South Dakota Bill Would Require Conviction for Asset Forfeiture But Federal Loophole Remains
PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 19, 2020) – A bill introduced in the South Dakota Senate would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.
Sen. Arthur Rusch (R-Vermillion) and Rep. Jess Olson (R-Rapid City) introduced Senate Bill 172 (SB172) on Feb. 6. Under the proposed law, prosecutors could not proceed with asset forfeiture proceedings unless the criminal prosecution that provides the basis for the forfeiture results in a conviction and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property constitutes, or is derived directly from, proceeds of the underlying offense for which the person was convicted; or if the property was used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of the offense for which the person was convicted.
The Institute for Justice calls South Dakota’s asset forfeiture laws “some of the worst in the country.” In order to forfeit property, law enforcement only has to tie it to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the current law, people in South Dakota can have the property permanently seized without even being charged with a crime. There is also a strong “policing for profit” incentive in the state, with law enforcement keeping up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.
While passage of SB172 would significantly reform South Dakota’s asset forfeiture laws, it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a 2017 policy directive issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.
Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.
Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.
The South Dakota Senate should amend the current legislation with language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.
A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.
Very few cases exceed the $50,000 threshold.
As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.
We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.
SB172 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
Follow The Libertarian Hub This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Tenth Amendment Center. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.