Asset Forfeiture FINAL.pptvscc.virginia.gov/Asset Forfeiture_FINAL-1.pdfBackground • Deterring and...
Transcript of Asset Forfeiture FINAL.pptvscc.virginia.gov/Asset Forfeiture_FINAL-1.pdfBackground • Deterring and...
AssetForfeiture(SB684/HB1287)October27,2015
2
Overview• StudyAuthorization
• Methodology
• Background
• VirginiaLaw
• VirginiaData
• OtherStates
• RecommendationsandItemsforConsideration
3
StudyAuthorization
• SenateBill684(SB684),patroned bySenatorCarrico,andHouseBill1287(HB1287),patroned byDelegateCole,wereintroducedduringtheRegularSessionofthe2015GeneralAssembly.
• Asintroduced,thetwobillswereidentical.
• HouseBill1287wasslightlyamendedintheHouseCourtsofJusticeCommittee.
4
StudyAuthorization
• BothbillswerepassedbyintheSenateFinanceCommittee,andaletterwassenttotheCrimeCommission,requestingthatthesubjectmatterofthebillsbereviewed.
• TheExecutiveCommitteeoftheCrimeCommissionauthorizedabroadreviewofassetforfeitureinVirginia.
5
StudyAuthorization
• BothSB684andHB1287wouldrequirethatanyforfeitureactionsrelatedtocriminalactivity(pursuanttoVa.Code§19.2‐386.1)wouldbestayeduntilacriminalconviction,andthepropertywouldnotbeforfeiteduntilcompletionofallappeals.– Ifnojudgmentofconvictionforaqualifyingoffenseisentered,theseizedpropertywouldthenbereleased.
6
StudyAuthorization
• TheamendedversionofHB1287providedtwoexceptionstotherequirementthatseizedpropertycouldnotbeforfeitedunlesstherewasaconvictionforaqualifyingoffense,andallappealswerecompleted:– (1)Theforfeiturewasorderedbyacourtpursuanttoalawfulpleaagreement;or,
– (2)Theownerofthepropertydidnotsubmitawrittendemandforreturnofthepropertywithin1yearfromthedateofseizure,inwhichcasetheforfeiturecasecouldproceed.
7
Methodology
• Studyactivities:– Collectedavailableliteratureanddata;– Metwithkeystakeholders;– CompletedastatutoryreviewofVirginiaandotherstates;
– SurveyedalllawenforcementagenciesandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices;
– Reviewedover80lawenforcementagencies’generalorders/policiespertainingtoassetforfeiture.
8
Background
• Assetforfeiture,inthiscontext,canbedefinedasacivillawsuit,initiatedbythegovernment,toseizetheinstrumentalitiesandprofitsofcriminalactivity.
• Thereareearlylegalprecedentsforthistypeofaction;inColonialtimes,smuggledgoodscouldbeseizedandsoldtoensureapplicablecustomsdutieswerereceivedbythegovernment.– Thiswasseparatefromanycriminalactiontakenagainstindividualswhowereinvolvedinsmuggling.
9
Background
• Atanearlydate,forfeiturealsobecameatoolusedtocombatanddetercriminalactivity.– “Allmoniesactuallystakedorbettedwhatsoever,shallbeliabletoseizure…underawarrantfromamagistrate…andbepaidintothetreasuryoftheCommonwealth,fortheuseandbenefitoftheliteraryfund,deductingthereoutfiftypercentuponallmoniesseized,tobepaidtothepersonorpersonsmakingthesaidseizure.”
• RevisedCodeof1819,Chapter147,section11.
10
Background
• Forfeiturestartedtobecomemoreprominentasgovernmentsacrossthecountrysoughtwaystocombattheenormousprofitsgeneratedbythesalesofdrugs.
• Until1991,theVirginiaConstitutionrequiredthatallforfeitedpropertyaccruedbytheCommonwealth,aswellasfinesforoffensescommittedagainsttheCommonwealth,bepaidintotheLiteraryFund,whichisusedtofundVirginiaschools.(Va.Constitution,ArticleVIII,§8).
11
Background
• In1991,theConstitutionofVirginiawasamended,topermittheGeneralAssemblytoallowfor“theproceedsfromthesaleofallpropertyseizedandforfeitedtotheCommonwealthforaviolationofthecriminallaws…proscribingthemanufacture,saleordistributionofacontrolledsubstanceormarijuana”to“bedistributedbylawforthepurposeofpromotinglawenforcement.”– Proceedsfromtheforfeitureofitemsconnectedtonon‐drug criminaloffensesstillgototheLiteraryFund.
12
Background:LiteraryFundData
• Thetotalnetrevenuefromall LiteraryFundsourceshasremainedstableoverthepast5years.
FY Total LiteraryFund Revenue
2011 $89,465,124
2012 $89,668,006
2013 $91,973,522
2014 $86,144,047
2015 $89,108,012Source: Virginia Dep’t of Accounts, Literary Fund Data, CARS System.
13
Background:LiteraryFundData
Source: Virginia Dep’t of Accounts, Literary Fund Data, CARS System.
