This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/22/arizona-lawsuit-civil-asset-forfeitures-law

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lawsuit challenges Arizona law that allows police to seize property Lawsuit challenges Arizona law that allows police to seize property
(34 minutes later)
The Pinal County sheriff’s department in Arizona seized a woman’s car for an alleged crime she did not commit and refused to return it to her, instead keeping the money from its sale, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.The Pinal County sheriff’s department in Arizona seized a woman’s car for an alleged crime she did not commit and refused to return it to her, instead keeping the money from its sale, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of an Arizona law that allows police to take property they allege has been involved in a crime regardless of whether the owner is charged with or convicted of a crime.The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of an Arizona law that allows police to take property they allege has been involved in a crime regardless of whether the owner is charged with or convicted of a crime.
In August 2013, Rhonda Cox lent her car to her son, Chris, something she did fairly often. That night, while in the parking lot of a store, he was contacted by the police. They were investigating the theft of a white Tonneau Cover and a white truck hood. The police allegedly found the parts installed on Cox’s car. Chris was taken into custody and the truck, along with the two stolen parts, was seized.In August 2013, Rhonda Cox lent her car to her son, Chris, something she did fairly often. That night, while in the parking lot of a store, he was contacted by the police. They were investigating the theft of a white Tonneau Cover and a white truck hood. The police allegedly found the parts installed on Cox’s car. Chris was taken into custody and the truck, along with the two stolen parts, was seized.
Cox was unaware of the alleged crime but said when she showed up on the scene to retrieve her property, she was denied. According to the complaint filed on her behalf by Perkins Coie LLP and the ACLU, when she explained to the deputy on the scene that she had nothing to do with the crime, he replied “too bad”. The truck had been taken under the civil asset forfeitures law.Cox was unaware of the alleged crime but said when she showed up on the scene to retrieve her property, she was denied. According to the complaint filed on her behalf by Perkins Coie LLP and the ACLU, when she explained to the deputy on the scene that she had nothing to do with the crime, he replied “too bad”. The truck had been taken under the civil asset forfeitures law.
“People lend other people their cars all the time. That’s just what happens. People lend their kids their cars especially and if I, as a car owner, am liable for everything that happens in the car, every time I lend it to a friend of mine, that’s not the world we live in, that’s not the law,” Jean-Jacques Cabou, a partner at Perkins Coie told the Guardian. “But their approach to the case made that exactly what happened.”“People lend other people their cars all the time. That’s just what happens. People lend their kids their cars especially and if I, as a car owner, am liable for everything that happens in the car, every time I lend it to a friend of mine, that’s not the world we live in, that’s not the law,” Jean-Jacques Cabou, a partner at Perkins Coie told the Guardian. “But their approach to the case made that exactly what happened.”
Civil asset forfeiture laws allow authorities to seize cash, cars, or even real estate and sometimes either keep the assets or sell them for profit. Most states pay the funds into the state treasury or other legislatively-supervised funds but in Arizona, the money goes to the law enforcement agencies involved in seizing and prosecuting the case. Civil asset forfeiture laws allow authorities to seize cash, cars, or even real estate and sometimes either keep the assets or sell them for profit. Most states pay the funds into the state treasury or other legislatively supervised funds but in Arizona, the money goes to the law enforcement agencies involved in seizing and prosecuting the case.
“Arizona has a particularly aggressive asset forfeiture regime,” Cabou said. “It has been since its inception in the eighties and that has grown and grown to the point where there are now tens of millions of dollars that are sitting in accounts held by law enforcement officials to use with little or no oversight.” “Arizona has a particularly aggressive asset forfeiture regime,” Cabou said. “It has been since its inception in the 80s and that has grown and grown to the point where there are now tens of millions of dollars that are sitting in accounts held by law enforcement officials to use with little or no oversight.”
Lately, civil asset forfeitures have been gaining national attention as people question whether they’re being used appropriately, if there should be greater controls in place, or if they should even exist at all. Senate hearings on the practice have flagged potential abuse of these laws in Arizona and elsewhere as grounds for reform.Lately, civil asset forfeitures have been gaining national attention as people question whether they’re being used appropriately, if there should be greater controls in place, or if they should even exist at all. Senate hearings on the practice have flagged potential abuse of these laws in Arizona and elsewhere as grounds for reform.
The complaint filed in Arizona Wednesday alleges Arizona’s law violates rights against search and seizure and individuals’ rights to due process. The complaint filed in Arizona on Wednesday alleges Arizona’s law violates rights against search and seizure and individuals’ rights to due process.
“In fighting to regain her Truck, even though she is an innocent owner, and even though she lacked the assistance of counsel, Rhonda was caught in a Kafkaesque predicament where, bizarrely, she bore the burden of proving that she was entitled to get the Truck back,” the complaint states. “The State did not have to prove that Rhonda did anything wrong—let alone criminal—in order to keep the Truck.” “In fighting to regain her Truck, even though she is an innocent owner, and even though she lacked the assistance of counsel, Rhonda was caught in a Kafkaesque predicament where, bizarrely, she bore the burden of proving that she was entitled to get the Truck back,” the complaint states. “The State did not have to prove that Rhonda did anything wrong – let alone criminal – in order to keep the Truck.”
The complaint also claims that money seized by the Pinal County sheriff’s department in the past has been “paying for everything from traditional law enforcement equipment to office supplies, furniture, office refreshments, and even toilets”.The complaint also claims that money seized by the Pinal County sheriff’s department in the past has been “paying for everything from traditional law enforcement equipment to office supplies, furniture, office refreshments, and even toilets”.
