PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 17, 2017) – An Arizona bill that would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws has unanimously passed two important House committees. The bill also takes on federal forfeiture programs by banning prosecutors from circumventing state laws by passing cases off to the feds in most situations.
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Gilbert) introduced House Bill 2477 (HB2477) on Feb. 7. The legislation would require prosecutors to establish a higher evidentiary standard for asset forfeiture. As it stands, the law only requires a preponderance of the evidence. HB2477 would raise that, requiring police and prosecutors to provide “clear and convincing evidence” the property was linked to a crime. While the proposed law would not require a criminal conviction before proceeding with asset forfeiture, it would take a step toward reforming Arizona’s forfeiture laws.
HB2477 would also drastically increase transparency. It would establish stringent asset forfeiture reporting requirements law enforcement agencies would have to follow. Additionally, police would have to detail how seized funds are spent.
While the reforms are modest in comparison with those under consideration in many states, law enforcement has aggressively lobbied against the bill. Activists have obtained letters sent to representatives from at least three police departments opposing the bill. (click here to read the documents or see them below this report)
Despite the opposition, two committees unanimously passed HB2477 this week. The bill cleared the Federalism, Property Rights & Public Policy by a 9-0 vote on Tuesday, and passed the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee by the same margin on Wednesday.
ADDRESSES FEDERAL PROGRAMS
HB2477 also close a loophole that allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government under its Equitable Sharing forfeiture program.
The seizing agency or the attorney for the state may not enter into any agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency either directly, indirectly, by adoption, through an intergovernmental joint task force or by any other means for the purpose of forfeiture unless the seized property includes more than one hundred thousand dollars in United States currency. If the seized property includes more than one hundred thousand dollars in United States currency The seizing agency may, but is not required to, transfer or refer the seized property to a federal agency for forfeiture pursuant to federal law. This subsection does not restrict a seizing agency from collaborating with a federal agency to seize contraband or property that the seizing agency has probable cause to believe is property that is subject to forfeiture through an intergovernmental joint task force.
The inclusion of provisions barring state and local law enforcement agencies from passing off cases to the feds is particularly important. In several states with strict asset forfeiture laws, prosecutors have done just that. By placing the case under federal jurisdiction, law enforcement can bypass the need for a conviction under state law and collect up to 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited assets via the federal Equitable Sharing Program.
For example, California previously had some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but law enforcement would often bypass the state restrictions by partnering with a federal asset forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing.” Under these arrangements, state officials would simply hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law banned or limited the practice. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked dead last of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013 as the worst offender. During the 2016 legislative session, the state closed the loophole.
As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.
We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.
HB2477 now moves to the Rules Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full House.