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.
The Justice Department recently announced that it is resuming the “equitable sharing” part of its civil asset forfeiture program, thus ending one of the major criminal justice reform victories of the Obama administration.
Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool by which police officers can seize and sell private property without a convicting the owner of any crime, and equitable sharing is a process by which state and local police can circumvent state restrictions on civil asset forfeiture and take property under the color of federal law.
It may sound like a scene from a dystopian novel, but under civil asset forfeiture, a police officer can pull you over, claim he smells marijuana, and then take all the cash you have — and maybe even your car, too. Getting your property back requires going through lengthy court procedures to prove that the property is “innocent.”
Back in December, after Congress enacted reductions to the Justice Department’s civil asset forfeiture fund by $1.2 billion, the Justice Department announced that the program was being deferred until further notice.
Criminal justice reform advocates hailed this as a major victory, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that it was “imperative” that the “decision to suspend the equitable sharing program be immediately reconsidered.” The Justice Department now says that “it was always our intent to resume payments as soon as it became financially feasible.
… And now, we are finally at a point where it is no longer necessary to continue the deferral.”
Over the past decade and a half, civil asset forfeiture has exploded, and federal incentives have played a large role in that transformation. Last year, American police seized more private property than actual thieves.
The Justice Department’s forfeiture fund has provided a huge financial boon to the federal government. The Institute for Justice notes that the federal government “took in nearly $29 billion from 2001 to 2014, and combined annual revenue grew 1,000 percent over the period.”
Because federal forfeiture policies allow local police to keep up to 80 percent of what they seize, abuses are rampant. When police are allowed to directly benefit from seizing assets, stark injustices can occur.
For example, an art gallery party in Detroit was raided in 2008 because the “gallery did not possess a proper license to hold such an event.” Police seized and impounded 44 vehicles parked on the adjacent street.
Outrage over this incident lead to Michigan officials passing a law to raise the evidentiary standard in state asset forfeiture proceedings. Now, to avoid the restrictions of that legislation, all local police will need to do is involve federal officials, entitling them to equitable sharing in the program.
Under the federal civil asset forfeiture program, state and local police are encouraged to join in federal drug investigations because their participation entitles them to a large portion of the seized assets — dispersed from the equitable fund.
While that may seem like good policy, without proper restraints it simply means the states are just as encouraged as the federal government to seize money from private citizens without just cause.
Through programs like granting clemency to nonviolent drug offenders, the Obama administration has made important strides in reigning in our oversized and overused criminal justice system. Resuming the equitable payment system is an unfortunate step in the wrong direction.
Trevor Burrus is a research fellow and Randal John Meyer is a legal associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.
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.
Innocence until proven guilty should also mean an individual isn’t punished until guilt is established in court. But in Michigan and other states, a suspect can lose property and cash without ever even being charged with a crime.
A package of bills voted unanimously out of committee would establish a higher threshold for civil forfeitures. But it should be toughened to require a conviction before property is taken.
A new report released jointly by the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland and the liberal Michigan ACLU clearly illustrates the problem with forfeitures. That the two often ideologically opposed organizations can find unity on this issue makes the case that reform is needed much stronger.
As the joint report notes, under criminal forfeiture property can’t be kept by government until the owner’s guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the standard is much lower for civil forfeitures. State law allows law enforcement to take property merely suspected of attached to an illegal activity, and without the defendant ever having his or her day in court. The requirement is only that there be a “preponderance of evidence” that a crime has been committed.
Consequently, many people have been forced to pay huge fines and fees to retrieve their possessions, even though they were never convicted or even charged with a crime.
“When the government can transfer property from citizens to the state without proving wrongdoing, there is clearly something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst with the Mackinac Center and co-author of the report. “The foundation of good government is private property rights and the rule of law — civil forfeiture violates both of these.”
A recent study from a national group, Fix Forfeiture, concluded Michigan’s forfeiture laws are among the most abusive in the country.
Local law enforcement agencies are using civil forfeiture to supplement their budgets and pay for specific programs. That provides a perverse incentive to seize property.
From 2009 to 2013, Michigan law enforcement agencies reported $123.5 million in drug-related forfeiture proceeds.
At least another $149 million was taken by Michigan law enforcement agencies from 2001 to 2008, an average of about $18 million per year.
