News Roundup

• Fox News has a rundown of recent reform activity.
• The Riverfront Times highlights the battle to reform Missouri's asset forfeiture system.
• Cronkite News has info on a recent GAO report on asset forfeiture. The report details growth in the federal asset forfeiture program over the past decade.
• Lawyers in Nigeria are pressing to redirect forfeiture income away from the government and towards the victims of crime.
• A committee of lawmakers in Wyoming would like to overhaul their state's forfeiture laws. One bill would eliminate civil asset forfeiture completely, while a second would increase the civil statute's standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence and limit law enforcement's take in the process.
• The battle continues over the Department of Justice's decision to freeze more than a million dollars in forfeiture proceeds due to the Alamance County Sheriff's Department. The freeze is related to a federal lawsuit filed against the department in 2012 alleging that the department discriminates against latinos.The department received more than $1.8 million in equitable sharing payments between 2000 and when payments were frozen in 2012
• Officials in Madison County, Illinois have apparently lost a car forfeit after its owner was arrested for driving under the influence. 
• A Minnesota couple is challenging the seizure of $48,000 in cash by police in Iowa City, Iowa. The seizure reportedly occurred at the behest of the DEA as part of an ongoing investigation.

Forfeiture Reform in Minnesota

Minnesota’s Governor signed SF874, the state’s latest asset forfeiture reform bill, in to law on May 6^th. The bill makes major changes to the state’s civil forfeiture statute, which now requires either a guilty plea or a criminal conviction before civil forfeiture can occur and shifts the burden of proof from the property owner to the prosecution.

While the changes are welcome, they’ve been a long time coming. It’s been five years to the day that the state Office of the Legislative Auditor issued the scathing report that shut down the Metro Gang Strike Force and publicized the problems with the state’s asset forfeiture procedures. Similar reforms emerged in the immediate aftermath of the strike force scandal, but the conviction requirement did not make it out of committee. Now, a half decade later, SF874 the state Senate 55-5 and the House unanimously.

The catalyst for these reforms is perhaps one of the most egregious instances of civil forfeiture abuse in recent history. The Metro Gang Strike Force, established by the Minnesota legislature in 2005, was subject of a special review by the Office of the Legislative Auditor after concerns arose over the agency’s financial reports. The OLA’s audit found more than $18,000 in seized cash missing, as well as 13 seized automobiles and problems with the agency’s internal controls. A subsequent investigation ordered by the Commissioner of Public Safety found “deeply disturbing behavior” and misconduct the panel characterized as “appalling and outrageous”. The panel’s findings included employees taking seized property for personal use, the sale of seized property, including jet skis and big screen tvs, to officers and their families, items that were seized but never entered in to evidence, and indiscriminate seizure of property unconnected to any crime.

The two reports issued by the OLA touch upon many of the problems activists have spent years warning lawmakers about, including the development of a profit motive and the seizure of property despite the owner's innocence. Seizures became a priority for a certain subset of the Strike Force that viewed forfeiture income as necessary to the survival of the unit. Some officers even described themselves as “money police”, such was their emphasis on seizing assets. Additionally, the Strike Force used so-called "saturation details" as a pretext to search and seize money from people who were not suspected of, nor were ever charged with, a crime. Fallout from the scandal effectively shut down the Strike Force and lead to a class action lawsuit that resulted in $840,000 in payouts to the agency’s victims.