MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Arizona Makes It Tougher for Police to Seize People’s Money and Stuff for Themselves

Higher threshold required to trigger civil asset forfeiture in bill signed by governor.

Doug DuceyIcss/ZUMA Press/NewscomGovernor Goofus, meet Governor Gallant.

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey has decided not to follow in Republican Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's footsteps and has instead made the correct choice to help protect the property rights of its citizens.

Ducey has just signed into law a bill that should seriously restrict the ability of law enforcement officers in Arizona to abuse the process of civil asset forfeiture as a way of generating revenue rather than fighting crime.

Civil asset forfeiture is a mechanism by which police and prosecutors seize the property and assets of a person suspected of a crime and keep it all for themselves. While this type of asset forfeiture has been sold to communities as a method of fighting crime by denying "bad guys" the financial benefits of their misdeeds, the reality of what actually happens is far different. Seizing assets through a civil procedure instead of a criminal court permits lower evidence of standards. Police have been able to seize the assets of people without ever having to convict—or even charge—citizens with crimes. And because it's a civil process, those who get their property taken don't necessarily get access to a lawyer and often cannot afford one.

The end result has been dramatic increase in police looking for any reason to attempt to seize and keep the property of anybody who ends up in their clutches and try to claim with very little evidence at all a criminal connection. Activism has led to recent legal reform of the rules in many states. Arizona just joined the list.

Like most of the asset forfeiture reforms that have been passed and signed into law, HB2477 doesn't go as far as civil liberty advocates would like: It still won't require a person to be convicted of a crime before police can keep his or her assets. It will, however, increase the standard of proof in order to succeed in seizing somebody's property from the very lax "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence." This is still a threshold below what is required for a criminal conviction.

Another important reform in the bill: Police will not be able to bypass the state and partner with the Department of Justice for asset forfeitures of property worth less than $75,000. This is a significant rule. The Department of Justice has a forfeiture "equitable sharing" program that allows local police to partner with them for busts and keep up to 80 percent of what they seize. This mechanism allows police to frequently bypass state laws that restrict their behavior and use the much, much looser federal rules. So even when states crack down on forfeiture abuses, unless they do something to restrict these partnerships, little changes. This rule keeps police from defying state law in cases where the amount of property seized is low and the bust is clearly not some big drug dealer or criminal mastermind. The threshold may not seem like much, but studies show that a majority of seizures are of assets much less than $75,000, often in the four-figure range.

The law introduces transparency, reporting, and auditing requirements to better keep track of what happens with forfeitures and also introduces a system where law enforcement agencies will have to actually request money from forfeited assets from their county government instead of having their own funds. Such a system should, if effective, reduce the "profit motive" out of the police's desire to seize everything if there's another layer of government between them and the money.

Only one lawmaker voted against civil asset forfeiture reform in Arizona, but the governor still had to deal with resistance from police and prosecutors. Unlike Otter, Ducey declined to fold under pressure in his signing statement:

"As public servants, we are entrusted with not only protecting public safety but also the rights guaranteed to every citizen of this great state and nation," the governor said in his statement. "Today's important legislation strikes an appropriate balance between enabling law enforcement to do their jobs while upholding civil liberties."

And Ducey brushed aside claims by prosecutors that HB2477 would undermine their ability to fight crime.

"This bill will allow law enforcement to take appropriate action against drug cartels and other criminal enterprises, while ensuring citizens do not have their property seized without due process," the governor said.

The property-rights-protecting lawyers of the Institute for Justice praised the passage of the law as "incremental but important reforms." They've previously blasted Arizona's asset forfeiture laws and are suing the state over the way the system works. That lawsuit is going to continue because they're challenging the complex bureaucratic process that makes it harder for average citizens to resist having their stuff taken. Read more about their response here.

Celebrate, civil libertarians of Arizona. As for you Idahoans out there? Our regrets.

Photo Credit: Icss/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • Raven Nation||

    That alt-text deserves some kind of forfeiture.

  • Raven Nation||

    That alt-text deserves some kind of forfeiture.

  • Raven Nation||

    So do the squirrels

  • Citizen X - #6||

    As for you Idahoans out there? Our regrets.

    Yes, to both of you.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tossing out Sheriff Joe and restricting asset forfeiture within a span of six months? Is Arizona finally starting to get it right?

  • Agammamon||

    HEY!

    No, we'll end up doing something incredibly boneheaded and freedom-reducing soon. Two steps forward, one step back is the Arizona way.

  • Robbzilla||

    That beats the California way: 3 steps back and to punch anyone trying to step forward.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    They're also moving towards licensing reform. It's a nice streak they have going so far

  • Juice||

    And then there's the problem called John McCain.

  • wingnutx||

    Our latest Supreme Court justice, Clint Bolick, is pretty awesome, too.

    Arizona gets more right than most.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Huzzah!

  • ||

    Celebrate, civil libertarians of Arizona.

    To the social, cultural, economic, and otherwise uncivil libertarians of Arizona; Shut up and keep your money!

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Someone tell John McCain his own state hates people less than he does.

  • Simon Prophet||

    I'm glad to see that big time criminal suspects with over $75 thousand can still have their suspected ill gotten gains seized on suspicion so maybe Butch is the right guy for the job. I have a suspect identified in this video https://youtu.be/d634wEZPImI or maybe this is a job for Sessions?

  • dchang0||

    This isn't good enough of a move to celebrate. We should accept no less than conviction as the threshold for gov't taking of the suspect's property.

  • Hank Phillips||

    They're not called looters for nothing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online