The funds pay police salaries, overtime pay, retirement funds and immunization and other medical expenses. Money has also been given to sports teams, and funded projects to help the law enforcement officials gain favorable exposure amongst their constituents. The complaint claims that even the Pinal County Attorney’s personal home security system was funded with forfeitures. The funds pay police salaries, overtime pay, retirement funds and immunization and other medical expenses. Money has also been given to sports teams, and funded projects to help the law enforcement officials gain favorable exposure amongst their constituents. The complaint claims that even the Pinal County attorney’s personal home security system was funded with forfeitures.
“You have a system where the people who are doing the seizing are incentivized to do as much seizing as possible ... the officers and the departments have become dependent on these funds to exist,” Cabou said. “That incentive is perverse and terrible but that’s exactly what happens in Arizona.”“You have a system where the people who are doing the seizing are incentivized to do as much seizing as possible ... the officers and the departments have become dependent on these funds to exist,” Cabou said. “That incentive is perverse and terrible but that’s exactly what happens in Arizona.”
The complaint also draws attention to the Arizona Public Safety Foundation, Inc, a group that helps fund first responders throughout the state. Their website claims that funds are raised from “donors, businesses and constituents for their departments”. Yet, the complaint claims that in in 2012, 99.38% of its funding came from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office’s forfeiture fund and in 2013 86.62% came from forfeiture funds. The complaint also draws attention to Arizona Public Safety Foundation Inc, a group that helps fund first responders throughout the state. Their website claims that funds are raised from “donors, businesses and constituents for their departments”. Yet, the complaint claims that in 2012, 99.38% of its funding came from the Pinal County sheriff’s office’s forfeiture fund and in 2013 86.62% came from forfeiture funds.
The Pinal County sheriff’s office refused to comment. The Pinal County attorney’s office and the superior court clerk’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Pinal County sheriff’s office refused to comment. The Pinal County attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The superior court clerk’s office said in an email statement that it had not yet seen the paperwork but was prepared to cooperate.
Cox’s car, which she had bought used for $6,000, became one of those funding properties. It remained in police possession despite her numerous attempts to regain ownership. She made phone calls, sent emails and filed paperwork in court.Cox’s car, which she had bought used for $6,000, became one of those funding properties. It remained in police possession despite her numerous attempts to regain ownership. She made phone calls, sent emails and filed paperwork in court.
Normally, one can claim an innocent owner defense and reclaim ownership of their property. But an Arizona requirement that those who lose their cases pay not only their attorney’s fees but also the state’s attorney’s fees, dissuades many people from pursuing their cases. Deputy Pinal County attorney, Craig Cameron informed Cox of this law in an email, and Cox dropped the initial case, unwilling to risk having to pay fees that could have been in the tens of thousands of dollars. Normally, one can claim an innocent owner defense and reclaim ownership of their property. But an Arizona requirement that those who lose their cases pay not only their attorney’s fees but also the state’s attorney’s fees, dissuades many people from pursuing their cases. Deputy Pinal County attorney Craig Cameron informed Cox of this law in an email, and Cox dropped the initial case, unwilling to risk having to pay fees that could have been in the tens of thousands of dollars.
“Even a lot of lawyers have trouble fighting forfeitures and it just shows that at every single turn – from the moment of the seizure, to filing any complaints, to the pressure to withdraw with the threat of attorney’s fees – that the system is designed to discourage and make it extremely difficult to make claims,” Jeffrey Zimmerman, an asset forfeiture lawyer from Smith & Zimmerman told the Guardian. “Those getting the money are making all these decisions.”“Even a lot of lawyers have trouble fighting forfeitures and it just shows that at every single turn – from the moment of the seizure, to filing any complaints, to the pressure to withdraw with the threat of attorney’s fees – that the system is designed to discourage and make it extremely difficult to make claims,” Jeffrey Zimmerman, an asset forfeiture lawyer from Smith & Zimmerman told the Guardian. “Those getting the money are making all these decisions.”
According to both Cabou and Zimmerman, incidents like Cox’s are extremely common. The case challenges the Arizona statute specifically but it raises issues of much broader application as well.According to both Cabou and Zimmerman, incidents like Cox’s are extremely common. The case challenges the Arizona statute specifically but it raises issues of much broader application as well.
In the complaint, Cox has asked the court to issue a declarative judgment that Arizona’s forfeiture laws are unconstitutional and that, as they apply to her, they violate her first, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights. She has also requested that the court prohibit the enforcement of the forfeiture laws and that the law enforcement defendants be ordered to pay back all of the money received from the sale of the seized truck.In the complaint, Cox has asked the court to issue a declarative judgment that Arizona’s forfeiture laws are unconstitutional and that, as they apply to her, they violate her first, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights. She has also requested that the court prohibit the enforcement of the forfeiture laws and that the law enforcement defendants be ordered to pay back all of the money received from the sale of the seized truck.
“When I talk about forfeiture, [people] think that what I’m talking about is hyperbole,” Zimmerman said. “They’re like ‘okay Jeff it can’t be this bad. You make it sound so bad, you make it sound like highway robbery by the government’. It is. It’s highway robbery. And this [case] is a good example of that.” “When I talk about forfeiture, [people] think that what I’m talking about is hyperbole,” Zimmerman said. “They’re like: ‘OK, Jeff, it can’t be this bad. You make it sound so bad, you make it sound like highway robbery by the government.’ It is. It’s highway robbery. And this [case] is a good example of that.”