Source FY15NetRevenueFines,Penalties&ForfeitedRecognizances $60,598,703Proceeds fromUnclaimedLotteryPrizes $12,421,426Interest onFinesandForfeitures $6,633,262InterestonLiteraryLoans $4,275,160Fines ImposedbytheStateCorporationCommission $2,912,604Interest fromOtherSources $1,657,132Regulatory BoardMonetaryPenalty&LateFees $525,818Forfeited/ConfiscatedPropertyandFunds $339,964Fines,Fort,CourtFees,Costs,Penalties&Escheat $2,000CriminalHistoryFee $32PrivateDonations,Gifts&Grants $10Pay toCircuitCourtforCommissions ‐$212,113Refund‐ Misc.DisbursementsMade PriorYears ‐$45,586PropertyEscheatedbyAppointedEscheater ‐$400TOTAL $89,108,012
NetRevenuefromIndividualLiteraryFundSources,FY15
14
Background
Broadlyspeaking,forfeitureofassetsrelatedtocriminalactivityservesanumberofpublicpolicygoals:
– Removescontrabandanddangerousitemsfromthepublic;– Recompensesthegovernmentforlostincome;– Recompensesthegovernmentfortheexpensesofacriminalprosecutionandinvestigation;
– Preventsunjustenrichmentbycriminals;– Helpsdirectlyfundlawenforcementeffortstokeepsocietysafe;and,
– Thwartsanddeterscriminalactivity.
15
Background
• Deterringandcombattingongoingcriminalactivityisespeciallyrelevantwhendealingwithanorganizedcriminalenterprise,suchasthedistributionofdrugs.
• Directlyfundinglawenforcementeffortsisespeciallyimportantwhenitcomestocombattingorganizedcriminalenterprises.
• Lawenforcementmusthandlethelogisticsoflengthyinvestigationsandcriminalswhocanhaveenormousresourcesattheirdisposal.Forinstance:– Needtopayconfidentialinformants;– Setupcontrolledbuys;– Createfictitiousbusinessesandtransactionsites;– Surveillanceequipment.
DRUGS
Background: “Drug/Money Cycle”
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
Cash forDrugs
1
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
2
1
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
2
3
1
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
AdulterationConversion
2
3
Distribution
1
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
Drugs forCash
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
AdulterationConversion
2
3
4Distribution
1
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
CashManagement
Drugs forCash
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
AdulterationConversion
2
3
4Distribution
1
5
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
CashManagement
Drugs forCash
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
Operating ExpensesConspicuous Consumption
ConversionsInvestments
AdulterationConversion
2
3
4Distribution
1
5
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
CashManagement
Drugs forCash
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
Transportation of Cash
Operating ExpensesConspicuous Consumption
ConversionsInvestments
AdulterationConversion
2
3
4Distribution
1
5
6
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
CASH
DRUGS
DrugManagement
CashManagement
Drugs forCash
Transportation ofDrugs
Cash forDrugs
Transportation of Cash
Operating ExpensesConspicuous Consumption
ConversionsInvestments
AdulterationConversion
2
3
4Distribution
1
5
6
Source: U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
29
Background
• However,ifnotproperlyoverseenormonitored,directfundingoflawenforcementthroughassetforfeiturecanleadtoinappropriatepurchases.
• Therehavebeennumerousstoriesinthepresshighlightinginstanceswherecashwasseizedbylawenforcement,inamannerthatindicatesabuseofthesystem.
30
Background
• Example:MattLee,a31yearoldcollegegraduate,withnocriminalrecord,hadreceiveda$2,500loanfromhisfathertohelphimgetstartedwithanewjobinCalifornia.
• DrivingfromMichigantoCalifornia,hewasstoppedinHumboldtCounty,Nevada,andhis$2,500wasconfiscatedonsuspicionthatitwasdrugmoney.
• Mr.Leehadtohireanattorneytohavehismoneyreturnedtohim;attorneyfeesendedupcostinghim$1,269,nearlyhalftheamounthisfatherhadloanedhim.– Source:WashingtonPost,Sept.8,2014.
31
Background
• TheWashingtonPostrecentlyranaseriesofarticlesonthesubjectofassetforfeiture.
• Ofthe17orsospecificcasesgivenasexamples,only4involvedforfeituresthattookplaceinVirginia.
• Ofthose4cases,threeinvolvedforfeitureunderthefederalsystem,notVirginia’sstateassetforfeiturelaws.– Itwasnotcleariftheremainingcasewasstateorfederal,butitseemstohavealsoinvolvedafederalforfeitureproceeding.
32
Background
• Bycontrast,aVirginiaprosecutorrevealedacasewhereawoman,unemployedandwithnovisiblemeansofincome,purchasedmultiplevehiclesinashortperiodoftime.
• Sherepeatedlylenthercarstoboyfriendsandex‐boyfriends,whousedthecarsindrugtransactions.
• Thewomanclaimed,inallinstances,thatshedidnotknowhervehicleswerebeingusedforcriminalactivity.– Shealsocouldnotaccountforhowshewasabletopurchasemultiplevehicles.
33
Background‐ ConstitutionalLaw
• Althoughthedueprocessrequirementsforassetforfeituresarelessthanwhatexistforcriminaltrials,certainconstitutionalsafeguardsmuststillbeobserved.
• TheEighthAmendmentdoesapply,andintheorywouldprohibitanexcessiveforfeitureforminorwrongdoing.Austinv.UnitedStates,509U.S.602(1993).– Inpractice,forfeituresarealmostneverfoundtohaveviolatedtheEighthAmendment.
34
Background‐ConstitutionalLaw
• Becauseassetforfeitureinvolvestheseizureofanindividual’sproperty,thereareadditionallimitationsplacedonthegovernment’sactions.
• TheFourthAmendmentdoesapplytoforfeitureproceedings,sonoseizurescanbemadethatareunreasonable.U.S.v.JamesDanielGoodRealPropertyetal,510U.S.43(1993).– Ingeneral,aprobablecausestandard,orsomethingbeyondmeresuspicion,mustbeused.
