By Nathan Mayberg

— In a party-line vote Dec. 4, the full board of the Orange County Legislature approved the asset forfeiture law proposed by Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler.

The law would allow Hoovler's office to take legal action to seize property and money from defendants that can be shown to have been gained or used through the commission of misdemeanor drug crimes.

Hoovler has said that anything from cars to cash, clothes and phones could be held as evidence in misdemeanor drug cases and that those items could all be subject to forfeiture if they can be shown to be the fruits of misdemeanor drug crimes or part of the instruments used to commit misdemeanor drug crimes.

Hoovler and supporters have painted the law as a way to generate more revenue for the county while serving as a deterrent to drug crimes.

On Saturday, all 11 Republicans were joined by Independent Michael Amo in approving the law, while all nine Democrats voted against the law.

Their vote followed comments from a number of speakers who argued forcefully against the law, decrying it as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, which provide protections against unwarranted search and seizure and ensures due process.

The 15-page bill, which is written in broad terms, still requires a public hearing and the approval of Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus who has expressed support for the measure.

On Thursday, Frances Meyer, a retired probation and parole officer, cited cases nationally where forfeiture laws were used to take the cars and homes of families after their children were busted for minor drug crimes.

The proposed law is a "violation of our Fourth Amendment rights," Meyer said.

"There is no accountability," she said. The law would give Hoovler a greater ability to force innocent people into taking plea bargains to get their property back, she said.

"It's mafia-style extortion," Meyer said.

"Supporting our police doesn't mean we have to give up our rights," Meyer said.

Hoovler has previously said that those who don't support the law are not pro-law enforcement.

Meyer said the law could create mistrust between communities and law enforcement.

"Our communities are not military battlefields," Meyer said.

Neil Meyer, of Wallkill, called the proposed law "policing for profit."

Meyer said it was the mission of the police to help the community "not profit."

The law has been backed by the Police Chiefs' Association of Orange County and Orange County Sheriff Carl DuBois. In letters of support, Dubois and Chester Police Chief Danniel Doellinger cited the additional revenue the law could bring to their departments.

Meyer said the war on drugs has been a drain on the public's resources. He noted that states have decriminalized marijuana use. "Addiction is not a crime," he said. "It's a health care problem."

He described the Orange County Legislature as a casino "doubling down on a failed policy."

Goshen defense attorney Michael Sussman threatened legal action against the county if it passed the law, which he said allowed police to seize the assets of people before their conviction.

Sussman said it wasn't the legal right of the county to pass its own criminal laws. That right belongs to the state legislature, he argued.

Orange County Assistant District Attorney Chris Borek said that similar forfeiture laws are used in other counties of the state.

Borek said there were no "horror stories from New York State" with regard to forfeiture.

However, The Chronicle reported this week about a Warwick family who lost their car for more than four months while entangled in a case where Warwick police seized the car after an alleged burglary and claimed the car could be subject to a forfeiture action from the District Attorney's Office. The District Attorney's Office said they were not pursuing forfeiture and the car was eventually returned. The case is still pending and the charge has been reduced to a misdemeanor.

County legislator Matthew Turnbull (D-Campbell Hall), who voted against the law, called it "crazy."

"Misdemeanors are misdemeanors for a reason," he said.

"Marijuana is being aggressively de-criminalized," Turnbull said.

He likened the law to a new county policy which requires probationers to pay a $30 fee when they visit their probation office even though they can't always afford the fee.

Majority Leader Jeffrey Berkman said the law was an issue of "constitutional rights."

He was particularly uncomfortable with the provision which allows non-criminal defendants to potentially lose property as well if it can be connected to the misdemeanor defendant.

One speaker said "you are opening a Pandora's box."

Legislator Roseann Sullivan (D-Circleville) said rank-and-file police officers she has spoken to are "totally against this law." She said the law would create pressure on police officers to generate revenue.

Legislatore Kevin Hines (R-C-Cornwall), who led the law's passage through the Public Safety Committee, said homes could not be seized under the law, although cars could.

"This is a drug law," Hines said. "We are not profiling anybody but people who do drugs or sell them or carry large amounts."

Hines said that while "we might be" losing the war on drugs, "I for one am not just going to surrender."

Aimee Fitzgerald of Central Valley, said "at best or worst, the proposed law reverses due process and stands it on its head."

Legislator Mike Anagnostakis, who voted in favor, said opponents could still voice their opinions at a public hearing and put the law up for a referendum.

Following the vote, legislator Barry Cheney (R-Warwick) said the law "allows us the opportunity to be tougher on crime." Cheney said that legislators would monitor the law so that "it is not abused."

Legislator John Vero (R-Chester), who also voted in favor, said he believed the law was simply redistributing money from the state into the county's coffers in forfeiture cases. He said he thought it would be "highly unlikely" that the new law would be used in misdemeanor crimes not connected to felony charges. If the law is used in cases where only misdemeanor charges are presented, he said, "I think we are going to look at it unfairly."

The law requires two reports to the legislature by Hoovler each year and would have to be re-adopted after 18 months.