk away from cases that come under close legal scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, which took steps last year to rein in a federal law encouraging the seizures, decided to backtrack in March and allow the forfeiture program to continue.

It will be interesting to see how many law enforcement agencies decide to make ERAD machines part of their day-to-day operations. While Oklahoma has acknowledged to using 16 of the devices, it’s unclear for now who else is using them.

Miller, the lawyer, says for now the privacy concerns are real, remarking, “You have a police officer with a scanner that might go into someone’s bank account. It raises red flags with due process and the fourth Amendment.”

By JEFF JOHN ROBERTS | June 9, 2016


ERAD GROUP

Officer.com

 

Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Ballot measures aim to limit police forfeitures

Orchard Lake and Sylvan Lake have two of the smallest police forces in Michigan, but voters there will be asked to curb their powers to confiscate property associated with crime.

 

Ballot measures in both communities would require a criminal conviction before police could pursue a civil forfeiture of property related to the crime. Any money seized from criminals also would have to be used to fund local road repairs, under the proposal.

 

Police across Michigan and around the country have used civil forfeiture to seize the assets of drug dealers and other criminals. Critics argue the standards are so lax that police can take property without ever charging its owner with a crime.

 

“It’s really counter to what the United States stands for, innocent until proven guilty,” said Scott Tillman, national field director for the Liberty Initiative Fund, a nonprofit group that claims as its mission “holding government accountable, fighting crony capitalism and protecting civil liberties.”

 

► VOTER GUIDE: See where candidates stand on issues important to Michigan

 

Tillman said he targeted the two communities not because of abuses there, but to raise awareness of the issue.

 

“Once people know about it, they have hard a time believing it happens in the U.S.,” he said.

Orchard Lake Mayor Norm Finkelstein said his city hasn’t pursued any civil forfeitures in recent years.

 

“If passed, it would be meaningless because it conflicts with state law,” Finkelstein said. “Forfeiture proceeds can only be used as the law allows.”

 

Tillman acknowledges that state law may prevent seized money from going toward road repairs, but said the rest of the proposal, especially the requirement of a criminal conviction, can stand.

Other ballot measures in Oakland County include:

 

Franklin Village: Voters are asked to approve a $15-million bond proposal for street repairs. It would cost the owner of a $200,000 home about $320 a year for a maximum of 15 years. Voters also face 10 ballot questions related to charter amendments, including one that would require a vote to connect to a municipal water system. One measure would amend the charter to say that the village records are subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, though that law already applies to all communities in Michigan.

 

Lake Orion Village: Voters are asked to approve a measure that would allow the village to levy up to 1.4 mills in additional taxes for police service. The measure would override the Headlee Amendment and would cost the owner of a $200,000 house about $140 per year.

 

Oxford Village: Voters are asked to amend the village charter to make all village records subject to disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. All municipal records are already subject to the FOIA, whether local charters acknowledge it or not.

 

Pontiac: Voters are asked to approved a 1.5-mill tax increase to fund youth centers. The measure would cost the owner of a $100,000 house about $75 annually.

 

Wixom: Voters are asked to approve a new 3.5-mill tax to fund police, fire, public works and parks and recreation. The tax would cost the owner of a $200,000 home $350 annually.

 

Contact John Wisely: 313-222-6825 or jwisely@freepress.com. On Twitter @jwisely.

Editorial: Court puts limit on police stealing

Editorial: Court puts limit on police stealing

A state court has broken up one of the biggest theft rings in Michigan.

 

The state Supreme Court should let the ruling stand and the Legislature should enshrine it in law.

 

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that a key provision of the civil forfeiture law violates the due process rights of defendants.

 

It is a welcome decision and long overdue. State and local law enforcement agencies use civil forfeiture to steal the property of people who not only are never convicted of a crime, but often are never even charged with one.

 

It is a perversion of justice that should have never passed constitutional muster.

 

The appellate court ruled in the case of Shantrese Kinnon, who was arrested along with her husband in Kent County on drug charges.

 

After searching the couple’s home, police seized several pieces of property, including an SUV, a pickup, a motorcycle, laptop computer and $400 in cash.

 

That’s become standard operating procedure for drug arrests. Officers move through a home like burglars, grabbing everything of significant value under the pretense they might have been purchased with the illegal gains from narcotics trafficking.

 

But the Kinnons were never convicted of the charges for which they were arrested, nor for any other crime.

 

And yet when Shantrese Kinnon challenged the property seizures and tried to get her vehicles and other valuables returned, she couldn’t because she was unable to post the required 10 percent bond.

 

In her case, that amounted to $2,000, which she didn’t have.

 

In most forfeiture cases, even if the person whose property was taken can post the bond, getting their stuff back can still cost hundreds or thousands of dollars because it most often requires hiring an attorney and paying other fees.

 

So in effect they are being punished without being convicted. Often, defendants choose to let police have their belongings rather than go through the long and expensive process of getting it back.

 

It’s a lucrative scheme for law enforcement agencies. A report from the Michigan State Police found that in 2014 forfeitures netted police departments $24 million.

 

And they get to keep it all. For most departments, revenue from property seizures makes up a significant part of their budgets.

 

That creates a perverse incentive for agencies to grab as much property as they can, and do everything possible to hang onto it, even bargaining with defendants to drop charges in exchange for their seized assets.

 

Forfeiture is legalized theft, and should not be part of a legal system that purports to value justice.

 

If a defendant is convicted of a crime and prosecutors can make the case that the proceeds of the illegal activity were used to purchase property, an argument can be made for seizure. But that should come only after conviction.

 

Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, has introduced a bill to eliminate the bond requirement on forfeiture challenges. That’s a good first step.

 

The Legislature should pass broader reforms that get police entirely out of the business of stealing other people’s property.

 

11:25 p.m. EDT August 23, 2016

 

 

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected.  Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

 

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation at 800-656-3557.

 

www.komornlaw.com