Pennsylvania Court Strikes Blow Against Asset Forfeiture Regime
In a decision filed last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft.”
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Google(Page 2 of 2)
Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said he expects the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court, because Pellegrini’s decision seems to run counter to “decades” of court precedent regarding Pennsylvania forfeiture laws.
Long said the state should be able to seize private property when used in connection with a crime.
“It is being used in the furtherance of criminal activity that is detrimental to society at large,” said Long.
Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm that works to challenge forfeiture laws, said those laws represent one of the most serious assaults on property rights today.
In many states, including Pennsylvania, police departments and prosecutors get a portion of the proceeds for their own budgets.
“So forfeiture becomes a means by which law enforcement agencies can pad their budgets, so they end up with a direct and perverse financial incentive to pursue forfeitures very aggressively,” Salzman said.
The Institute for Justice was not involved in the Palazzari case, but after reviewing Pellegrini’s ruling, Salzman said the decision was a modest first step toward better protecting property rights in the state.
“This case in Pennsylvania at least makes the government come into court with real evidence and hold a hearing,” he said. “But it doesn’t change this perverse incentive and it doesn’t change the fact that someone could lose their property without being convicted of a crime.”
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley, in a dissenting opinion, agreed that forfeiture proceedings are “quasi-criminal” in nature, but said they remain, ultimately, civil hearings.
“The opportunity to be heard does not require the equivalent of an evidentiary hearing in every case,” McGinley wrote.
In some situations, he wrote, conducting a hearing would be wasteful when the facts are not in dispute, the judge wrote.
This piece originally appeared at Watchdog.org's Pennsylvania Independent.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
I hope these are appointed, not elected judges. Otherwise they just signed their pink slips.
-
He can kiss that SCOTUS gig goodbye, that's for sure.
-
I'm slightly more proud to be a member of the PA Bar.
Good on ya, Your Honor.
(Please note that I have no knowledge of this man other than this story and any opinion of the author expressed herein shall not be construed to be an endorsement of any other action or position taken by this Judge.)
[/lawyer]
-
“The opportunity to be heard does not require the equivalent of an evidentiary hearing in every case,” McGinley wrote.
Come against the state with anything and they will quickly attack with the "You need facts, information, evidence..." stance, however. When the state brings the fight to you it takes what it pleases for which reasons it pleases.
-
Judge Dan Pellegrini called the state’s civil asset forfeiture law “state-sanctioned theft”
So, Roberts will say it's permissible because it's a tax?
-jcr
-
Because a forfeiture proceeding is quasi-criminal punitive proceeding, the General Assembly mandated a hearing requiring the Commonwealth to present evidence in open court, much like it has to do in a criminal proceeding where similar constitutional principles are implicated and not just do it on the papers ;;; maybe !!