elyriapolice.jpg

Elyria police arrested three men and confiscated nearly $500.000 worth of Ford Mustangs and parts in a raid on an alleged chop shop in South Amherst. A pending Ohio bill would limit law enforcement's ability in Ohio to keep assets without a criminal conviction.

(Courtesy of Elyria Police Department)

Nick Sibilla works at the Institute for Justice in Virginia

ARLINGTON, Virginia -- Based on little more than mere suspicion, law enforcement can seize cash, cars, even real estate, from Ohioans who have done nothing wrong. Under "civil forfeiture" laws, property owners have fewer rights than accused criminals, while this process brings in tens of millions of dollars in revenue to fatten budgets for police and prosecutors. With a major reform bill currently pending in the Ohio Senate, lawmakers now have a chance to curb this abusive practice.

In Ohio, owners do not have to be convicted, or even charged with a crime, to permanently lose their property to civil forfeiture. Meanwhile, for prosecutors to win one of these cases, they need only show by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. more likely than not) that a property has some connection to criminal activity. That is far lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for criminal convictions.

Thankfully, new legislation (House Bill 347) unveiled by Republican state Reps. Robert McColley of Napoleon, in Northwest Ohio, and Tom Brinkman of Cincinnati would restore due process for Ohioans caught in this legal nightmare.

First, their reform bill would only allow a property to be forfeited after the owner has been convicted in criminal court. In addition, McColley and Brinkman's legislation would raise the standard of proof to "clear and convincing evidence," which better protects property owners. Just as crucially, nothing in the bill would hinder law enforcement from seizing property, so long as they had probable cause for the seizure.

In May, the Ohio House overwhelmingly passed Substitute House Bill 347.

Left unchecked, forfeiture has become a booming industry for Ohio law enforcement. By participating in one federal forfeiture program called "equitable sharing," a local or state agency can keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds from a forfeited property by collaborating with a federal agency. A recent report by the Institute for Justice where I work found that between 2000 and 2013, Ohio law enforcement received nearly $140 million in federal forfeiture funds from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Countless Americans have fallen prey to this program. After 9/11, Ohio law enforcement seized cash from people never charged with a crime more than 1,900 times, The Washington Post uncovered in 2014. The Post later found that Ohio law enforcement agencies had spent more than $10 million in federal forfeiture funds on salaries, overtime, travel and training. In Reminderville, police even hired a face-painting clown with forfeiture money.

But if HB 347 is enacted, law enforcement will no longer be able to transfer seized property to a federal agency, unless the property was worth more than $100,000. According to The Washington Post, out of all cases where police seized cash and did not file charges, half of the seizures were below $8,800. In other words, the transfer ban would curb many unjust forfeitures.

Moreover, this provision would prevent police and prosecutors from circumventing the new reforms, should they pass. In other states, like Missouri and North Carolina, law enforcement agencies have routinely turned to equitable sharing to bypass tougher state laws.

Amid increasing political polarization, HB 347 has united liberals, conservatives and libertarians -- groups that don't often see eye to eye. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Buckeye Institute, FreedomWorks, the Institute for Justice and the NAACP all agree Ohio's abusive civil forfeiture laws must change. In fact, a poll by Fix Forfeiture found that, in Ohio, 74 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of independents favor reform. Nationwide, only seven percent of Americans actually back the status quo for civil forfeiture.

Slowly but surely, lawmakers are beginning to heed what voters want. Minnesota, Montana and Nevada now all require criminal convictions before forfeiture, just as HB 347 would accomplish if enacted. New Mexico and Nebraska went even further and completely abolished civil forfeiture, replacing it with criminal forfeiture. Both states also implemented bans on transferring seized property to federal authorities, similar to the provision in HB 347. Notably, both the Democratic and Republican parties endorsed forfeiture reform as part of their national party platforms.

Ohio is poised to join a growing, national movement. To protect Ohioans' constitutional rights from government overreach, lawmakers must curtail civil forfeiture.

Nick Sibilla works at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public-interest law firm based in Arlington, Virginia.

********

Have something to say about this topic? Use the comments to share your thoughts, and stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the Notification Settings (in blue) just below.