35
Background‐ConstitutionalLaw
• TheFifthAmendment’sdueprocessrequirementsalsoapplytoforfeitures.U.S.v.JamesDanielGoodRealPropertyetal,510U.S.43(1993).– Ingeneral,theremustbepriornoticeandtheopportunityforahearingpriortotheorderofforfeiturebeingenteredbyacourt.
• ThisissimilartotheVirginiaSupremeCourt’sholdingthatthestatutoryrequirementsofVa.Code§ 19.2‐386.3aremandatoryandjurisdictional,suchthatfailuretofileaninformationwithin90daysofseizuremustresultinthereleaseoftheproperty.Commonwealthv.Brunson,248Va.347(1994).
36
Background‐ConstitutionalLaw
• However,asnoted,dueprocessrequirementsarelessstringentthaninacriminalcase.
• Forexample,thereisnorequirementthatan“innocentowner”defensebegrantedtotheco‐ownerofanautomobilethatisforfeited,andnorequirementthattheinnocentownerbegrantedcompensationfromthestate.Bennis v.Michigan,516U.S.442(1996).
37
Background‐ConstitutionalLaw
• Similarly,failuretofileanoticeofseizurewithin21days,asrequiredbyVa.Code§19.2‐386.3,isnotjurisdictional,andwillnotpreventtheforfeiture.Commonwealthv.Wilks,260Va.194(2000).– Unlikethefilingoftheinformation,thefilingofthenoticeis“directoryandnotmandatory,”anddoesnotdefineanybasicrights.
38
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• TheGeneralAssemblyhasspecifiedwhichcriminaloffensescanleadtocivilforfeitureactions:– Illegalmanufactureofalcoholicbeverages;– Actsofterrorism;– Thetransportationofstolenproperty;– Abductions(includingmisdemeanorparentalabduction);
– Prostitution;– Childpornography;
39
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• Criminaloffensesthatcanleadtocivilforfeitureactions(continued):– Computercrimes;– Manufacture,possessionorsaleofillegalelectroniccommunicationdevices;
– Moneylaundering;– Cigarettetraffickingandcounterfeitcigarettes;– Drugmanufactureanddistribution;– Gambling;
40
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• Criminaloffensesthatcanleadtocivilforfeitureactions(continued):– Anyweaponunlawfullypossessedorusedinafelony;
– Solicitingachildforsexualactivityusingacommunicationssystem;
– Extortion;and,– Illegalwagewithholding.
41
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• Theauthorizingstatutesforforfeiturehavebeendevelopedpiecemeal.Differentcrimesallowfordifferenttypesofpropertytobeforfeited.
• Forexample:Realpropertycanbeforfeitedifconnectedwithterrorism,drugdistribution,moneylaundering,prostitutionorillegalwagewithholding.– Itcannotbeforfeitedifconnectedwithgambling,themanufactureofchildpornography,orcigarettetrafficking.
• Slightlydifferentproceduresandlimitationscanbeinvolved,dependinguponthestatute,evenforthesametypeofproperty.
42
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• VehicleExample:UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.16(A),avehiclecanbeforfeited,withoutaconviction,if:– Itisusedtotransportstolenpropertyworthmorethan$200;
– Itisusedtotransportpropertyobtainedinarobbery,regardlessofvalue;or,
– Itisusedforasecond offenseinvolvingprostitution(includingmisdemeanorsolicitation).
• UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.16(B),avehiclecanbeforfeited,withoutaconviction,forafirst offenseofpimping,butonlyifthevictimisajuvenile.
43
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• VehicleExample(continued):– UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.35,avehicle(orotherproperty)canbeforfeitedforafirst violationofvariousprostitutionoffenses,includingmisdemeanorsolicitation.(Butnot misdemeanorprostitution).• However,theremustbeaconvictionandthecivilforfeitureaction“shallbestayeduntilconviction.”
44
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• VehicleExample(continued):– UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.16(B),avehiclecanbeforfeitedforabductioninviolationofVa.Code§18.2‐48.
• Noconvictionisrequired.
– UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.35,avehicle(orotherproperty)canbeforfeitedforabductioninviolationofVa.Code§18.2‐48.
• However,aconvictionisrequiredandthecivilforfeitureaction“shallbestayeduntilconviction.”
45
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• VehicleExample(continued):– UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.34,avehiclecanbeforfeitedforafelonyDUIinviolationofVa.Code§18.2‐266.
• However,aconvictionisrequired,andtheforfeitureactionisstayed“untiltheexhaustionofallappeals.”
– Va.Code§19.2‐386.34alsouniquelyprovidesforafamilyhardshipexceptiontotheforfeitureofthevehicle,whichdoesnotexistforanyotherforfeiturestatute.
46
VirginiaLaw‐ CriminalRelatedAF
• Itshouldbenotedthatthefollowingstatutesrequireaconviction fortheforfeituretoproceed:– Va.Code§19.2‐386.29(weaponsunlawfullycarriedorusedinthecommissionofafelony);
– Va.Code§19.2‐386.31(forfeitureofpropertyusedinconnectionwithchildpornography);
– Va.Code§19.2‐386.32(forfeitureofpropertyusedinconnectionwithchildabduction);
– Va.Code§19.2‐386.34(felonyDUI,appealsalsomustbefinished);and,
– Va.Code§19.2‐386.35(prostitution,abduction,extortion).
47
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• TheprocessformostcivilforfeitureactionsinVirginiaisgovernedbyChapter22.1ofTitle19.2oftheCodeofVirginia.
• PerVa.Code§ 19.2‐386.1,theforfeitureactioniscommencedwhentheCommonwealth’sAttorneyfilesaninformationwiththecircuitcourtclerk.
• Thereisastrictrequirementthattheinformationbefiled“withinthreeyearsofthedateofactualdiscoverybytheCommonwealthofthelastactgivingrisetotheforfeiture.”
