Tenth Amendment Center: Michigan Bills Would Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture; Federal Loophole Remains
LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 18, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Michigan House would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases.
Rep. Pete Lucido (R-Shelby Township) introduced House Bill 5779 (HB5779) on Apr. 11. The legislation would reform Michigan law by requiring a criminal conviction before prosecutors could proceed with asset forfeiture in most cases. Under current law, the state can seize assets even if a person is never found guilty of a crime.
Two other bills introduced in the House would make more modest reforms to the state’s asset forfeiture laws.
Rep. Gary Glenn (R-Midland) introduced House Bill 5703 (HB5703) the legislation would mandate that law enforcement officers must undergo comprehensive training before committing property seizures as part of the asset forfeiture process. Rep. James Runestad (R-White Lake) introduced House Bill 5702 (HB5702) with 11 co-sponsors to create a review process related to forfeitures that would prevent seized property from being taken and sold without notice to the property owner.
According to the Institute for Justice, the state of Michigan earned a D- grade for its civil asset forfeiture laws. Michigan law enforcement agencies may presently keep up to 100% of all the forfeiture proceeds that come from seized assets.
Even if all three of these bills pass and are signed into law, the policing for profit motive would not be completely eliminated. This legislation does not designate asset forfeiture funds into the General Fund, keeping discretionary spending power in the hands of law enforcement. This incentivizes law enforcement to seize property.
While passage of HB5779 would significantly reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws, and HB703 and HB702 would take steps toward reform, none of these bills address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a policy directive issued last July by Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption.The new DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.
Law enforcement agencies often bypass more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.
Until recently, California faced this situation.The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.
Michigan could close this loophole in most situations by effectively withdrawing from the federal program. We recommend the following language.
1. A law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority may not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency directly, indirectly, by adoption, through an intergovernmental joint taskforce or by other means for the purposes of forfeiture litigation and instead must refer the seized property to appropriate local or state prosecuting authorities for forfeiture litigation under this chapter unless the seized property includes U.S. currency in excess of $100,000.
2. This paragraph preempts laws by township, municipal, county and other governments in the state which regulate civil and criminal forfeiture.
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.
HB5779, HB5702, and HB5703 were referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The committee must approve these bills by a majority vote before they move to the full House.