It Is About Time- Bill to End Civil Forfeiture in New Mexico

vonslob · Apr 10, 2015

In March, New Mexico’s divided Legislature voted unanimously to end the contentious practice of civil forfeiture, which lets law enforcement agencies take property suspected of ties to crime even if no charges are ever filed.

Despite widespread bipartisan support for the measure, law enforcement strongly opposes it. And now lawmakers are waiting to see whether Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican and a former district attorney, will sign it. She has been silent about her intentions, but if she does not sign the bill by noon on Friday, it will die.

“We passed along to the governor information that we think, when she reads it, will be clear that we’re not hurting law enforcement,” said Brad Cates, a lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee and the architect of the law. Mr. Cates’s position carries particular weight because he was, in the 1980s, the director of the federal asset forfeiture program, but now says civil forfeiture distorts police priorities and should be abolished.

Critics say it amounts to policing for profit, since police departments and prosecutors share in the proceeds from whatever they seize, including cash and cars. Hundreds of law enforcement agencies depend on civil forfeiture proceeds for a significant portion of their budgets.

To regain their property, owners must frequently pay court fees and lawyers and prove they are innocent of wrongdoing. In some jurisdictions, they appear not before a judge, but before a prosecutor with wide discretion to keep the property or charge the owner steep fees for its return. Elsewhere, the police have used minor drug sales as a pretext to forfeit valuable assets such as houses.

Members of Congress have floated legislation to rein in widely chronicled abuses of civil forfeiture, and in January Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. imposed severe limits on a federal forfeiture program that has shared billions of dollars’ worth of seizures with local law enforcement agencies.

Several states, including Texas, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota and Virginia, have bills that would restrict or regulate civil forfeiture, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has led a public relations and legal campaign against the practice.

In New Mexico, pressure mounted after The New York Times reported late last year on a video in which the Las Cruces city attorney described police officers trying to seize a late-model Mercedes-Benz and called Philadelphia’s asset forfeiture program “a gold mine.”

The bill also followed a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico successfully fought the seizure of $17,000 from a man and his son on a road trip to Las Vegas.

The bill before Governor Martinez would end civil forfeiture but preserve criminal forfeiture, in which property is subject to forfeit if the owner is convicted of a crime. It would require proceeds to go to the state’s general fund, not to individual law enforcement agencies.

The state Department of Public Safety has warned that the bill “directly jeopardizes” drug investigations by removing both the incentive for interagency cooperation and the influx of forfeiture cash that is normally used to fund operations. It would, the department said in an analysis of the bill, result in “less training, less resources, less equipment, and a reduction of criminal investigations,” but would increase requests for state funding. A stream of law enforcement groups have said they will request a veto.

Groups like the A.C.L.U., Drug Policy Alliance and Institute for Justice have campaigned for the bill, and Grover G. Norquist, the anti-tax conservative, has written an open letter asking the governor to sign it. Opponents have kept a low profile. “It’s revealing that law enforcement says nothing in a public hearing, because it’s clear that New Mexico residents oppose seizure for salaries and policing for profit,” said Lee McGrath, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice.

Paul Gessing, the president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a small conservative think tank in Albuquerque, said that vetoing the bill might hurt Ms. Martinez if she were looking to run for higher office. “This may be one of those rare circumstances where politics may lead someone to do what I think is the best thing morally and policy-wise.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/civil-forfeiture-new-mexico-bill-governor-martinez.html?_r=0
My hope is that she signs this bill. Paul Gessing fights the good fight and is a stand up guy, I have heard him speak on several occasions and is a bright light in a sea of corruption

Motomom34 · Apr 10, 2015

The bill also followed a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico successfully fought the seizure of $17,000 from a man and his son on a road trip to Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

I wonder what they did or were accused of doing. They were on a road trip.

vonslob · Apr 10, 2015

There have been many seizures by local law enforcement. They will seize a couple of grand knowing that it will cost more to fight the seizure than the amount taken. It is a win win. Bernallio county, the most populous county is really bad about it. No wonder our local (in bed with the feds) sheriff has been very vocal in his opposition to the passing of the bill. Our Sheriff is a real fed loving, jack booted Nazi.