48
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• However,mostitemsareseizedbylawenforcementinthecourseofinvestigationsorarrests.
• Inthatinstance,lawenforcementnotifiestheCommonwealth’sAttorney“forthwith”inwritingoftheseizure,perVa.Code§19.2‐386.3(A).
• Lawenforcementmustalsoconductaninventoryoftheseizedpropertyand“assoonaspracticable,”provideacopytotheowner.– “Failuretoprovideacopyoftheinventoryshallnotinvalidateanyforfeiture.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.2(C).
49
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• TheCommonwealth’sAttorneyshall,within21daysofreceivingnoticeoftheseizurefromlawenforcement,filea“noticeofseizureforforfeiture”withthecircuitcourt,statingthepropertyseized,thegroundsforanddateoftheseizure,andallownersandlienholdersthenknown.Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(A).– Failuretofiledoesnotinvalidatetheforfeiture,perWilks.
• Theclerkofcourtthenmails“forthwith”byfirst‐classmailnoticeofseizureforforfeituretothelastknownaddressofallidentifiedownersandlienholders.Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(A).
50
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Ifthepropertyseizedisamotorvehicle,aspecialprocedureisrequiredpursuanttoVa.Code§19.2‐386.2:1:– TheattorneyfortheCommonwealth“shallforthwithnotifytheCommissioneroftheDepartmentofMotorVehicles,bycertifiedmail.”
– TheCommissionerthen“promptlycertifies”totheCommonwealth’sAttorneythenameandaddressofthepersontowhomthevehicleisregistered,togetherwiththenameandaddressofanylienholders.
– TheCommissioneralsonotifiestheownersandlienholdersinwritingoftheseizureandwhereitoccurred.
51
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• TheCommonwealth’sAttorneyMUSTfileaninformationinthecircuitcourtwithin90daysoftheseizure,orthepropertyshallbereleasedtotheownerorlienholder.Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(A).
• Allpartiesdefendantmustthenbeservedacopyoftheinformationand anoticetoappear.
• “Thenoticeshallcontainastatementwarningthepartydefendantthathisinterestinthepropertyshallbesubjecttoforfeiture…unlesswithin30daysafterservice,ananswerunderoathisfiled.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(B).
52
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Iftheinformationisfiledbeforethepropertyisseized,eithertheclerkofthecourtorajudgeofthecourt,uponamotionbytheCommonwealth’sAttorney,shallissueawarranttolawenforcementauthorizedtoservecriminalprocessinthejurisdictionwherethepropertyislocated,toseizetheproperty.Va.Code§19.2‐386.2(A).
• Ifthepropertyisrealproperty,anoticeoflispendensshallbefiledwiththeclerkofthecircuitcourtwherethepropertyislocated.Va.Code§19.2‐386.2(B).
53
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Atanytimepriortothefilingofaninformation,theCommonwealth’sAttorneymay,“uponpaymentofcostsincidenttothecustodyoftheseizedproperty,returntheseizedpropertytoanownerorlienholder.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.5.
• Theownerorlienholderofseizedpropertyalsohastherighttorequesttheclerkofcourtappraisethevalueoftheproperty.Hecanthenpostabondforitsfaircashvalue,pluscourtcostsandthecostsoftheappraisal,andhavethepropertyreturned.Va.Code§ 19.2‐386.6.
54
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Ifthepropertyseized“isperishableorliabletodeterioration,decay,orinjurybybeingdetainedincustodypendingtheproceedings,”thecircuitcourtmayorderthepropertysold,andholdtheproceedsofthesalependingfinaldispositionofthecase.Va.Code§19.2‐386.7.
55
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Apartydefendant“mayappearatanytimewithinthirtydaysafterserviceonhim,”andanswerunderoath“thenatureofthedefendant’sclaim,”thetitleorinterestintheproperty,and“thereason,cause,exemptionordefensehemayhaveagainsttheforfeitureoftheproperty.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.9.
• Ifanownerorlienholderhasnotreceivedactualorconstructivenoticeoftheaction,hemayappearatanytimepriortofinaljudgmentandmaybemadeaparty.Va.Code§19.2‐386.9.
56
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Ifapartydefendantfailstoappear,heshallbeindefault.However,within21daysaftertheentryofjudgment,apartydefendantmaypetitionDCJS“forremissionofhisinterestintheforfeitedproperty.”– OnlyonesuchpetitionwasfiledinFY14.
• Forgoodcauseshownanduponproofofthedefendant’svalidexemption,DCJSshallgrantthepetitionanddirectthestatetreasurytoeitherremittothedefendantanamountnotexceedinghisinterestintheproperty,orconveyclearandabsolutetitletotheforfeitedproperty.Va.Code§19.2‐386.10.
57
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Ifapartydefendantappears,thecaseproceedstotrial.TrialbyjurycanbedemandedbyeithertheCommonwealthorthepartydefendant.
• TheCommonwealthhastheburdenofprovingthepropertyissubjecttoforfeiture.Uponsuchashowing,the“claimant”hastheburdenofprovinghisinterestinthepropertyis“exempt”undersubdivision2,3,or4of§19.2‐386.8.
• Theproofofallissuesshallbebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.10(A).
58
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Note:Theforfeitureaction“shallbeindependentofanycriminalproceedingagainstanypartyorotherpersonforviolationoflaw.However,uponmotionandforgoodcauseshown,thecourtmaystayaforfeitureproceedingthatisrelatedtoanyindictmentorinformation.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.10(B).
