Federal Judge Calls City's Asset Forfeiture Program Unconstitutional
from the which-pretty-much-means-all-civil-asset-forfeiture-programs-are-unconstitutional dept
In 2015, the state of New Mexico overhauled its asset forfeiture program. The reform bill all but eliminated civil asset forfeiture by creating a conviction requirement. This eliminated roadside shopping trips by New Mexico law enforcement in which "perps" were free to go, so long as they left everything else (cash, vehicles) behind.
Despite the passage of this law, the Albuquerque PD continued to engage in asset forfeiture on pre-reform terms. The especially aggressive program saw citizens losing their vehicles to law enforcement because of acts committed by other drivers and the PD seized cars by the dozens during DWI arrests. The PD was sued by state legislators for its continued violations of the new law while the law enforcement agency repeatedly claimed the legislation just didn't apply to it.
The plaintiff in this case -- who has just received a ruling that may cause serious problems for asset forfeiture programs elsewhere in the nation -- had her vehicle forfeited by the Albuquerque PD after her son drove it drunk. A ruling in this case allowed Arlene Harjo's lawsuit against the city to proceed, and also resulted in the PD dropping its unlawful -- if not unconstitutional -- program.
Albuquerque announced this week that it will end the program following a federal judge's recent decision to allow Harjo's lawsuit against the city to proceed. "Given changes in state law and recent court rulings, it's time to update the city's policy on vehicle seizures," Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said in a statement to the Albuquerque Journal. "As part of constitutional policing, [the Albuquereque Police Department] can continue to seize assets in cases where there has been a conviction. I directed APD to implement this change and have requested City Council to update the ordinance."
The city tried to end Harjo's lawsuit by returning her car to her in 2016. Fortunately, Harjo had the help of the Institute for Justice, which wasn't amused by this attempt to circumvent litigation targeting the whole of PD's asset forfeiture programs.
The earlier ruling cited above allowed Harjo's lawsuit to proceed. This ruling [PDF] -- delivered August 1st -- drives judicial nails into the program itself. [h/t Volokh Conspiracy]
The lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of the incentives created by the program used by the PD. The PD directly profits from these seizures, so the question is whether the incentive is perverse enough to invite abuse of civil liberties. The court says, "Yes. Yes it is."
The Court concludes that the City of Albuquerque has an unconstitutional institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases, because, in practice, the forfeiture program sets its own budget and can spend, without meaningful oversight, all of the excess funds it raises from previous years. Thus, there is a “realistic possibility” that forfeiture officials’ judgment “will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain” -- the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend.
This would be the case in most asset forfeiture programs. Few are subject to independent oversight and almost all of them allow for discretionary spending. The distorting effects of these programs can be seen… well, pretty much everywhere.
The court goes on to note that it's unlikely those overseeing forfeiture proceedings (mainly city attorneys and forfeiture administrators) are likely not as affected by this distortion since their salaries aren't tied to successful conversions. But it goes on to note the program itself, irrespective of questionable financial interests, is unconstitutional because it incorrectly shifts the burden of proof to the person whose property has been seized.
The City of Albuquerque has determined that innocent owners -- owners who could not have reasonably foreseen that their vehicle would be used in a way that would subject the vehicle to forfeiture -- have a right to keep their vehicles. Thus, the City of Albuquerque has a constitutional obligation, under Mathews v. Eldridge, to implement accurate procedures for determining an owner’s innocence. The City of Albuquerque’s hearing procedures do not discharge that obligation, because proving that the City of Albuquerque has probable cause to seize a vehicle does not reveal anything about what the vehicle’s owner could or could not have reasonably foreseen. Thus, the City of Albuquerque’s hearing procedures are constitutionally inadequate…
As things stood before the city dropped the program, all the city had to prove was the operator of the vehicle committed a crime (usually DWI, but also driving with suspended/revoked licenses). It left the burden of proving the owner's innocence (not the actual driver) to the owner, which is the wrong way to handle things in terms of due process.
This is the way all civil asset forfeiture hearings are handled. The government has to only offer suspicions. It's up to victims to come up with all the proof of innocence or the property's legal provenance. These two declarations by a federal court strike at the heart of civil asset forfeiture everywhere. What's unconstitutional here is unconstitutional elsewhere. If any appeals are involved (and Harjo continues to prevail), the influence of this opinion will spread to the entire district. So, it's potentially a huge ruling, even if it's current impact is limited to Albuquerque's (now abandoned) forfeiture program.
As a bonus, here's some "fun" facts about the PD's forfeiture program (all taken from the ruling, with additional commentary in brackets):
“The City’s Chief Hearing Officer has stated that ‘about half of the vehicles that APD seizes are not owned by the offender that we confiscate it from’”; rather, “‘it’s the mothers, the fathers, the wives, the girlfriends, the brothers, [and] the uncles’” who own the vehicles…
No one from the City of Albuquerque Police Department contacts the owner to “conduct an interview prior to proceeding with the forfeiture” and no one from that department “investigates to determine whether the owner might have a valid innocent owner defense.”
Should the owner prevail in state court, the state court can still “impose storage fees as a condition of the vehicle’s release.”
“One of the most significant expenses paid out of program revenues is employee compensation.” During fiscal years 2009 to 2016, “the City used $3.7 million in program revenues to pay employee compensation,” which amounts to twenty-seven percent “of all expenses paid with program revenues.” Every fiscal year, “the City makes a lump-sum transfer” out of the forfeiture program’s account to pay the entire “salaries and benefits of employees associated with the program.” [This seems to be at odds with the finding that the program does not distort incentives for city forfeiture employees.]