BTPost · Apr 10, 2015

I, for one, never have to worry about some local, or State LEO, pulling that kind of C**P, on Me or Mine. As an FFL Licensee, all my FireArms are part of My INVENTORY. Therefor, ANYONE (the exception is, a US Marshal, or an ATF Agent with A Federal Warrant) who removes ANY INVENTORY from my possession, without making the corresponding Entries in my Bound Book, is committing a Federal Felony, as per the Gun Control Act of 1968, as Amended. These is NO PROVISION in that Statute for ANY State, or local Law Enforcement, that grants them an exemption to that Provision, in the Statute. It is there is Black & White, and if confronted, I would acquiesce to their Demands, after advising them of the Statute Provisions, and then Demand that the local US Attorney to enforce the provisions of the Statute upon the offending LEOs. If the US ATTORNEY refuses to prosecute, I will bring an action in Federal District Court, myself, as is my Right, and see them prosecuted to the Full Extent of the Statute, and look at having the US Attorney fired for failure to prosecute the Law of the Land. Statute Language has meaning, and if one knows the Statutes, one can use that language against those that usurp the provisions of the Statute.

kellory · Apr 10, 2015

Problem is, you just about have to BE an attorney, to protect yourself from legal/illegal actions.

BTPost · Apr 10, 2015

That is all true, but if one just does the Research, One can do just about Anything, that an Attorney can do, for ones self..... It is amazing how fast these LEO Clowns back down, when confronted in Federal District Court for Criminal Violations of Federal Statutes. I saw some really tough County Sheriffs, just melt away, in Federal Court when faced with FCC Violations, that they had ignored.

kellory · Apr 10, 2015

BTPost said: ↑

That is all true, but if one just does the Research, One can do just about Anything, that an Attorney can do, for ones self.....
Click to expand...

Yes, but you need to know that such and such action can or can not be used, where to find the correct info, and how to apply it to the problem at hand. And knowing it all before the judge rules is clearly best.

vonslob · Apr 10, 2015

Most of the members here are more intelligent than the average person, imo, your everyday joe does not know to stand up for his rights and him or her self so they are easy targets. Many people are just plain afraid of LEO's and the judicial system, thinking it is rigged ( and it is somewhat) so they see resistance as futile ( sorry I could not help myself lol ) so they will walk away thinking they are lucky they are not in jail.

vonslob · Apr 11, 2015

It has been signed by the governor, it is now the law of the land. Bravo Gov. Martinez you finally did something right.

Ganado · Apr 11, 2015

BTPost said: ↑

That is all true, but if one just does the Research, One can do just about Anything, that an Attorney can do, for ones self..... It is amazing how fast these LEO Clowns back down, when confronted in Federal District Court for Criminal Violations of Federal Statutes. I saw some really tough County Sheriffs, just melt away, in Federal Court when faced with FCC Violations, that they had ignored.
Click to expand...

I love this! I believe I knowing the rules so you know how to bend and use them.... And I am a big proponent of asking.....

Can u show me the specific rule, law or statute that says it has to be done this way? Be surprised how many corporate people back down on this one...

I say it politely and with curiosity.... You ever know you might learn something

Log in or Sign up

It Is About Time- Bill to End Civil Forfeiture in New Mexico

vonslob Monkey++

Motomom34 Monkey+++

vonslob Monkey++

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

vonslob Monkey++

vonslob Monkey++

Ganado Monkey+++

Log in or Sign up

It Is About Time- Bill to End Civil Forfeiture in New Mexico

vonslob Monkey++

Motomom34 Monkey+++

vonslob Monkey++

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

vonslob Monkey++

vonslob Monkey++

Ganado Monkey+++

Useful Searches