59
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• TheexemptionsadefendantcanassertforseizedpropertyarelistedinVa.Code§19.2‐386.8:– Aconveyanceusedbyacommoncarrier,unlesstheownerwasaconsentingpartyorknewoftheillegalconduct;
– Aconveyanceusedbyacriminal,nottheowner,whowasinunlawfulpossessionoftheconveyance;
– Anypropertyiftheownerdidnotknowandhadnoreasontoknowoftheillegalconduct;
– Abonafidepurchaserforvaluewithoutnotice;– Theillegalconductoccurredwithouttheowner’s“connivanceorconsent,expressorimplied;”and,
– Theillegalconductwascommittedbyatenant,andthelandlorddidnotknoworhavereasontoknowofthetenant’sconduct.
60
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Theexemptionsofadefendantwhoisalienholderaresimilar:– Thelienholderdidnotknowoftheillegalconductatthetimethelienwasgranted;
– Thelienholderheldabonafidelienthatwasperfectedpriortotheseizureoftheproperty;and,
– Theillegalconductoccurredwithouthis“connivanceorconsent,expressorimplied.”
61
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Intheeventthereisasaleofthepropertytoabonafidepurchaserforvalueinordertoavoidtheconsequencesofaforfeiture,“theCommonwealthshallhavearightofactionagainstthesellerofthepropertyfortheproceedsofthesale.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.9.
62
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Oncethepropertyhasbeenforfeited,itiseithersold,returnedtoalawenforcementagency,ordestroyedifthevalueoftheproperty“isofsuchminimalvaluethatthesalewouldnotbeinthebestinterestoftheCommonwealth.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.11(A).
• Contrabandandweaponsmaybeordereddestroyedbythecourt.Va.Code§19.2‐386.11(C).
• Anysaleofforfeitedproperty“shallbemadeforcash,afterdueadvertisement….bypublicsaleorothercommerciallyfeasiblemeans.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.12(A).
63
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• Anycosts,includingsalescommissionsandcostsforthestorageandmaintenanceoftheproperty,shallbepaidoutofthenetproceedsfromthesaleoftheproperty.Iftherearenonetproceeds,thecostsandexpensesshallbepaidbytheCommonwealthfromtheCriminalFund.Va.Code§19.2‐386.12(B).
• NOTE:Partiesininteresttoanyforfeiture“shall beentitledtoreasonableattorneys’feesandcostsiftheforfeitureproceedingisterminatedin[their]favor.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.12(B).
64
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
Source: Office of the Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia.
FY IndividualsReceivingVouchers TotalAmountDisbursed
2012 5 $3,537
2013 6 $11,120
2014 4 $2,005
2015 7 $5,816
TOTAL 22 $22,478
ExpensesPaidbyCriminalFundPursuantto§19.2‐386.12,FY12‐FY15
65
VirginiaLaw‐ Process
• DCJSretains10%ofproceeds“inanon‐revertingfund,knownastheAssetSharingAdministrativeFund.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.14(A1).
• DCJSthendistributestheremainingproceedstoany“federal,stateorlocalagencyorofficethatdirectlyparticipatedintheinvestigationorotherlaw‐enforcementactivitywhichled…totheseizureandforfeiture.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.14(B).
• Forfeitedpropertyandproceedsmaynotsupplantexistingprogramsorfunds,perVa.Code§19.2‐386.12(D).
66
Data
• Staffrequesteddatafromanumberofsources,including:– U.S.DepartmentofJustice;– Va.DepartmentofCriminalJusticeServices;– Va.SupremeCourt;– Va.DepartmentofAccounts(LiteraryFunddata);– Va.CriminalInjuriesCompensation’sCriminalFund;and,– Va.Deptartment ofMotorVehicles.
67
Data
• StaffalsosurveyedallVirginialawenforcementagenciesandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices.– 87%(118of135)ofprimarylawenforcementagenciesresponded;
• Anadditional56responseswerereceivedfromtown,campusandotherstateagencies.
– 83%(99of120)ofCommonwealth’sAttorneysresponded.
68
Data
• InFY14,Virginiareceivedacombinedtotalofapproximately$10.8millionindisbursalsfromthefederalandstateassetforfeiture(AF)programs.– FederalAFProgramDisbursals,FY14:$6,641,267– DCJS’StateAFProgramDisbursals,FY14:$4,185,594.
• VirginialawenforcementandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Officescanparticipateinthefederalassetforfeitureprogram,thestateassetforfeitureprogram,orboth.
69
FederalAFProgramData
• All50statesandterritoriesparticipateintheFederalEquitableSharingProgram.– Encompassestheseizureandforfeitureofassetsthatrepresenttheproceedsof,orwereusedtofacilitatefederalcrimes.
• InFY14,statesreceivedatotalof$425,052,377.– Virginiareceived$6,641,267(1.5%ofthistotalamount.)
• Recipientsincluded75LawEnforcementAgencies,DrugTaskForcesandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices.
70
FederalAFProgramData
Rank State Total1 California $77,400,9782 NewYork $76,140,0673 Texas $26,594,3064 Georgia $22,736,4275 Florida $17,045,9126 RhodeIsland $17,026,3557 Illinois $16,143,2038 NewJersey $12,258,7039 NorthCarolina $10,805,90110 Pennsylvania $10,079,05211 Connecticut $8,823,91312 Ohio $8,402,53513 Michigan $8,101,02614 Massachusetts $7,719,17315 Virginia $6,641,267
Source: U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Asset Forfeiture Fund Reports to Congress, Equitable Sharing Payments.