That means more than $270 million has been seized from Michigan residents since 2001. Since these figures only include forfeitures related to drug crimes, the total value of property seized is likely far greater.
The pending Michigan bills raise the burden of proof standard for determining when property is seized to “clear and convincing evidence,” and requires police agencies to track and report seizures. That should result in fewer takings.
But they do not require a conviction before a seizure, and that is a major flaw that must be corrected. And they also allow agencies to continue the practice of using seizures to fund their operations.
Still, this package is a good start. Efforts should be made to improve the bills to better protect civil liberties.
Michigan police agencies seized some $23.9 million last year from suspected drug traffickers, according to a forfeiture report released by the Michigan State Police.
Subtracting costs and shares of assets paid out to partnering organizations, state law enforcement agencies netted $20.4 million, according to data disclosed last month in the Michigan State Police 2015 Asset Forfeiture Report. Those numbers are about even with what MSP declared in its report covering 2013, when $24.3 million in assets were seized, netting $20.2 million. In 2012, $26.5 million in assets were forfeited, with $22 million netted.
However, figures from Michigan’s drug asset forfeiture program, which focuses on the seizure of cash and property assets of drug traffickers obtained through illegal activity, may be undercounted.
Of the 686 law enforcement agencies in Michigan that were sent a Government Asset Forfeiture Report form, 56 agencies failed to respond (there is no penalty for not responding), said Shanon Banner, a spokeswoman with the Michigan State Police.
Of the responding agencies, 332 reported asset forfeitures and 298 reported none.
Not a single county prosecutor’s office of the 69 that filed reports with the state reported asset forfeitures; prosecutors in 14 of Michigan’s 83 counties did not file reports.
Prosecutors in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties did write reports, Banner said.
The vast majority of forfeitures proceeded via “administrative forfeiture” rather than the circuit court system.
Among local police agencies, 81 percent of cases were handled by administrative forfeiture. Among multijurisdictional task forces, the proportion of cases handled that way was 72 percent.
Some 70 percent of Michigan State Police forfeiture proceedings were handled this way, as were 85 percent of those initiated by the state’s 83 sheriff’s offices.
Victor Fitz, Cass County prosecutor and immediate past president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, explained the administrative asset forfeiture procedure: When property is seized, its owner is sent notice and can contest the seizure within 20 days. If that happens, the case proceeds through the circuit court system. If the owner fails to do so, he or she forfeits ownership to the seizing agency.
Asset forfeitures are a civil, not criminal, process, Fitz said, because the target is property, not an individual. That’s why property can be seized even when criminal charges are not filed.
“A lot of times, people don’t want to throw good money after bad” by pursuing a court hearing they will likely lose, Fitz said.
The current standard for asset forfeitures is “a preponderance of the evidence.”
But if the forfeiture reform passed unanimously by the Michigan Senate last week becomes law, that standard will shift to “clear and convincing evidence.” That is above a preponderance but below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required in criminal cases.
Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature is the last remaining hurdle to the measure becoming law, and he is “starting a thorough review before making a decision how to proceed,” spokesman Dave Murray said Friday.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan supports the Senate reform, Fitz said, along with its reporting requirements. A higher standard and additional transparency should ensure that seizures “remain viable” as a law enforcement tool, he said.
A move to a clear and convincing standard would be a “step in the right direction,” said defense attorney William Maze, who has worked dozens of asset forfeiture cases in Wayne County. But Maze said a better reform would be barring forfeiture proceedings until after a conviction has been obtained.
One of Maze’s clients was visiting a friend in Detroit when police came to serve a drug search warrant. Because the woman was present when the warrant was served, police swept her into the action and filed notice to seize her car. Maze was able to get the car back, but pointed to that example as an abuse of the forfeiture system.
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said his office works “hand in glove” with Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper in forfeiture matters.
The prosecutor’s office handles all sheriff’s office forfeiture cases in circuit court, and Bouchard said the offices take a conservative approach. He cited the case of an Oakland County business that was selling drugs, but also had legitimate business income. The sheriff’s office did not push for seizure of the business due to that legitimate income.
Bouchard was an advocate for the reform the Legislature passed. He believes the “clear and convincing evidence” standard demands a “tangible connection to criminality” that will lessen abuses.
“Being in the room doesn’t mean there’s a nexus” to illegal activity, Bouchard said.
