New Hampshire Considers Major Forfeiture Reform
The New Hampshire state legislature’s House Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety is considering a significant change to the Granite State’s forfeiture laws: a change from civil forfeiture to criminal forfeiture. Below is a snippet from my recent testimony that explains how this proposed change would make life better for property owners in New Hampshire.
There is a fundamental tension between the government’s use of civil forfeiture and the property rights of its citizens. Civil forfeiture allows police officers to seize property, and that seizure only requires probable cause to believe that the property is related to crime; prosecutors then can shift the ownership of the property to the government through litigation in civil court, even if the property owner never faced criminal conviction or even criminal charges. The danger that civil forfeiture poses to property rights and due process raises significant questions about forfeiture fairness.
The median size of a cash seizure in America today is around a few hundred dollars to a little over a thousand dollars. (Medians vary by state.) Revenues from New Hampshire forfeitures average roughly $1.3 million yearly. The extraordinarily high rate of default judgments in these matters—around 80% of the owners of seized property never show up in court to contest the seizure—suggests barriers to access to justice. There are three substantial concerns about fairness that arise here.
First, property owners face a one-two punch: They lose possession of their property through seizure, then they discover that they’ll have to pay for their own representation in order to recover it in civil court. When they discover that they must bear litigation costs that are larger than the value of the property seized from them in order to win, and when they consider the odds that they might fail, they often give up—in other words, there are many instances of seizure and forfeiture in which no rational litigant would pursue recovery.
Second, many Americans know that proof of criminal liability requires the showing of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the heavy burden that prosecutors shoulder is often understood as a device that furthers important moral values in the criminal justice system—more precisely, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is seen as protecting innocent parties who for one reason or another become ensnared in the criminal justice system. In contrast, the low standard of proof (typically “more likely than not,” or greater than 50%) with which wrongdoing is proven in civil court—even though that proof is the trigger for what appears to be punishment for criminal acts—strikes many as fundamentally unfair.
Third, the nature of seizure and forfeiture as it is practiced today is pockmarked with evidence that revenue concerns drive the behavior of law enforcement officers and other government agents—thus distracting them from focusing on public safety and crime control. Forcing law enforcement officers to serve as their own revenue collectors creates troublesome pressures and incentives that are likely to distract them from their central mission.
In 2016, New Hampshire legislators passed SB 522 into law; that measure was an attempt to address some of the problems described above. SB 522 temporarily suspended civil forfeiture litigation by delaying it until after criminal prosecution occurred. But this change in litigation timing was a flawed solution. The policy of SB 522 still requires multiple litigation forums of litigation, which translates to more court procedures and prohibitive litigation expenses borne by property owners. Furthermore, because those owners are still likely to default in civil court due to litigation expenses, SB 522 still leaves property owners without the benefit of the higher standard of proof that is enjoyed by criminal defendants. I would add that New Hampshire deserves credit for what it did two years later in enacting SB 498, which significantly improved the transparency requirements of the forfeiture process.
Amendment 2022-0264’s proposed changes to state law would transform civil forfeiture proceedings to criminal forfeiture proceedings. It will thereby give property owners the same kinds of procedural protections that are assigned to criminal defendants. This change would almost completely eliminate the failures of public policy that are described above. Although there are other improvements to the forfeiture process that New Hampshire might also make (such as directing all forfeiture proceeds to the state’s general fund, which would allow the General Court to include seized funds in its budget deliberations), substituting criminal forfeiture for civil forfeiture would be a giant step forward for fairness. Four states now rely on criminal forfeiture proceedings (Nebraska, North Carolina, New Mexico, and neighboring Maine), and the General Court can protect the rights of the Granite State’s property owners by making New Hampshire the fifth state to enact these reforms.
You might also like:
Edge Data Centers: Opportunities, Challenges, and Emerging Trends | Reasonable limits on asset forfeiture past-due | Does Civil Asset Forfeiture Violate Fourth Amendment Rights? | Will a tech giant’s huge appetite transform a vibrant slice of Manhattan? | MI Prosecutor Quits Over Forfeiture Fund Charges | America’s Asset-Forfeiture Scam Is Law Enforcement’s Disgrace | Regulatory Investigations & Enforcement: Legal Response for Data Centers | DEA & TSA Take $82,000 Life Savings From Pittsburgh Retiree | This Week’s Civil Forfeiture Outrage (Eighth in a Series) | FBI Gets TRO’ed for Abusive Civil Forfeiture – Viva Frei Vlawg | Fighting Asset Forfeiture Abuse | AI in Data Center Management and Predictive Maintenance: A Legal and Operational Lens | Intellectual Property Protection in Data Centers: Safeguarding Innovation & Data Assets | Data Center Mergers & Acquisitions: Post-Transaction Integration & Liabilities | Disaster Recovery Plans & Business Continuity: Contractual & Compliance Requirements | Libertarian Comes Close To Understanding Civil Asset Forfeiture | MI Prosecutor Quits Over Forfeiture Fund Charges | Hybrid Cloud Deployments in Data Centers: Balancing Security & Compliance | Sustainability: The Next Big Step in Data Center Evolution | Forfeiture Cases Can Take Years, Even for the Innocent; Supreme Court May Help | Taken | The Debate over Civil Asset Forfeiture | Supreme Court Could Stop The Federal Government From Not Paying Legal Fees | How Asset Forfeiture Laws Affect Property Owners
You might also like:
What is Civil Asset Forfeiture? | Iziah Explains | Seizures of Currency from FedEx or UPS Packages | New Tennessee Law Expands Criminal Asset Forfeiture | Police seized $10,000 of a couple’s cash. They couldn’t get it back — until they went public. | Texas Cops Abusing Asset Forfeiture Law | Will a tech giant’s huge appetite transform a vibrant slice of Manhattan? | Innocent Owner Defense | Rand Paul Slams Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws | Criminal Asset Forfeiture – Rucci Law | Forfeiture Court Hearing – Rucci Law | Atlanta Rapper Lost Thousands in Civil Forfeiture, but Fought Back and Won | Real Estate Seizure Defense – Rucci Law | Both parties in New Mexico and elsewhere see bad problems in good-intentioned civil forfeiture laws | Derek Cohen on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform | Civil Asset Forfeiture (ACLU) | Asset Forfeiture: Sierra Vista Police Department | JUSTICE MANUAL 9-121.000 – Remission, Mitigation, And Restoration Of Forfeited Properties | Police Seizure Defense – Rucci Law | Sanctioned oligarch accuses U.S. of stealing his assets, vows to fight in Russian court | Warrant of arrest issued against seized funds from Bank of Saipan | Police Officer Arrested On Civil Asset Forfeiture Confusion | Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Forfeiture: Legal Defense for Drug Asset Seizures | What is Civil Asset Forfeiture? | Civil Asset Forfeiture in 60 Seconds
