The California House Public Safety Committee is expected to hold a hearing on June 30 to debate proposed civil asset forfeiture reforms that offer substantive protections for innocent property owners.
SB 443 is a long overdue bill that closes a concerning loophole in state law that allows state and local law enforcement to send seized property from people who may never be charged with a crime to the federal government for "adoption." After a civil judgment against the owner, up to 80 percent of the proceeds are then return to the local government from the Justice Department's Equal Equitable Sharing Program.
California has better civil asset forfeiture laws than most states, though that is not saying much. According to a recent FreedomWorks publication, Civil Asset Forfeiture: Grading the States, the Golden State received a "C+" for its current state laws, which, unlike most other states, puts the burden of proof on the government, rather than the property owner. The government must show "clear and convincing evidence" to forfeit property. Real property, such as a home, cannot be forfeited without a criminal conviction.
Because California's civil asset forfeiture laws offer more protections for innocent property owners, state and local law enforcement often circumvent them by using federal law, through "adoption" and the Equitable Sharing Program. Federal civil asset forfeiture laws do not offer protections for innocent property owners. Under federal law, seized property is considered guilty until proven innocent, even if the property owner is never charged with a crime. The process is often long and costly, causing many innocent property owners to walk away rather than fight the federal government in court.
SB 443 would close the federal loophole, allowing state and local law enforcement to receive proceeds from federal forfeiture only if a criminal conviction is obtained. The bill also offers new protections under state law by requiring a criminal conviction before cash and property worth more than $25,000 can be forfeited to the state.
During deliberations on SB 443 in the California Senate earlier this month, Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the primary sponsor of the bill, explained that changes are necessary to ensure that there is uniformity in state law. "This is a multi-pronged approach to a problem which has reached epic proportions in many California communities, requiring that, in most cases, a defendant be convicted of an underlying crime before cash or property can be permanently seized," said Mitchell. "It would require that more drug asset forfeiture cases be handled under state law rather than transferred to federal courts in order to ensure the stricter standards under California current law are followed."
