Civil Asset Forfeiture

Alabama Legislature Passes Modest Asset Forfeiture Reforms

A requirement that law enforcement obtain a conviction before it can forfeit property was stripped from the bill.

|

The Alabama legislature passed a compromise bill on Monday to curtail asset forfeiture. Although it was significantly scaled back to appease law enforcement, civil liberties advocates still say that it is a step in the right direction.

The Alabama House passed Senate Bill 210, sending it to Republican Gov. Kay Ivey's desk. The bill would limit law enforcement seizures of cash to more than $250 and vehicles worth more than $5,000, among other provisions.

The legislation is the result of three years of work by state legislators and advocacy groups to rein in civil asset forfeiture in Alabama, which has among the laxest rules in the country for when police and prosecutors can seize people's property. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, gave Alabama a "D-" grade for its civil forfeiture laws.

The original bill was much stronger and included provisions that would have required a conviction to forfeit property, essentially eliminating civil asset forfeiture, which allows police and prosecutors to seize property even when the owner is not charged with a crime.

But the conviction requirement and other measures were ultimately stripped from the bill to avoid the ire of the powerful law enforcement lobby, which had scuttled previous incarnations of the legislation.

"This bill is a start, but it doesn't go far enough," says Leah Nelson, research director at the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, an advocacy group that supports civil forfeiture reform.

Nelson says the legislation would still do some important things, such as improve protections for innocent owners and ban police from using roadside waivers, which have been used by police in other states to essentially coerce people into forfeiting their property. 

However, Nelson says, the dollar-amount thresholds for cash and vehicles are still far too low to protect the majority of people whose property is taken from them. 

"In Alabama, it's not at all uncommon for people who lack easy access to banking services to just cash their paychecks and carry that money around with them," Nelson says. "Under this new law, people in that position, including many Alabamians of color, will still be vulnerable to having their money taken and kept without due process."

A 2018 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Alabama Appleseed found that Alabama law enforcement raked in roughly $2.2 million through civil asset forfeiture in 2015. The report revealed a widespread lack of transparency, uncovered large racial disparities, and showed that marijuana offenses were a major driver of forfeiture actions.

The total value awarded in the Alabama cases where no criminal charges were filed amounted to more than $670,000. In half of the cases, the amount of cash was $1,372 or less—too little for most people to bother hiring a lawyer to recover.

"With more than $5 million a year coming to Alabama law enforcement agencies through state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, the profit motive can too easily overshadow the fair administration of justice," the report said.

For example, Reason reported on the civil forfeiture case of Greg and Teresa Almond, an Alabama couple who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Randolph County Sheriff's Office in March after a 2018 drug raid upturned their lives and left them homeless, all for misdemeanor marijuana possession:

The search only turned up $50 or less of marijuana, which the Almonds' adult son tried in vain to claim as his, and a single sleeping pill outside of a prescription bottle with Greg's name on it. The Almonds were arrested and charged with misdemeanor drug possession for personal use. However, deputies also seized roughly $8,000 in cash, along with dozens of firearms and other valuables, using civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows police to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity.

The arrest came at the same time that the Almonds were trying to refinance the loans they had taken out to start a chicken farm, and as a result, they say they missed a crucial bank deadline, resulting in their house being foreclosed upon. They now live in a utility shed[…]

A judge later dismissed the criminal charges against the Almonds and ordered their property returned.

Or take the case of Frank Ranelli. Alabama police raided Ranelli's computer repair shop in 2010, acting on a tip that Ranelli was selling stolen goods. Police seized roughly 130 computers from the shop, most of them belonging to customers. The single charge of receiving stolen goods was eventually dismissed, yet none of the property was ever returned to him.

"Here I was, a man, owned this business, been coming to work every day like a good old guy for 23 years, and I show up at work that morning—I was in here doing my books from the day before—and the police just fucked my life," Ranelli told Al.com.

Alabama passed new transparency requirements for asset forfeiture in 2019. It previously had almost no requirements for police and prosecutors to report how much they seized or what they spent forfeiture proceeds on.

"We have seen civil asset forfeiture occur when someone is only facing charges and hasn't been convicted or when the value of the property forfeited is disproportionate to financial penalties under the law," Shay Farley, regional policy director with SPLC Action Fund, said in a press release. "Taking someone's property is something that should only be done rarely, and this bill will help protect the rights of innocent property owners. While we maintain asset forfeiture should follow a criminal conviction—in criminal court—Senate Bill 210 will end some of the biggest ills seen in civil asset forfeiture."

NEXT: Janet Yellen Sells Big Business on Big Government

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. Report abuses.

  1. This asset forfeiture will be important in Bidenomics as they government must steal ever more. Expect your 401k IRA and savings to be raided (or at least inflated away)

    1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular ASDA office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  2. But who will think of the cops? Cops have rights too! Cops need to be stealing!

  3. While we maintain asset forfeiture should follow a criminal conviction—in criminal court—Senate Bill 210 will end some of the biggest ills seen in civil asset forfeiture.

    No, the biggest ill in asset forfeiture is the very principle of the thing, that the government can just take your shit without substantive due process. As long as you maintain that there are some cases in which it’s permissible for the government to trample on somebody’s rights, you’re leaving the door open and it’s a constant battle to keep them from opening it further. They will never move to close the door a little further. This has what the War on Drugs has wrought, just a little infringement of your rights, we’ll only put the tip in, it’s only for the big scary drug lords, you have nothing to worry about. It’s bullshit and it needs to be called bullshit.

  4. So criminals will now drive cars under $5k and cops will only go after innocent drivers in more expensive cars on false accusations since no need to prove that there was a crime in the first place. asset forfeiture is just giving away your ass to government, its in the word itself “asset”

  5. >>vehicles worth more than $5,000

    smaller menus are the trend.

  6. The bill would limit law enforcement seizures of cash to more than $250 and vehicles worth more than $5,000

    Cool! Let’s take another step in the right direction and include houses worth more than $25,000.

  7. No, the biggest ill in asset forfeiture is the very principle of the thing, that the government can just take your shit without substantive due process. As long as you maintain that there are some cases in which it’s permissible for the government to trample on somebody’s rights, you’re leaving the door open and it’s a constant battle to keep them from opening it further. They will never move to close the door a little further. This has what the War on Drugs has wrought, just a little infringement of your rights, we’ll only put the tip in, it’s only for the big scary drug lords, you
    https://wapexclusive.com ,have nothing to worry about. It’s bullshit and it needs to be called bullshit.

Please to post comments