New Hampshire has made great strides at the state level with regard to Asset Forfeiture. But many states, and more importantly the federal government, still engage in the practice of seizing property for themselves. A federal judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico just wrote a decision that while limited to local seizures, makes a great case for why the practice should be prohibited from sea to shining sea.
The Court concludes that the City of Albuquerque has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years. Thus, there is a “realistic possibility” that forfeiture officials’ judgment “will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain” — the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend…
Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin further notes that as,
Judge Browning explains, such blatant conflicts of interest are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, because they undermine procedural fairness and create incentives to seize the property of innocent persons.
Back on June 20th, I reported on an upcoming Supreme Court case that will look at whether Asset Forfeiture violates the 8th amendment prohibition against excessive fines. That case relates to civil not criminal forfeiture. And while that will be one to watch, how long do we have to wait for a Supreme Court case that turns on Judge Browning’s ruling and the relationship between Due Process and the gross incentive that asset forfeiture creates to take people’s stuff for amounts to the government’s gain?
It has already been too long.
Judge Browning’s Ruling.
Albuquerque-Forfeiture-Suit