Top15StatesReceivingDisbursalsfromtheFederalAFProgram,FY14
71
FederalAFProgramData
FY #Agencies TotalDisbursed2004 77 $4,268,1112005 84 $4,069,0422006 66 $4,948,1142007 82 $29,647,752*2008 75 $26,673,908*2009 84 $7,067,3602010 75 $5,701,3322011 84 $6,331,3502012 75 $7,326,1462013 66 $4,382,4222014 75 $6,641,267TOTAL $107,056,804
TotalDisbursedfromFederalAFProgramtoVirginia,FY04‐FY14
Source: U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Asset Forfeiture Fund Reports to Congress, Equitable Sharing Payments. * Anomaly due to one large case settlement disbursed over a 2-year time period to one agency.
72
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• DCJSmanagesthetrackingandreimbursementofstatedrug‐relatedassetforfeituresinVirginia.– Since1991,DCJShasdisbursed$102,991,395toVirginia’slawenforcementandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices.
• DatacollectedbyDCJSisfairlycomprehensivefor:– Itemsseizedpursuanttodrug‐relatedcrimes.
• DoesnotaccountforitemsseizedpursuanttoNON‐drugrelatedcrimeswhosesubsequentforfeiturefundsaresenttotheLiteraryFund.
– Itemsseizedthatarevaluedat$500ormore.• Lessdetailedinformationiscollectedforforfeitureslessthan$500.
73
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• StaffrequestedthefollowingdatafromDCJS:– 10YearOverviewofAssetsSeizedbyAgency,FY06‐FY15
• Allparticipatingagenciesmustsubmitformsforeachandeverydrug‐relateditemseizedandmustupdateDCJSontheoutcomeofeachcaseforeachitem.
– SampleofCourtOrdersResultinginForfeiture• DCJSrequiresthatcopiesofcourtordersbesubmittedinallcasesresultinginaforfeiture.
– AnnualCertificationReports• ParticipatingagenciesmustalsosubmitanannualcertificationreportthatoutlinestheirbeginningAFbalance,AFfundsreceived,andanitemizedlistofhowAFfundswerespent.
74
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• Staffrequestedthefollowingdata(cont.):– SharingAgreements
• Outlinehowproceedsfromadisbursalaretobedistributed.• DCJSkeeps10%oftheproceedsfromeachforfeiteditem.• Theremainingproceedsaredividedaccordingtoeachagency’sorTaskForce’ssharingagreementbetweenlawenforcementandCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices.
• Manyofthesharingagreementsprovidethat80%ofthesharegoestothelawenforcementagencyand20%goestotheCommonwealth’sAttorney’sOffice.
– However,someprosecutorswillreceivesharesaslowas10%toashighas45%.– Someprosecutorswillretainmoreofashare(50/50)ifthecaseresultsinatrialorinvolvesrealestate.
– TaskForcesharingagreementsarefarmorecomplexastheyinvolvemultipleagencies.
75
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
FY#
AgenciesTotalCases
TotalItemsSeized
ValueofItemsSeized
TotalDisbursedtoAgencies
2006 42 143 189 $639,152 $110,899
2007 46 180 219 $991,263 $235,460
2008 68 265 365 $2,020,786 $266,128
2009 96 432 582 $2,639,639 $780,855
2010 158 2,006 2,464 $10,134,559 $4,957,627
2011 150 2,002 2,346 $10,258,608 $5,350,350
2012 143 2,003 2,457 $11,576,315 $5,820,171
2013 161 2,000 2,369 $11,546,672 $5,253,183
2014 149 1,994 2,412 $10,624,949 $4,185,594
2015 154 1,775 2,123 $10,250,119 $5,600,969**
TOTAL 12,800 15,526 $70,682,062 $32,561,236Source: VA Department of Criminal Justice Services. * Data as of September 8, 2015. ** Most recent figure provided on DCJS website.
10YearOverviewofStateDrug‐RelatedForfeitures,FY06‐FY15*
76
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)• FromFY10‐FY15:
– Currencyisthemostfrequentlyseizeditem• 64%(9,034of14,171)
– Vehicleswerethe2nd mostfrequentlyseizeditem• 25%(3,479of14,171)
– Rangeofvaluesofitemsseizedbylawenforcement:
• $71to$1,115,004
– Rangeofdisbursalsreceivedbyparticipants:• $0to$510,790
77
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
FYTotalItemsSeized Currency Vehicles Electronics Jewelry Firearms Property Boats Other
2010 2,464 1,511 627 152 64 26 8 4 72
2011 2,346 1,426 604 117 83 39 7 4 66
2012 2,457 1,438 630 139 33 59 7 3 148
2013 2,369 1,541 571 73 75 42 4 1 62
2014 2,412 1,613 585 76 21 46 4 4 63
2015* 2,123 1,505 462 53 15 39 6 0 43
TOTAL 14,171 9,034 3,479 610 291 251 36 16 454
TypesofItemsSeizedinStateDrug‐RelatedForfeitures,FY10‐FY15
Source: VA Department of Criminal Justice Services. * Data as of September 8, 2015.
78
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• InFY14,therewere2,412itemsseizedwith936stillhavingapendingstatus.– Whenremovingpendingcases,therewere1,476itemswithafinalizedstatus.
• Overallcaseoutcomefortheremaining1,476itemswas:– 75%(1,107of1,476)wereforfeited;– 17%(245of1,476)werereturnedtoowner;– 6%(85of1,476)weredismissedincourt;– 2%(34of1,476)werereleasedtoalienholder;and,– <1%(5 of1,476)wereadministrative/other.
79
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• However,therearevariationsinoutcomesdependingonthetypeofitemsseized.Forexample,86%(959of1,115)ofcurrencywasforfeited;whereas,only41%(116of282)ofvehicleswereforfeitedinFY14.
