DOVER — The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office has filed a forfeiture petition against a Rochester man who has not been charged with a crime, claiming the more than $2,300 in cash seized in a traffic stop was obtained through illicit drugs. It is a charge the owner of the money rejects.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire argues the AG’s forfeiture petition is “not in compliance” with a recent civil forfeiture law revision, a notion the AG disputes.

According to court documents, on Oct. 17 members of the Strafford County Drug Task Force were conducing surveillance of 17 Winter St. in Rochester, an address that officers say is known “to be associated with drug activity.”

During the stakeout, a Nissan Altima, with a woman driving and Michael Demeritt in the passenger seat, stopped to pick up a man at the address who got into the back seat of the car. The car was then driven to a nearby Chinese restaurant on Signal Street. In the parking lot, all three exited the vehicle. Demeritt and the woman enter the restaurant, while the man from the backseat left the parking lot on foot towards Portland Street. Shortly afterwards, the man was stopped and arrested for drug possession.

After Demeritt, 38, of Rochester, and the woman later exited the Chinese restaurant and drove away in the Nissan, police stopped the vehicle, though court records are unclear for what reason. During the stop, Demeritt voluntarily emptied his pocket, which contained $2,361, but he had no illicit drugs. He told police he obtained the money from legal gambling and had tax documents to prove it.

Police asked to search the vehicle, which was declined. They impounded it and obtained a search warrant, according to court documents. During the search, investigators allege they found a hollowed out can of “Fix a Flat” in the trunk they say is "consistent with the type of drug hide that may be used to conceal controlled drugs,” the documents state. Police also allege there was residue of a controlled drug at the bottom of the can.

The next day, police searched Demeritt’s residence and claim they found “195 assorted packets of synthetic cannabinoids, a digital scale and a piece of mail addressed to (him).” Demeritt was not arrested after either search. He claims they searched his residence and found nothing. Then they searched a residence next to his, which is where they found the cannabinoids, he said. While both places are owned by his mother, he says only one is his residence. Demerrit is on parole until 2020 for drug offenses stemming from 2014 and is enrolled in drug court. He told Foster's on Friday that he has been clean for the past 10 months.

Assistant AG Jesse O’Neill filed a civil forfeiture petition in Strafford County Superior Court this month to permanently seize the money obtained from Demeritt, stating “there are reasonable grounds to believe the $2,361 seized from (Demeritt) were used or were intended for use in the procurement, trafficking, delivery or distribution” of illicit drugs. Quoting state law, O’Neill states in the document that "all moneys ... found in proximity to controlled substances is presumed to be forfeitable ... and the claimant of the property shall bear the burden of rebutting this presumption.”

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU-NH, takes issue with the seizure because Demerrit has not been charged with a crime. Bissonnette said in an email the petition “does not appear to be in compliance with the spirit or letter of the legislature’s 2016 civil asset forfeiture reforms.”

In June of 2016, then Gov. Maggie Hassan signed Senate Bill 522 into law that required a criminal conviction before the money can be forfeited in most cases. The law went into effect Jan. 1, 2017.

“It appears that the state is saying that it can simply hold the property indefinitely — perhaps for months or years — upon the filing of a forfeiture petition, even in the absence of a criminal charge,” Bissonnette wrote. “This is not what the legislature intended when it enacted civil asset forfeiture reforms in 2016. If no charges will be filed, how long is a property holder supposed to wait to get his property back?”

O’Neill disputes Bissonnette’s position, saying the filing is just the start of the proceeding and the AG has only 60 days to file a petition. “Regardless of the status of the criminal case/investigation. Nothing in the civil asset forfeiture statute requires criminal charges to have been brought prior to that 60-day deadline,” he wrote in an email.

“This is not a situation where the funds in question are being held indefinitely while the criminal investigation is ignored. There is an active and ongoing criminal investigation into whether Mr. Demeritt violated the Controlled Drug Act. At some point that investigation will conclude, and Strafford County authorities will make a decision as to whether or not to bring criminal charges against Mr. Demeritt. Once that decision is made, my office will take the appropriate action on the civil asset forfeiture case.”

The 60-day limit was recently tested in a Farmington case where the AG mailed the petition to Strafford County Superior Court on the 59th day and the court received it on the 61st day. A defense attorney argued the filing was untimely, and the judge agreed, dismissing the claim without judging the merits.

O’Neill's petition states that while Demeritt had claimed the cash was from gambling and could prove it through tax records, he did not produce any. Demeritt said he first contacted Rochester police some days after the seizure to show his proof, but he said he was told the case was now with the AG’s office. Demeritt said he made multiple calls and even drove to the AG’s office in Concord earlier this month to show his tax documents, but wasn't able to see anyone and hasn’t received a return phone call.

“I don’t understand why they have the right to take my money when I was just the passenger of the car. I didn’t have drugs on me. I told them I had proof where the money came from," Demeritt said.

O’Neill said that while he hasn’t polled the entire office, he has not received Demerit’s message. Either way, he said, “the petition is not the end of it.” Demeritt can still work through the court process to get the money returned, he said.