Posted on 12/13/2002 6:25:09 AM PST by Wolfie
Allowing Cops To Keep Seized Loot is Unconstitutional
New Jersey's practice of letting police and prosecutors keep the money and assets they seize is unconstitutional, a judge said in a case that could affect other states. The ruling, issued by Superior Court Judge Thomas G. Bowen in Salem County, puts a halt, for now, to a system criticized as bounty hunting. The practice gives law enforcement a stake in the cash, cars, computers and other property seized from criminals and suspects.
"The decision will ensure that police and prosecutors make decisions on the basis of justice, not on the potential for profit," said winning attorney Scott Bullock.
The state plans to appeal Wednesday's ruling, and will ask Bowen for a stay that would allow the continued distribution of seized assets, which amounted to nearly $32 million in a two-year period ending in 2000.
"We believe it's a wrong decision," said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice. "Civil and criminal forfeiture is a legitimate law enforcement tool that allows police and prosecutors to take the profit out of crime."
The case started with a sheriff's deputy whose son was caught selling marijuana out of her 1990 Ford Thunderbird.
Carol Thomas, 45, of Millville, who was never charged, said she didn't know her 17-year-old son had used it to drive to drug deals. He pleaded guilty and was fined and sentenced to house arrest.
But the state filed a complaint against the car _ titled State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird _ and seized it, even though no drugs were found in it and it wasn't actually used in the deals.
She sued to get it back and after it was returned, she filed suit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of civil forfeiture statutes.
Her case caught the attention of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian Washington, D.C., law firm that champions individuals' rights, which took up her cause.
Bullock, in oral arguments last month, told Bowen that law enforcement agencies use the proceeds to pay for office furniture, computer equipment, expenses and, in one case, a golf outing, improperly influencing their decisions about which cases to pursue.
The state, meanwhile, argued that taking the profit out of crime was the whole point of the law in the first place.
The judge agreed with Thomas' lawyer, stating in his opinion that the seizures give law enforcement "financial interests which are not remote as to escape the taint of impermissible bias in enforcement of the laws."
David Smith, an Alexandria, Va., attorney active in civil forfeiture cases, said the ruling would have an impact beyond New Jersey. About 25 states share the loot from civil forfeitures with law enforcement, he said.
This was the first court case to challenge the legality of that practice, according to Smith.
"This will have a tremendous impact outside of New Jersey," he said. "This will go at least as high as the state Supreme Court, and if they agree with the judge, that's likely to be persuasive to other state Supreme Courts."
Thomas, who now works as a dog groomer, couldn't be reached for comment on Thursday. Her home telephone was not answered.
OHMYGAWD!! A judge with the capacity for rational thought! I think I'm going to faint.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but it's still early and I need more coffee.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Good old Libertarians strike again!
Yes fortunately we have one party, albeit small, who is trying to stand up for individual rights.
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The absurdity of asset forefiture and the total distortion of the basis of law could not be pointed out better than in this portion of the article.
Imagine going to the local prosecuter and filing a compliant against your neighbor's refrigerator.
If you allow ONE Constitional right to be broken, then just throw the whole Constition out !! This is what I call selective Constitutional rights y'all are willing to give up or to diss....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.