TypeofItem SeizedTotalItems Forfeited
Return toOwner Dismissal
Release toLienholder Other
Currency 1,115 959 101 53 0 2Vehicle 282 116 110 29 26 1Electronics 23 8 12 1 2 0Firearms 2 1 1 0 0 0Jewelry 13 11 1 1 0 0RealEstate 2 0 2 0 0 0Boat 3 2 1 0 0 0Other 36 10 17 1 6 2TOTAL 1,476 1,107 245 85 34 5
TypesofItemsSeizedbyCaseOutcome,FY14
Source: VA Department of Criminal Justice Services. Cases with pending status not included in these figures.
80
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• CourtOrderAnalysis:– Staffrequestedandanalyzedasampleof388courtordersfromFY14statedrug‐relatedcases.
– Staffwantedtodeterminehowmanyforfeitureswerearesultofdefaultversus othermeans.
• Ofthe388forfeiturecourtorders:– 95%(368of388)involvedcurrency;– 14%(56of388)involved vehicles;– 3%(12of388)involved electronics;– 2%(7of388)involvedfirearms;and,– <1%(3of388)involved jewelry.
81
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• Ofthe388forfeiturecourtorders:– 61%(237of388)werearesultof default;
• Defendantdidnotanswerinformationordidnotappear.
– 28%(108of388)involvedadefendantsigningapleaagreement,waiver,consenttoforfeitureorothertypeofsettlementpriortothehearing;
– 11%(41of388)involvedadefendant,ownerorGALappearingbutcaseresultedinforfeiture;and,
– <1%(2of388)resultedintrial.
82
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
• AnnualCertificationReports,FY14:– Staffenteredandanalyzed352annualcertificationreportssubmittedbyparticipatingagenciesforFY14.
• 224lawenforcementagencies,109Commonwealth’sAttorneys’Offices,and19DrugTaskForces.
– RangeofBeginningAFFundBalances:$0to$1,044,793.– RangeofAdditionalAFProceeds:$0to$95,271.
• Under$500forfeitures,auctionproceeds,transfersfromotheragencies.
– RangeofAFFundsSpent:$0to$361,641.– Participantsmustthenitemizefundsspentintoseveralspecificcategories.
83
StateDrug‐RelatedData(DCJS)
TotalForfeitureFundsSpentbyItemizedCategory,FY14
Source: VA Department of Criminal Justice Services, FY14 Annual Certification Reports. * Other category includes a wide array ofapproved expenditures for items such as uniforms, K9 officers, drug test kits, task force/professional dues and expert witnesses.
CategoryNumberofAgencies
TotalFundsSpent %ofTotal
Informants/Buys 24 $44,783 0.9%BodyArmor/ProtectiveGear 23 $87,398 1.8%Firearms/Weapons 30 $150,942 3.2%Electronics/Surveillance Equipment 34 $176,844 3.7%Building/Improvements 28 $340,356 7.2%Salaries 13 $366,563 7.7%Travel/Training 86 $571,458 12.1%Communications/Computers 88 $881,588 18.6%Other* 137 $2,120,675 44.7%TOTALSPENT $4,740,607
84
StateNon‐DrugRelatedData
• StaffattemptedtodeterminetheamountoffundssentbylawenforcementtotheLiteraryFundfromnon‐drugrelatedassetforfeitures.
• Mostreportedthat$0wassentfromtheiragencyinFY14.– Severalagenciesreportedthattheydidnottrackthisinformation.
• 15lawenforcementagenciesprovidedFY14amountstotaling$159,972.– Range=$125to$62,314.
• Unabletobreakdownbytype ofnon‐drugrelatedcrimes.
85
StateAssetForfeitureData
• DataSummary:– Excellentdataismaintainedforstatedrug‐relatedAF.– Thevolumeofcases,itemsseizedanddisbursalsreceivedhaveremainedconsistentoverthepast5years.
– Mostseizuresinvolvecurrencyandvehicles.• However,DMVdoesnotreadilykeeptrackofallvehicleforfeitures/holdletters.
– Ingeneral,75%ofcasesresultinforfeitureand25%ofcasesresultintheitembeingreturnedtotheowneroralienholder.
– Mostforfeituresarearesultofdefaultorsometypeofpleaagreement/settlement.
– Veryfewcasesappeartogototrial.
86
StateAssetForfeitureData• DataSummary:
– AgenciesareheldaccountabletothestateprogramthroughdetailedannualcertificationreportstoDCJS.
– NearlyallagenciesalsoreportedhavingannualauditsbyDCJSand/orotherentities.
– Mostagenciesreportedhavingadesignatedperson(s)tohandleAFcases.
– Datafornon‐drugrelatedAFisnotcapturedinareliable,transparentmannerlikedrug‐relatedAFdata.
– Datanotreadilycapturedtoconnecttherelatedcriminalchargesandconvictions.
– DatanotreadilyavailabletoascertainhowmanycivilAFtrialsinvolveaverdictinfavorofthecomplainant.
87
OtherStates
• Forfeiturestatutesofotherstateswerereviewed,withafocuson:– Isaconvictionrequiredforaforfeituretoproceed?
– Whatistheburdenofproof?– Istheburdenofproofdifferentforan“innocentowner?”
– Isthedefendantentitledtoastayinproceedings?– Isaprevailingdefendantentitledtocostsorattorneyfees?
88
OtherStates
• Isaconvictionrequiredforaforfeituretoproceed?– 33states(andthefederalgovernment)arelikeVirginiaanddonotrequireacriminalconvictionpriortoforfeiture.
– 7stateshaveblendedormixedrequirementswhereaconvictionisnecessaryinsomecircumstancesbutnotothers.