In addition to the farm, police seized “cars, medical records, cameras, video recorders, computers, guns” and more. Though Ashley Duval was never charged with a crime, her father and brother were charged and convicted, and the authorities lumped their property together. Duval wrote of feeling hopeless in the face of a seizure that would be costly to fight.
“Asset forfeiture laws need to be completely redone,” Duval wrote. “That day (of the raid) was one of the most heartbreaking, brutal days ever, watching (police) take what they wanted and not being able to do a darn thing about it.”
In Macomb County, local police seized more than $2 million in 2014, down almost $700,000 from 2013. The county sheriff’s office seized $181,619 in assets, up almost $23,000 from the previous year.
In Oakland County, local police seized just less than $1.8 million in assets in 2014, up more than $345,000 from 2013. The sheriff’s office seized $393,845 in 2014, up $32,682 from 2013.
In Wayne County, local police seized $5 million in assets in 2014, down almost $1 million from 2013. The sheriff’s office seized $525,754 in assets, down $108,000 from the year before.
Paul Walton, chief assistant to Cooper in Oakland County, said a change in the burden of proof “would make no difference in the way we proceed” in forfeiture cases. Only specialists staff the office’s asset forfeiture unit. If it’s a business in danger of being seized, the office asks for records to see if there is legitimate income.
“We’re not in it for the money,” he said. “There’s always a proportionality argument” in forfeiture cases, Walton said, meaning that what’s seized is the proceeds of criminal behavior, not property taken on a hunch or because someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“That power is a pretty big sword to wield,” Walton said.
Westland — Marijuana and pizza may be a popular combination, but the state Court of Appeals ruled last week it isn’t enough to warrant police seizure of property.
The state appellate court overturned the forfeiture of a car after ruling the driver didn’t use the vehicle to buy marijuana found by police, but instead received the weed as a tip for delivering a pizza.
The 2-1 decision came down Thursday, a day after House Bill 4499, part of a seven-bill package seeking to reform the state’s forfeiture laws, was passed by the Michigan Senate, 38-0. The Michigan House of Representatives in June approved the measure 104-5.
The Westland case began with an April 2013 traffic stop, during which Westland police officer Robert Fruit found a gram of marijuana on the driver, Linda Ross.
“Linda worked as a delivery driver and had received the marijuana as a tip earlier in the day after delivering a pizza to a customer,” the State Court of Appeals decision said.
The 2007 Ford Focus was seized under civil forfeiture laws that allow authorities to confiscate property that’s used to commit crimes. Ross’ father, Steven Ross, hired attorney William Maze, who specializes in forfeiture cases, to fight the case.
“At a forfeiture trial, Fruit testified that Linda told him, upon her arrest, that she purchased the marijuana from a customer to whom she had delivered a pizza,” the appellate court decision said.
“However, Linda testified, and the trial court found credible, that she received the marijuana as a tip for delivering pizza and that she did not intend to go to the customer’s house in order to purchase the marijuana.”
Maze said: “The question in this case was, did she use the car to purchase marijuana? If not, then they can’t seize the car. Possession of a drug isn’t enough.”
While Wayne Circuit Judge Robert Colombo agreed with Maze’s contention that mere possession of marijuana isn’t enough to warrant a seizure, the judge ruled Ross’ vehicle was used for the purpose of receiving the drug, and, thus, subject to forfeiture.
Appellate judges Michael F. Gadola and Jane M. Beckering overturned the lower court’s decision, with Judge Kathleen Jenson dissenting.
“Despite Linda’s testimony that she sometimes received marijuana as a tip from various customers, there was no evidence that she expected to receive it on this particular occasion, that this particular customer had given her marijuana before, or that she was motivated to go to the customer’s house by anything other than a delivery call,” the appeals court said.
“According to plaintiff and the trial court’s perspective, the fact that ‘the car was used to receive marijuana’ because marijuana was placed into it established — on its own — that Linda used the vehicle for the purpose of receiving marijuana. By that logic, a vehicle would be subject to forfeiture in all cases of mere possession.”
Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Maria Miller said: “We are in the process of determining whether we will appeal this or not.”
However, that figure is likely low, since 56 agencies failed to respond to a Government Asset Forfeiture Report Form. Of the agencies that did respond, 332 reported asset forfeitures and 298 reported none.
Police are not required to file an annual report with the state detailing their forfeitures, although the proposed laws, which are awaiting Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature, would make it mandatory.
