The procedure used by the government to take and keep someone’s property in a criminal case is being challenged by both conservative and progressive advocates.
But one group says civil forfeiture should stay the way it is. Ohio Public Radio's Andy Chow reports.
Through civil forfeiture laws, the government can seize property during a criminal investigation and keep that property even if that investigation doesn’t lead to a conviction.
“A law that permits the state to take your property based on suspicion of a crime but without actually proving your guilt is an affront to one of our country’s most basic principles of justice, that people are innocent until proven guilty,” said McColley.
That’s Republican Representative Robert McColley of Napoleon speaking at the Statehouse during a press event Tuesday. He’s pushing his bill that would require a criminal conviction in order for the state to keep anyone’s property.
He was joined by a coalition of civil forfeiture opponents which included the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative-leaning FreedomWorks.
McColley says his bill shifts the burden of proof onto the government to show that these seized items were connected with criminal activity.
“The thought process being, if the state has already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender is guilty of the underlying crime those pieces of property that were part of commission of that crime should be easily by a lower burden of proof that being clear and convincing evidence,” said
McColley.
But John Murphy with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association argues that requiring a conviction hinders the system. He uses drug raids as an example. According to Murphy, law enforcement can sweep through a house linked to illegal drug activity and find a large amount of cash.
“But that doesn’t mean we’re going to have a prosecutable case or that we can tie the cash to any particular person but it’s pretty clear it’s derived from criminal activity and should be forfeited for that reason,” Murphy said.
As Murphy notes, the current system still has guidelines in place and the government can’t keep anything unless a judge looks over the evidence and makes some type of ruling, but that ruling doesn’t have to be a conviction.
Murphy adds that he has not seen any cases in Ohio where law enforcement or any other government entity has abused this power, making him question why lawmakers are pushing for a change.
“I think we’re being tagged with the sins of others here somewhat I’ve heard other stories in other jurisdictions, in other states where property was seized that probably should not have been seized,” said Murphy.
Representative McColley agrees. He hasn’t heard of any wrongdoing in Ohio either. He says the bill is not a reaction to anything but trying to improve the way government works. Under McColley’s legislation, the government would be responsible for returning property such as cars, houses, jewelry or money if they fail to prosecute the property owner.
There’s also a provision in the bill that would make it easier for a third-party to retrieve their property. So if someone else’s property is used for illegal activity without their knowledge, then the government would have to send that third-party a notification and that person can get it back faster.
In the last decade Ohio has taken and sold at auction about $80 million-worth of forfeited property. It’s unclear how many of those property owners were convicted of crimes.
