Virginia Law Requires Strict Asset Forfeiture Reporting; First Step Toward Reform

By Michael Maharrey

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has signed a bill into law implementing reporting requirements for all asset forfeitures in the state, including cases passed off to the federal government. The bill takes the first step that could lead to substantive reforms. 

Sen. Mark Peake (R) and Sen. Adam Ebbin (D) sponsored Senate Bill 813 (SB813). The new law requires any state or local agency that receives property or a share of proceeds from asset forfeiture from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services or from a federal asset forfeiture proceeding to produce a report including the offense on which the forfeiture is based, any criminal charges brought against the owner of the forfeited asset, the status of the criminal charge if any were filed. The law also requires the Department of Criminal Justice to produce an annual report compiling all of the information.

In February, the Senate passed SB813 by a 40-0 vote. Last month, the House approved the measure 98-0. With Gov. Northam’s signature, the law will go into effect July 1.

Although SB813 doesn’t reform Virginia asset forfeiture laws, it does lay a foundation to do so in the future. By increasing transparency, SB813 will allow Virginians to actually see the reality of asset forfeiture. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best antiseptic. Transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.

According to the Institute for Justice, Virginia has some of the worst asset forfeiture laws in the country.

In order to forfeit property in Virginia, the government need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that property is related to criminal activity. Innocent owners also bear the burden of proving that they had nothing to do with the alleged criminal activity in which their property has been implicated. Worst of all, Virginia law provides a tempting incentive to seize property as it allows law enforcement to retain 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds: Participating agencies keep 90 percent of the bounty, while the balance goes to the state’s Department of Criminal Justice Services.

Clearly, the state law is in need of reform. These new reporting requirements could open the door to future action. The key will be whether or not grassroots activists use this information to push for changes in the current law.

The inclusion of cases passed off to the federal government in the reporting requirements could set the stage to close 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 policy directive issued last July by Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the Department of Justice (DOJ).

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!

Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!

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 new 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 often bypass 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.

Virginia could close this loophole in most situations by effectively withdrawing from the federal program. We recommend the following language.

1. A law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority may not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency directly, indirectly, by adoption, through an intergovernmental joint taskforce or by other means for the purposes of forfeiture litigation and instead must refer the seized property to appropriate local or state prosecuting authorities for forfeiture litigation under this chapter unless the seized property includes U.S. currency in excess of $100,000.

2. This paragraph preempts laws by township, municipal, county and other governments in the state which regulate civil and criminal forfeiture.

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.

Why?

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.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

3 Comments on "Virginia Law Requires Strict Asset Forfeiture Reporting; First Step Toward Reform"

  1. lightingstrikesthrice | April 11, 2018 at 1:24 pm | Reply

    An ex employer(master?) of mine told me once that they(employer) could choose between State and Fed statutes. Corruption never ceases. But, this is a nice step. I wonder how many articles are tied into this new law, making the law itself obsolete?

  2. There is NO LAWFUL asset forfeiture because our governments were created to PROTECT the people’s PROPERTY of all kinds.

    “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and
    cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

    “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386,235 P. 664.

    “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    “But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.” (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.

    “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all
    rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

    “Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, – ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third,
    that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).

    “There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property.” (Police power, Due Process) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

    “But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.” (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.

  3. Abolish! You cannot reform something like this. Under this reformed structure: law enforcement would have additional fiscal incentive to falsely accuse people of crimes.

    What measures, if any, would be taken to ensure honest reporting from any of the agencies involved?

    More red tape, that only gives a false sense of transparency. This is five steps forward and one step backward.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*