Bill 4499 would increase the burden of proof required to forfeit property in drug and public nuisance cases. Instead of the current threshold of “preponderance of the evidence,” the law would require “clear and convincing” evidence that the forfeited property was used to commit a crime.”
Trying to understand why prosecutors in St. Clair County, Michigan, suddenly decided to drop their case against Ginnifer Hency, a medical marijuana patient and caregiver, and return the property that police seized from her home, I obtained several court documents from Shyler Engel, her appellate attorney.
The documents clarify why prosecutors decided to charge her in the first place, why a judge dismissed the charges, and why the prosecutors appealed that decision. But their avowed reason for withdrawing that appeal—a recent ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)—makes even less sense in light of these details.
Hency was caught up in a raid of the DNA Wellness Center in Kimball Township by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force on July 28, 2014. Police found six ounces of marijuana in her backpack, which was well within the 15-ounce legal limit for her and the five patients she assists.
But a sheriff’s deputy reported that Hency told him she planned to swap the marijuana with another registered caregiver, Dale Shattuck, for the same amount of a different strain that was more suitable for her patients. The alleged plan for a swap that never actually happened was the basis for accusing her of possession with intent to deliver, since the MMMA does not explicity allow caregiver-to-caregiver transfers of marijuana.
On May 18, after four days of hearings, District Judge David Nicholson dismissed the charges against Hency, concluding that any violation of the law was “de minimis”:
There is sufficient evidence to believe that [Hency] intended to deliver the six ounces of marijuana she had in her backpack…in exchange for a like amount to be delivered to her by Dale Shattuck. There is no evidence that would be admissible against Dale Shattuck that he knew of Hency’s intentions or that he participated in any plan to make such a swap. The court is of the opinion that the violation is de minimis. The sequence would be as follows: Two people each have legal possession of six ounces of marijuana. They trade those amounts so that each now possesses six ounces of marijuana, an amount that would be legally held based on caregiver cards each held and the patient cards assigned to each of them. While arguably the act of exchanging the amounts held would constitute a delivery, the court is of the opinion that under these conditions the mutual delivery was not a change in position such as there would be in an exchange of an amount of marijuana for money or any other tangible asset.
On June 19, St. Clair County Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Amy Stover appealed Nicholson’s decision, arguing that it was an “abuse of discretion.” Engel and Michael Komorn, Hency’s trial lawyer, responded on July 7, arguing that Stover was applying the wrong standard of review. Nicholson’s decision should be reversed only if it was “clear error,” they said, and it wasn’t:
The record reflects that [Hency], if she had even made the statement regarding the exchange, was going to exchange the strain of marijuana for a different strain of marijuana for her registered qualifying patients. Accordingly, she was engaged in medical use under the Act, and her actions were protected. Should the MMMA not specifically permit a delivery or transfer to a non registered and qualifying patient, but it was for the benefit of the registered qualifying patients, then that violation of the MMMA is de minimis.
In her August 4 motion to withdraw her office’s appeal, Stover cited the Michigan Supreme Court’s July 27 decision in People v. Hartwick and People v. Tuttle. But it’s not clear how that decision affected the prosecution’s chances of winning its appeal or prevailing at trial. The ruling dealt with three main issues: a patient/caregiver’s right to a pretrial immunity hearing, the impact of prohibited conduct on the legal status of marijuana-related activities that would otherwise be permitted, and the affirmative defense that is available to unregistered as well as registered patients and caregivers. But the court did not change the criteria for immunity, which are spelled out in the MMMA, and it did not address the legality of caregiver-to-caregiver transfers.
Engel summarizes the sequence of events this way:
District Court judge offers cryptic opinion throwing out Hency’s case. Prosecutor appeals.
I write a reply. Prosecutor doesn’t respond to my brief on appeal. Prosecutor dismisses case first court date after my brief is filed. Between the time my reply is filed and the first date on appeal, Michigan Supreme Court publishes Hartwick/Tuttle. Prosecutor says it compels dismissal. No way.
Stover said her office was reassessing about 20 cases in light of Hartwick/Tuttle. If Hency’s case is any indication, the connection between the reassessment and the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision is pretty tenuous. It seems more likely that the negative publicity surrounding profit-driven raids of medical marijuana patients, which has led to serious talk of forfeiture reform in the state legislature, has encouraged local officials to de-escalate their crackdown.
