neuw

Just wondering,

If I grew on someone else's property, and that someone didn't know about it, could the government still forfeit their property?

Does the government have to prove that the property owner knew about the cultivation, or can they just forfeit regardless?

Thanks,

neuw

dkiefner

Forfeiture is a pretty involved process, and the burden is typically on the government to show that property should be forfeit. That usually involves demonstrating that the property was purchased with illegal proceeds.

OTOH, why would you put someone else through that? Hardly seems fair to the legitimate property owner, and you lose your crop anyway.

rick

1. Federal forfeitures totaled approximately $730 million in 1994.
Source: Heilbroner, D., "The Law Goes on a Treasure Hunt," The New York Times, (1994, December 11), Section 6, p. 70, (quoting the 1992 testimony of Cary H. Copeland, then director of the Justice Department's executive-office asset forfeiture unit).

2. During a 10-month national survey, it was discovered that 80% of people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.
Source: Schneider, A. & Flaherty, M.P., "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the War on Drugs," The Pittsburgh Press , (1991, August 11).

3. Innocent ownership is not a constitutional defense to forfeiture. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that property may be taken from an owner who had no knowledge of its illegal use.
Source: Bennis v. Michigan, US 116 S. Ct. 994, 134 L.Ed.2d 68, 74-79 (1996).

4. Forfeiture can be used even when there is insufficient evidence to make a criminal case against the
defendant. The government need only seize the assets and it is then up to the owner to challenge the seizure in a costly and unpromising hearing.
Source: 19 U.S.C. 1607, 1608, and 1609.

5. As a "civil action" against the property itself, few of the constitutional safeguards imposed on criminal prosecutions apply to forfeiture. There is no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no objection to hearsay.
Sources: United States v. Property at 4492 S. Livonia Rd., 889 F.2d 1258, 1267-1268 (2d Cir. 1989); Lassiter
v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27 (1981).

6. The burden of proof is reversed: once the government establishes probable cause to believe the
property is subject to forfeiture, the burden shifts to the property owner to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the property does not belong to the government.
Source: 19 U.S.C. 1615.7. There is no constitutional requirement that the property owner be prosecuted for the underlying criminal activity prior to action against the property. Forfeiture may occur even if the owner is acquitted of the crime.
Source: United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984). United States v. Real Property Located at 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. 725, 733 (1994).

8. "[F]orfeiture laws have not simply enhanced the ability of law enforcement to do its job, but rather have changed the nature of the job itself." Both the crime prevention and due process goals of our criminal justice system are compromised when salaries, continued tenure, equipment, modernization, and budgets depend on how much money can be generated by forfeitures.
Source: Blumenson, E. & and Nilsen, E., "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda," University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 35-114 (1998, Winter).

9. According to a 1998 article published in the University of Chicago Law Review, the ability of law enforcement agencies to financially benefit from forfeited assets, and the provision of large block grants from Congress to fight the drug trade "have distorted governmental policy making and law enforcement." The authors believe that "the law enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime, the 80 percent of seizures that are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution, the plea bargains that favor drug kingpins and penalize the `mules' without assets to trade, the reverse stings that target drug buyers rather than drug sellers, the overkill in agencies involved in even minor arrests, the massive shift in resources towards federal jurisdiction over local law enforcement is largely the unplanned by product of this economic incentive structure."
Source: Blumenson, E. & and Nilsen, E., "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda, "University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 35-114 (1998, Winter).

10. The Department of Justice has periodically adopted as their official policy the practice of forfeiture as a priority over the prosecution of violent and property crimes. For instance, in 1989, all U.S. Attorneys were directed to divert resources to forfeiture efforts to meet their commitment "to increase forfeiture production" including "divert[ ing] personnel from other activities or to seek assistance from other U.S. Attorney's offices, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys."
Source: Directive # 89-1, Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Edward S. G. Dennis, Jr., to, interalia, all U.S. Attorneys, (1989, June 21), in DOJ Asset Forfeiture Manual, Vol. 3; See also Directive
91-7, Asset Forfeiture Talking Points, (1991, May).

__________________

Slate

[quote]Originally posted by rick.
3. Innocent ownership is not a constitutional defense to forfeiture. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that property may be taken from an owner who had no knowledge of its illegal use. Source: Bennis v. Michigan, US 116 S. Ct. 994, 134 L.Ed.2d 68, 74-79 (1996).

Rick,
Information only; That case was overturned and the vehicle was returned to the innocent owner. I don't remember where I saw the case law, but if I run across it again, I'll post it.

My point is that asset forfeiture is currently being reformed. California law already has been. 11470(g) H&S states, and I quote, "However, property which is used as a family residence or for other lawful purposes, or which is owned by TWO or MORE persons, one of whom had no knowledge of it's unlawful use, SHALL NOT be sublect to forfeiture."

Niteshift

Florida's forfeiture law has been that way for years............. we have to prove the owner is involved or had knowledge of the crime.