“As a practical matter, the program’s spending is limited by its revenue, not by the City Council.” If the forfeiture program has more funds “available than [the] City Council has appropriated, it can spend even more and [the] City Council will pass a clean up bill retroactively authorizing the spending.”
“Annual performance evaluations for employees in the DWI Seizure Unit -- which serve to assess individual job performance -- list as an ‘Output Measure[]’ to ‘increase the amount of revenue generated from Seized vehicles.’”
“The head of the DWI Seizure Unit agreed that these Output Measures serve as a ‘measure of the unit’s success or failure at meeting its objectives.’”
In recent years,” the forfeiture program’s revenues have “declined, as fewer people are being caught driving under the influence.” “The City ascribes this decline to a variety of factors, including the rise of companies like Uber and Lyft that make it easier to drink outside the home without driving.”
Revenue decline in recent years “has adversely affected morale in the DWI Seizure Unit.” [loooooooool]
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: albuquerque, albuquerque police department, arlene harjo, asset forfeiture, new mexico, tim keller
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now they need to be sued for every incident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now they need to be sued for every incident
Especially since they need the cops help with real crimes (I mean the ones not commited at badge point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now they need to be sued for every incident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now they need to be sued for every incident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now they need to be sued for every incident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops can do NO wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have I seriously read that?
I think any and all income obtained via fines, seized property and the likes should go to the Federal coffers to be distributed along with all the rest of the income. I mean, who in their goddamn sanity would have predicted that leaving this money locally would serve as incentive to more property seizing/applying more fines? (do I need to add the /s?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other things that work this way: redlight cameras, speed cameras, parking tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Human review? What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it will drive them to drink.
I'll show myself out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and to drive! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the finding was narrowly about how the employees don't personally profit from increased seizures, such as by getting bonuses or getting direct use of the seized assets. On the off chance that the seizures were insufficient to cover program costs, the city would pick up the bill, so the seizure-related employees get paid the same whether they perform below, at, or above cost.
Now, one could argue (and I probably would argue) that as described, it defies belief that the employees have no incentives encouraging them to maximize seizures. It's just that the most obvious ways of encouraging them aren't present, so the court assumes that they are not encouraged. The existence of other motivations is even implied by the remark that the recent reduction in seizures is hurting morale. If they were truly upstanding law enforcement personnel with no personal interest in maximizing seizures, they ought to be thrilled that alleged lawbreaking has declined and with it, seizures. That they are instead dispirited says that they are motivated through unknown means to keep seizures high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may explain the origin of THIS story:
Departing District Attorney To DOJ: Albuquerque Police Department Is A 'Continuing Criminal Enterprise' Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having a seizure
Ahgh, I think I am having a seizure (although not assets)...
But seriously folks, how to broaden this line of thinking to all states, WITH ENFORCEMENTS AND PENALTIES?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quote: "Thus, there is a “realistic possibility” that forfeiture officials’ judgment “will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain” -- the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend."
Should read: Thus, there is a “realistic probability” that forfeiture officials’ judgment “will be distorted by the prospect of institutional and personal gain” -- the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can keep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
Nonsense, I mean it's not like there's a constitutional right explicitly prohibiting taking someone's stuff without due process rather than mere accusation or anything.
And really, it's not like (people accused of being) criminals have rights anyway, so even if there was some vague prohibition it clearly still wouldn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
Beat's me, though with some of the 'creative' excuses I've seen for programs like this/treatment of those accused of crimes in the past I wouldn't be surprised if someone had said what I did with a straight face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
Well yeah, I mean obviously if you not only know about your legal rights but try to exercise them then clearly you're a criminal and deserve to be punished.
'Only criminals assert their rights and/or know the law', that's just common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I love about asset forfeiture laws...
Yeah, so was I.
'Challenge extradition? That looks like criminal behavior to me, no challenge for the theft of your stuff allowed.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retroactive return of "ALL" seized assets...
ALL of them, even if the city sold the assets, they have to buy them back, at whatever the current owner wants for them, refurbishing back to the condition the assets were in when they were seized, and returned to the innocent owners. Plus a hefty "rental" fee for the time the assets were "stolen" by the criminals in this case (the city / county employees).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proper thing to do to the Albuquerque PD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morale Relief
Let's euthanize half the unit and forfeit their assets. Give the proceeds from liquidation of those assets to the surviving members and see whether morale improves. Lather, rinse, and repeat until the morale problem is solved. This process WILL eventually resolve the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) lose court case & have to reimburse victims
3) tax payers pay back victims
4) you keep ill gotten gains
5) Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if not unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exception: Forfeiture against scofflaw dangerous drivers
I lack sympathy, however, for owners who lend their cars to drunks or others with licenses already suspended for dangerous driving. Here the punishment (car forfeiture) fits a very dangerous crime. Seize the car, to be returned if the driver is convicted of theft. If the owner does not want to prosecute (eg a relative), then keep the car but give the owner an automatic default judgement for its value against the driver. It would be the owner's decision whether to collect, and if so under what conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exception: Forfeiture against scofflaw dangerous drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exception: Forfeiture against scofflaw dangerous drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exception: Forfeiture against scofflaw dangerous drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exception: Forfeiture against scofflaw dangerous drivers
Once you've got the guilty verdict after due process, then you can decide what's an appropriate sentence and I'm sure someone will suggest the idea of taking the car, if that seems like the right thing to do, given the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I so wantto see these stopped
U.S. vs. $120,000 cash
Such lawsuits really do exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PD: But that will bankrupt us.
Judge: People like you should have already known your actions were unethical. So don't expect any mercy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]