A recent (6/8/15) editorial in the Livingston News visited the Michigan forfeiture laws which has become a hot topic lately.
The editorial goes on to say…
“When law enforcement agencies raid a suspected drug dealer’s home and confiscate property such as cars, money or other items, we understand this.
Police don’t want criminals to benefit from their illegal activity.
However, what happens if there is no conviction?
That property should and would be returned, one would think.
However, that’s not the case in Michigan, and we’re glad our state Legislature is working to reform civil asset forfeiture. The current forfeiture rules must be fixed because they allow police to confiscate items even if it’s determined there was no crime committed.
Michigan’s Civil Asset Forfeiture laws allow police to take property from citizens if they suspect a crime was committed, even when there is not enough evidence to charge them. Homeowners must then prove they did not purchase their property with proceeds from criminal activity and sue to get the property back.
In many cases, police raid a home where there clearly is no drug dealing happening; instead, residents are involved with medical marijuana, which voters stated is a legal use here in Michigan.
The following are a couple examples of how regular citizens were caught in the unjust web of forfeiture laws.
Gin Hency and Annette Shattuck describe themselves as soccer moms, active in their communities and in their children’s lives. Since July 2014, the St. Clair County women have shared another similarity: Both of their homes were raided by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force. Hency and Shattuck are registered medical marijuana caregivers. Among the things taken in the raid were their medical marijuana cards issued by the state, televisions, a bicycle and documents including driver’s licenses and insurance cards.
Another item reported taken was Hency’s vibrator (yes, a sex toy).
“It was devastating,” Shattuck said.
Hency and Shattuck were charged with marijuana-related counts several months after the raids. Three of the six charges against Shattuck were dismissed. Both charges against Hency were dismissed this month, but she has still been unable to reclaim her property.
Another example occurred with Thomas Williams, who was alone in November 2013 when police raided his rural St. Joseph County home wearing black masks, camouflage and holding guns at their sides. They broke down his front door with a battering ram.
“We think you’re dealing marijuana,” they told Williams, a 72-year-old, retired carpenter and cancer patient who is disabled and carries a medical marijuana card.
When he protested, they handcuffed him and left him on the living room floor as they ransacked his home, emptying drawers, rummaging through closets and surveying his grow room, where he was nourishing his 12 personal marijuana plants as allowed by law. Some had recently begun to die, so he had cloned them and had new seedlings, although they were not yet planted. That, police insisted, put him over the limit.
They did not charge Williams with a crime, though.
Instead, they took his Dodge Journey, $11,000 in cash from his home, his television, his cellphone and his shotgun — and are attempting to take his Colon Township home. And they plan to keep the proceeds, auctioning off the property and putting the cash in police coffers.
More than a year later, he is still fighting to get his belongings back and to hang on to his house.
“I want to ask them, ‘Why? Why me?’ I gave them no reason to do this to me,” said Williams, who says he also suffers from glaucoma, a damaged disc in his back, and COPD, a lung disorder. “I’m out here minding my own business, and just wanted to be left alone.”
We ask the same question: Why?
There’s no reason except that police have certain laws that allow for this type of forfeiture.
A bipartisan package of bills, approved by a House committee, would make changes including raising the standard for forfeiture to the highest in civil court, one of clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence. The bills would also require detailed reports from local police to the state police on property forfeited.
It’s a good first step, and we hope to see it approved so residents don’t have to worry about property getting taken when they’re broken no crimes.
— Livingston Daily Editorial Board
