Malinda Harris, a Massachusetts resident, was taken by Berkshire County officers. She did not have the opportunity to appeal for over five years. The Goldwater Institute, based in Phoenix, threatened her with a lawsuit last March. However, within one week, Harris was allowed to have the vehicle returned by the county. She finally received it back this summer.
These two timelines show how simple it is for government officials to seize property belonging to innocent citizens under civil forfeiture laws. This law allows law enforcement agencies to increase their budgets and confiscate assets that they believe are related to criminal activity. Harris’ testimony to Congress on legalized larceny will show how the system works against property owners.
Because Trevice Harris, her son was believed to be selling drugs, the Berkshire County Law Enforcement Task Force seize Harris’ Infiniti G37 from Harris on March 4, 2015. Harris let Trevice borrow the car but police did not claim that Trevice used it to sell drugs.
Harris never received a receipt. Harris was also not informed of her purloined assets until October 2020 when Harris received a civil forfeiture suit that had been filed the year before. Steven Silverman, a senior Goldwater Institute attorney noted that Massachusetts does not have a deadline. [by]This is the reason why forfeiture proceedings must be initiated by the Commonwealth.
Massachusetts is like most other states in that police can seize property if they believe the property was being used to traffic drugs. But once they have met that minimal threshold, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must show that the property is It is not subject to forfeiture—a rule that helps explain why Massachusetts was the only state to receive an F in the Institute for Justice’s 2020 report on civil forfeiture laws.
Massachusetts allows innocent owners to seek the return of their assets unless they “knew or should have known that such conveyance or real property was used in and for the business of unlawfully manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.” It is similar to the federal government, but requires that owners prove their innocence. This reverses the presumption in criminal cases.
Law enforcement agencies get to keep the proceeds from forfeitures—up to 100 percent in Massachusetts and many other states. Given their strong incentives to seize the property first and not ask any questions later, Harris’ case seems like it was.
Harris said that this is more than being victimized and robbed by criminals in her testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Harris says, “When the police take your property, who are you to call?”
Harris was fortunate to be able to access pro bono legal assistance. In many cases, forfeiture litigation can be more expensive than what the owner is willing to pay.
The Institute for Justice estimates that “hiring an attorney to fight a relatively simple state forfeiture case costs at least $3,000—more than double the national median currency forfeiture.” Contrary to criminal defendants who have the right to counsel from the court, owners of confiscated property do not generally have the right to legal representation. Therefore, people with modest incomes are often unable to protect themselves against state-sanctioned theft.
Harris says Harris was “extremely fortunate” to have her car given to her granddaughter, who is currently a college student. Harris: “I got back my car. Most people lose their property when they don’t understand how the process works and can’t afford to hire a lawyer.
Harris’s ordeal was an eye-opening one. She says that police shouldn’t be allowed to seize and hold onto the property of innocent people who have not been convicted. You can’t teach children respect for the law if the police have the power to seize your property on the basis of mere suspicion.
© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.