Idaho Governor Says Cops Matter More Than The Public Or Its Representatives, Vetoes Forfeiture Reform Bill
from the status-quo,-voters dept
The governor of Idaho doesn't care about his constituents. State legislators had successfully pushed through an asset forfeiture reform bill with overwhelming support, but Governor Butch Otter vetoed it on April 6th. (h/t Ed Krayewski at Reason)
The bill ran into some law enforcement resistance on its way to being passed. A 58-10 vote sent it to the governor's desk over the concerns of law enforcement, who apparently felt that law enforcement via asset forfeiture would just be too difficult if some form of actual due process was recognized.
While Reps. Rubel and Harris did work with some law-enforcement groups while drafting the bill and these organizations decided not to oppose it, other police organizations came out against the bill, worried it would put too many restrictions on their ability to seize drug dealers’ ill-gotten gains or the cash they could use to commit further crimes.
Apparently, those concerns were indulged by Governor Otter. His veto statement [PDF] makes the dubious assertion that Idaho law enforcement has never abused the process.
There have been no allegations that Idaho law enforcement officers or agencies are illegally or inappropriately seizing property from alleged drug traffickers. Its sponsors contend that the measure is aimed at preventing improper forfeiture of assets in the future, but there is no evidence to suggest that such a problem is imminent.
The absence of allegations is not the absence of abuse. Fighting forfeiture is prohibitively expensive and takes place in a closed judicial system that pretty much guarantees at least partial failure. Idaho isn't the worst of the worst -- not according to the Institute for Justice's grading -- but scoring a "C" is hardly an exoneration of the process. A "C" rating still stacks the deck in favor of law enforcement:
Although Idaho appears to pursue forfeitures against property owners only modestly, its civil forfeiture laws still put the property of ordinary citizens at risk. To forfeit your property, the state only needs to show that it was more likely than not that your property was used in some criminal activity—the legal standard of preponderance of the evidence. To recover seized property, an innocent owner bears the burden of proving his innocence. Moreover, law enforcement in Idaho reaps all of the rewards of civil forfeitures—they keep 100 percent of all funds and face no requirement to report data on forfeiture use and proceeds.
Otter also cited "public safety" as a reason for vetoing the reform bill. Somehow, seizing cash but letting suspected criminals go free makes us safer.
[T]here is a legitimate public safety concern associated with allowing those charged with drug crimes to keep money, cars and other civil assets that may be connected with those crimes. Not the least of these concerns is the potential for evidence to disappear or be tampered with.
Which is bullshit. If cops aren't seeking convictions, they don't need evidence. Forfeited items don't go into an evidence locker. It's converted for use by the agency seizing it -- 100% of it as allowed by Idaho law. If there's no prosecution pending, it's not evidence. It's just assets, but ones now in the hands of someone other than their original owner. The governor is deliberately muddying the waters (or he truly doesn't understand the subject matter) by conflating criminal asset forfeiture with the more popular version -- civil asset forfeiture -- which has nothing to do with the "criminal charges" Otter leads off with.
But where Governor Otter's statement really shows his disdain for everyone but a small percentage of his constituents is this part:
The fact that this bipartisan legislation was overwhelmingly approved by both the House and Senate is outweighed by compelling opposition from law enforcement and the absence of any benefit to law-abiding citizens from its enactment.
The people and their representatives don't matter, not when weighed against the apparently onerous requirement that law enforcement seek convictions when seizing property. The benefit Otter can't see is intangible: conviction requirements eliminate fishing expeditions by law enforcement officers who may be more interested in assets than convictions. That does make the public safer, but the public's top representative only represents law enforcement interests.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, butch otter, civil asset forfeiture, idaho, law enforcement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wrong on multiple levels
There have been no allegations that Idaho law enforcement officers or agencies are illegally or inappropriately seizing property from alleged drug traffickers. Its sponsors contend that the measure is aimed at preventing improper forfeiture of assets in the future, but there is no evidence to suggest that such a problem is imminent.
In which case the bill wouldn't have hampered police in Idaho in the slightest. It's like a bill specifically prohibiting police from using refurbished WW2 bombers for surveillance, that's only going to be a problem for them if they plan on doing so.
Of course as seems to be the case the governor doesn't consider stealing someone's stuff without a conviction a 'problem' or 'abuse' so long as it's the police doing the stealing, so that's likely what he means when he says that there's no evidence of a 'problem'.
