New Bill in Alabama Would End Civil Forfeiture Once and For All

by | Jan 24, 2018

New Bill in Alabama Would End Civil Forfeiture Once and For All

by | Jan 24, 2018

Late Tuesday, two Alabama lawmakers filed legislation that would completely eliminate the state’s civil forfeiture laws, which let the government take and keep property without ever filing criminal charges, and replace it with criminal forfeiture. Currently, 14 states only allow forfeiture after a criminal conviction in most or all forfeiture cases. Among those states, just three—North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska—have abolished civil forfeiture outright.

“Civil forfeiture is an assault on America’s deeply cherished values of due process and private property rights,” noted Institute for Justice Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath. “This bill will ensure that only convicted criminals—and not innocent Alabamians—lose their property to forfeiture. No one acquitted in criminal court should lose his or her cash, car, or home in civil court.”

Sponsored by Rep. Arnold Mooney and Sen. Arthur Orr, their legislation would:

  • End and replace civil forfeiture with criminal forfeiture;
  • Require a felony conviction (or plea agreement) as a prerequisite to forfeit property. The requirement would be waived in cases where the owner has died, was deported, or fled jurisdiction after being arrested and released on bail;
  • Restore the presumption of innocence by shifting the burden of proof from innocent, third-party owners onto the state—where it belongs;
  • Raise the standard of proof in forfeiture litigation to clear and convincing evidence; and
  • Institute new comprehensive reporting requirements, including for forfeiture expenditures.

Just as critical, their bill would close a federal forfeiture loophole that would undermine all the protections that this legislation will establish. Through a program called “equitable sharing,” state and local police and prosecutors collaborate with a federal agency or joint task force, forfeit property under federal law, and receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. Between 2000 and 2013, an IJ report found that Alabama agencies received more than $75 million through equitable sharing. This loophole was further widened last summer when Attorney General Jeff Sessions revitalized an equitable sharing program called “adoption,” which had been strictly curtailed during the previous administration.

To prevent law enforcement from circumventing the new reforms, the bill would ban Alabama agencies from participating in adoption and prevent law enforcement from receiving equitable-sharing funds, unless the forfeited property is worth more than $100,000. That limit would protect the overwhelming majority of Alabamans facing federal forfeiture: 90 percent of all forfeitures made through equitable sharing involved property valued at under $100,000, according to data analysis by the Institute for Justice.

“By closing this loophole, the bill would preserve the state’s sovereignty from federal overreach,” McGrath noted. “Alabama agencies could still cooperate with the federal government but the law wisely limits that collaboration to major cases.”

Orr and Mooney’s legislation has earned the support of a wide, bipartisan coalition, including the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, the Alabama Policy Institute, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Institute for Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Since 2014, 25 states and the District of Columbia have tightened their forfeiture laws, while 10 other states are currently considering reforms.

Reprinted from the Institute for Justice.

About Nick Sibilla

As a Communications Associate for the Institute for Justice, Nick Sibilla regularly writes opeds and blog posts and enhances IJ’s presence on social media. He is also a contributor to Forbes.com, where he covers civil forfeiture, occupational licensing, food freedom and the First Amendment.

Our Books

latest book lineup.

Related Articles

Related

In Defense of Inaction

In Defense of Inaction

On March 17, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a woman named Mary Anastasia O’Grady titled, “Giving up on Haiti Isn’t a U.S. Option.” She argues, in short, that Americans don’t have a choice but to continue doing all the things that have failed in the past...

read more
Is America a Rogue Superpower?

Is America a Rogue Superpower?

“Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world. In global affairs, a hegemon is a nation that leads because it has the...

read more
Collateral Murder 2.0

Collateral Murder 2.0

When the footage of Reuters journalists and civilians were Wikileaked to the world, there was outrage. A shame exhibited by some in the American government caused them to reel from the crime that had been exposed, to downplay the prevalence of such murders, and...

read more
The Fed and the Fight for 2%

The Fed and the Fight for 2%

Last week, Jerome Powell & Co. met to issue an immediate decision regarding the status of the federal funds rate for March, and to provide some insight into the trajectory of monetary policy for the rest of 2024 and into 2025. As with the past few inflation...

read more
Truth Has No Chance on Capitol Hill

Truth Has No Chance on Capitol Hill

Americans are encouraged to believe that the U.S. Congress is practically on automatic pilot to serve the public. Happily, most Americans are not so gullible and Congress receives much of the contempt it deserves in public opinion polls. But the media and the...

read more