Civil Forfeiture

Macomb county prosecutor Eric Smiths arrest will hopefully bring reform to Forfeiture laws. New Mexico set the gold standard. Smith use some of 1.8 million for his house for gifts for country club.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

ps. I couldn't read that. Websites making you pay or create an account to read their opinion pieces are d u m b.

Public trust might be running low in Michigan following criminal charges against Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith, who resigned March 30 amid a criminal investigation. New Mexico residents know the feeling of betrayal, but they have good news.

The Land of Enchantment endured a similar scandal in 2014 and came out stronger after the backlash triggered meaningful reform. Now Michigan has its own chance to step up.

Problems in both states started with civil forfeiture, a government moneymaking scheme that invites and even encourages abuse. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which punishes people for wrongdoing after conviction, civil forfeiture flips the script and prosecutes inanimate objects.

Cars, jewelry and especially cash make popular targets. Owners can simply walk away if they want because they’re not on trial. Many people do, even when they’re innocent of any crime, because they cannot afford civil litigation—especially when attorney costs outweigh the value of their seized assets.

Police and prosecutors count on this. The result for agencies across Michigan is millions of dollars in revenue every year with little oversight.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel alleges that Smith used his cut like a personal slush fund, paying for country club parties, campaign expenses, gifts for women colleagues, a private security system at his home and other perks dating to 2012.

New Mexico prosecutors enjoyed their own perks before getting caught on camera bragging about the system. A video uncovered by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that fights civil forfeiture nationwide, shows the level of cynicism at a vehicle forfeiture conference recorded in 2014.

“What’s theirs is yours,” former Las Cruces City Attorney Pete Connelly told his colleagues. “If in doubt … take it.”

He warned prosecutors about feeling squeamish when confiscating property from low-income families under the guise of public safety—when the real motive is profit. “If you make money on motor vehicle seizures, it’s OK,” Connelly told his audience. “Don’t feel bad.”

The callous tone sparked public outrage, and New Mexico lawmakers responded. Their sweeping reforms abolished civil forfeiture altogether. To forfeit property now, New Mexico prosecutors must first convict the owner of a crime—in criminal court—and then show by clear and convincing evidence, in the same courtroom, the property’s connection to the crime.

Even further, New Mexico scrapped the profit incentive for local agencies. Forfeiture revenue goes to a neutral fund, not back to police chiefs and prosecutors to use at their discretion.

This gold standard for forfeiture reform overshadows all of Michigan’s timid approaches. Most recently in 2019, Michigan passed civil forfeiture reforms that sound good on the surface but create loopholes in the fine print.

The law requires a criminal conviction before moving forward with civil forfeiture, but exemptions mean the requirements do not apply when owners cannot afford a lawyer or find one before a 20-day claim window shuts in civil court. These exemptions highlight the problem of Michigan keeping the prosecution and litigation in two different judicial systems. They neuter the law’s protections of innocent owners.

Michigan’s forfeiture expenditure reporting laws are also weak. Law enforcement must only show, in percentages, how forfeiture revenue is spent annually in broad categories that don’t give the public a sense of the scale or potential abuses.

If Michigan directed forfeiture revenue to neutral non-law enforcement funds and adopted the rest of New Mexico’s model, the public would not need to worry about things like flowers and makeup kits going to a prosecutor’s favorite secretaries.

At the same time, property owners would not need to worry about their cars getting ransomed into the forfeiture system—like the Wayne County program that IJ is challenging in court.

Owners finally could enjoy their due process protections like the framers of the Constitution intended. What’s theirs would be theirs until a jury says otherwise.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Thanks, DWags. I still thought he'd be above temptation, not feel above the law. Not that I know him or anything, just a stupid feeling.

My dad told me to have two secretaries collect gate receipts at all games. Send them to my office count the money in front of each other sign it and put it in my safe that night. I laughed and said said sure but are you thinking I would take some. He just said it’s way too easy to grab 100 bucks after a Friday night and take my coaches out.

He was probably right. I have no doubt a future business partner who was king of athletics at his school and controlled everything did that. His brother is still on city council. He passed away from cancer about ten years ago. We’re all weak of spirit and can start convincing ourselves that 50 here or there is no big deal. But do that for 15 years and what has it added up to that you’re ripping off a community.

borrachone wrote:From my experience I am not surprised at all about the guy getting in trouble.

First, Welcome! Second, don't just give us a drive bye, how about some details.