The fact that this bipartisan legislation was overwhelmingly approved by both the House and Senate is outweighed by compelling opposition from law enforcement and the absence of any benefit to law-abiding citizens from its enactment.
So 'Not having your stuff stolen from you without a conviction of guilt' apparently isn't a 'benefit to law-abiding citizens' to him. Good to know where his priorities lie.
Given the overwhelming support the bill had(58-10) I would hope that they can override his veto and shove it into place regardless.
"You don't get to steal anything that catches your eye just because you happen to have a badge" isn't something that should even be need to be said, that it needs to be explicitly spelled out in the law is beyond absurd, and hopefully they can override this tool of a governor in order to at least start to address the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong on multiple levels
https://legislature.idaho.gov/resources/howabillbecomesalaw/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong on multiple levels
We two things going on here.
Governor could be playing games by vetoing even though he knows they can override to stay friendly with law enforcement, if they do override.
Idaho legislature could be looking to win brownie points with citizens by trying to pass the law, but not really willing to override a veto and backing down.
Let's see what shakes down? Never trust that a politician is doing something beneficial for citizens, because they usually are not, unless they are saving their hide from losing the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong on multiple levels
Since elected officials are only rarely the boots on the ground for such a rights violation, those violations are always felonies. If they used their personal wealth even peripherally to get elected, then it is a certainty -- not merely probable cause -- that their wealth assisted them in being able to commit that crime.
The solution to people like Governor Otter is clear -- they have never been abused by police, and therefore believe police when they claim accusations against them are unfounded. So find a sympathetic prosecutor, use all the tools in the prosecutorial toolbox, and seize the Governor's assets, thereby proving that even the finest and most upstanding citizens in the state can lose their bank accounts, cars and homes without it ever being suggested that criminal charges be filed against them.
And then, the Governor will join the growing list of people who know why civil asset forfeiture laws are a very bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law abiding or just complacent?
I always get a little nervous when politicians decide a prior who is following the law and who is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the police won't obey the law, why should anybody else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm in Arizona and our legislature just passed restrictions on asset forfeiture too. Governor Ducey hasn't signaled whether he'll sign or veto, but it passed the Senate unanimously and the House with only one "nay", so there are more than enough votes for an override.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did the 10 that voted nay say?
...I was going to ask, whoever here in the comments section lives in Idaho, to start a poster campaign.
Start by putting up posters advertising for people who have been victims of a police robbery, ask them to provide their testimony, then put up written posters of their testimony around courthouses and police stations...
But then, I thought that if someone did that, the police might track them down and arrest them, or worse.
Am I just paranoid/extra-cynical, or is that the reality in Idaho today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What did the 10 that voted nay say?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well duh. Of course not. What is the percentage of seizures from drug traffickers out of the total quantity of seizures? Probably not much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A police union on the attack against a governor might hurt his reelection chances, so staying in office is the top priority.
We can just pretend that everything the cops steal was only from bad people who were going to do bad things, so bad they can't even bring charges against them once they steal the property.
People really need to get out of the bubble mentality of it'll never happen to me because I am a 'Good Person™' because you are 1 bank deposit or nice car a cop wants away from ending up in this nightmare system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't "cops matter more than the public"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News at 11: Governor in cash kickback shock
Explains the multiple houses and buildings he owns which cost WAY above his salary or means to repay doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny in Action
Idaho Governor Clement Leroy "Butch" Otter is a complete disgrace.
Upon what Constitution did he swear his oath of office?
Idahoans would be well served in voting this badge licking fraction of an American out of office before he can do them more harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops (humans) could decide to let someone go if they have a good amount of money or property the cops can use to add to their budget and let the person off the hook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cops (humans) could decide to let someone go if they have a good amount of money or property the cops can use to add to their budget and let the person off the hook.
No 'could' about it, that's pretty much exactly what they do. They aren't interested in the (accused) criminals, all they want is the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess I should stop eating potato products. If he gets re-elected it is the public's own damned fault. He had better not come to our state, he can forfeit every dime in his bloody pockets, and quite possibly in his bank account as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, and systemic biases like incumbent retention and FPTP voting.
Idaho hasn't elected a Democratic governor since 1990 (and hasn't elected one to a first term since '86). I wouldn't count on that changing in '18.
But he won the Republican primary in '14 with less than an 8-point lead over the guy who came in second. That's a strong lead but it's not an overwhelming one; it's entirely possible that a strong challenger could beat him next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
civil asset forfeiture
https://youtu.be/d634wEZPImI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]