In Michigan last year, 956 people who were never charged with or convicted of a crime nevertheless lost property to law enforcement and other agencies, based on suspicions that the property may have been connected to an alleged crime.
Those 956 individuals represent roughly 14 percent of the 6,666 people in Michigan whose property was taken from them by the government under a process called civil asset forfeiture.
Of those 956 individuals, 736 were never charged with a violation for which asset forfeitures are authorized, and 220 were charged but not convicted. A further 228 individuals who cooperated with or assisted law enforcement to avoid criminal charges still had assets forfeited to the government.
The law enforcement agencies involved in forfeiture proceedings collected more than $13.1 million worth of property in 2017, of which $11.8 million was cash. In 2016, a total of $15.2 million in cash and property was forfeited to agencies.
These figures come from a report compiled by the Michigan State Police. Under a 2015 law, local agencies must send data on forfeiture to the department, which, in turn, must produce a report that it then publishes on the internet. Advocates of reforming the practice of civil asset forfeiture considered it a preliminary step.
Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, co-authored a report with the ACLU on civil asset forfeiture in Michigan.
“Michigan has been making progress over the past few years to do a better job protecting innocent people from forfeiture, by raising the standard of evidence and increasing transparency. But as this report shows, there’s a lot of work to do. More than 3,500 people in Michigan had the government take ownership of their property in 2017 without being convicted of a crime, and nearly 1,000 of them weren’t charged with a crime or were charged and found innocent. This should not happen.”
Skorup’s reference to 3,500 people who had their assets forfeited without being convicted of a crime in 2017 includes 2,368 people who were charged with a violation with charges still pending.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. Say I would like to speak to my lawyer and Contact Komorn Law Immediately 800-656-3557.
Nearly 1,000 People Not Charged or Found Not Guilty Lost Their Property Through Forfeiture
Even if you aren’t convicted of a crime, you may lose your home
Michigan law enforcement agencies took ownership of $11.8 million in cash and $1.3 million in property seized from individuals in 2017, through a legal process called civil asset forfeiture. The figures were obtained from an annual forfeiture report and responses to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The typical forfeiture involved assets – typically cars and cash – worth less than $500.
The forfeited property included eight homes, 711 weapons and 7,999 vehicles, according to the information obtained from Michigan law enforcement.
Forfeiture is the process of transferring assets to the government. The assets are first seized by police because they think the items may be connected to illegal activity. An important distinction in the process is that seizure is done by police while forfeiture is processed by prosecutors. In Michigan, no conviction, prosecution or even a formal arrest is required for officials to pursue forfeiture.
Out of the 6,666 forfeiture actions in 2017, 736 were never charged with a violation and 220 were charged but not convicted. There were 2,876 people who were charged and convicted, meaning that 57 percent of the people were not convicted before losing their assets.
“Before locking someone up permanently, our laws and Constitution require they be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Jarrett Skorup, who co-authored a 2015 report on civil forfeiture with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “In the same way, nobody should permanently lose their assets unless they are first convicted in criminal court and it is determined that the assets were gained through illegal activity.”
Nearly 75 percent of the forfeiture petitions that prosecutors filed in 2017 to retain seized property never went to trial because the property owner did not contest the claim. Eighty percent of assets taken were valued at $1,000 or less.
“This comprehensive report from law enforcement agencies across Michigan shows why Michigan needs to require a criminal conviction prior to taking ownership of anyone’s property,” Skorup said. “While most police and prosecutor offices are acting properly, because of poor state laws, nearly 1,000 people lost their assets despite never being charged with criminal activity or being found not guilty in court.”
Skorup said that the law encourages police officers to seize assets and pursue forfeiture whenever possible because doing so gives their agencies money they can use to pay for equipment, personnel and supplies.
Dave Hiller, executive director of the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, takes a different stand on civil forfeiture. He said that it is a vital tool for law enforcement.
“It must be done properly, first of all, to assure due process is followed and additionally to eliminate any questions of impropriety,” Hiller said. “A law enforcement agency should work with the local prosecutor to ensure things are done the way the law is intended.”
Hiller said that in certain cases, civil forfeiture has a greater impact on criminals than criminal charges do. The Michigan FOP is, he said, open to improving the law to address due process concerns.
Michigan requires that police demonstrate “clear and convincing” evidence that an asset is linked to a crime for a police officer to be justified in taking it. But criminal convictions require a higher standard of proof, which is that prosecutors must prove someone committed a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that an individual may lose the assets that police seize even if there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction.
The Michigan House has passed a bill that would require a criminal conviction for most cases of civil asset forfeiture. But House Bill 4158 has not been taken up in the state Senate.