– 9statesessentiallyrequireaconviction.Exceptionsaremadeiftheclaimantagreestotheforfeiture.
89
OtherStates
• Isaconvictionrequiredforforfeituretoproceed?– Examplesofstatesthathavemixedrequirements:
• Coloradoisablendedjurisdiction;noforfeituremaybeentereduntilanownerofthepropertyisconvictedofaqualifyingoffense;however,formostofthoseoffenses,ifthestatecanprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethatthepropertywasinstrumentaltothecrime,oritsproceedsrelatedtothecriminalactivityofanon‐ownerandtheownerisnotan“innocentowner,”thenthepropertymaybeforfeitedwithoutaconviction.C.R.S.16‐13‐307(1.5),(1.7).
90
OtherStates
–Examplesofstatesthathavemixedrequirements(cont.):
• NewYorkdoesnotrequireaconvictionforforfeituresrelatedtocertaindrugrelatedfelonies;however,forfeituresrelatedtootherfeloniesdorequireaconviction.NYCLSCPLR§§1310,1311.
• NorthCarolinarequiresaconvictionforforfeitures,exceptforRICOforfeitures.N.C.Gen.Stat.§90‐112;§75D‐5.
91
OtherStates• Whatistheburdenofproof?
– 23states(andthefederalgovernment)arelikeVirginiaanduseapreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.
– 8statesuseaprobablecausestandard.– 1stateusesaprimafaciestandard.– 1stateusesareasonablecertaintystandard.– 8statesuseaclearandconvincingstandard.– 2statesuseabeyondreasonabledoubtstandard.– 6statesuseblendedormultiplestandards.
• CA,KY,NY,OR,TN,VTallhaveahigherstandardofproofifrealpropertyisbeingforfeited.
92
OtherStates
• Theburdenofproofforaninnocentownerexception:– 24states(andthefederalgovernment)arelikeVirginiaanduseapreponderanceoftheevidencestandard;
– 4statesuseaclearandconvincingstandard;– 15statesdonotspecificallynoteastandardintheirstatutes;
– 6statesuseblendedormultiplestandards.• CA,KY,NY,andORuseahigherstandardofproofdependinguponthetypeofpropertybeingforfeited;
• UTandVTuseahigherstandardofproofbasedonwhethertheclaimantisacriminaldefendant.
93
OtherStates
• Whobearstheburdenofproofifaninnocentownerexceptionisclaimed?– 32states(andthefederalgovernment)arelikeVirginiaandplacetheburdenofproofontheclaimant.
– 11statesplacetheburdenofproofonthestate.– 6statesuseblendedormultiplestandards.
• AL,KY,MEplacetheburdenonthestateforforfeituresofrealproperty.
• ORplacestheburdenonthestate,exceptifthepropertyiscash,weapons,ornegotiableinstruments.
• UTandVTplacetheburdenonthestateonlyiftheclaimantisacriminaldefendant.
94
OtherStates
• Isthedefendantentitledtorequestastayorcontinuanceintheproceedings?– 8states(andthefederalgovernment)arelikeVirginiaandstatutorilyspecifythattheproceedingsmaybestayedonthemotionofeitherparty.
– 3statesstatutorilyspecifythattheproceedingsmaybestayedonthemotionoftheclaimant.
– 7statesstatutorilyspecifythattheproceedingsshall bestayedonthemotionofeitherparty.
– MDrequirestheproceedingstobestayedifafamilyresidenceisthesubjectoftheforfeitureandtheclaimantisappealingthecriminalconviction.
95
OtherStates
• Otherstates,usuallythoserequiringaconviction,mandateforfeitureproceedingsbestayeduntilafterthecriminaltrial:– MOmandatesthatforfeitureproceedingsbestayeduntilthedispositionofcriminalcharges;nopropertycanbeforfeitedunlessthepersonisfoundguilty.
– NYmandatesthatforfeitureproceedingsbestayedduringthependencyofarelatedcriminalaction,butwiththeconsentofallparties,theforfeituremayproceed.
– MTrequiresaconvictionforforfeiture;unlessthedefendantrequestsseparateproceedings,theforfeitureproceedingsarehelddirectlyaftertheconviction.
96
OtherStates
• Isthedefendantentitledtocostsorfees?– 5statesarelikeVirginiaandawardtheclaimantcostsand/orfeesasamatterofrightifheprevails.
– 2statesexemptaprevailingclaimantfromcostsand/orfeesasamatterofrightifheprevails.
– 4stateswillawardaprevailingclaimantforcostsand/orfeesuponadiscretionaryfindingofthecourt.
– 4stateshavemixedrequirements;somecostsand/orfeesareawardedasamatterofright,whileothersrequireadiscretionaryfindingbythecourt.
97
OtherStates
• Isthedefendantspecificallyentitledtoattorneyfees?– 3statesarelikeVirginiaandrequirethattheprevailingclaimantshallbeawardedattorneyfees.
– 3statesspecifyinstatutethatattorneyfeesmaybeawardedtotheprevailingclaimantuponafindingbythecourt.
98
OtherStates
• Examplesofotherstatutoryprovisions:– 7statesprohibitaforfeiturethatwouldbeexcessiveordisproportionatetotheseverityoftheoffense.
– Vermontspecificallyallowstheclaimantandtheprosecutortoenterintoaforfeitureagreementunderwhichtheclaimantwillnotbechargedwithacrime.
– Missourispecificallyprohibitsforfeituretobeusedinbargainingtodeferprosecution,obtainaguiltyplea,oraffectasentencingrecommendation.
• Whilecriminalandforfeitureproceedingscanberesolvedatthesametime,thecourtshallnotapproveanyforfeituresettlementwithoutfirstfindingthatnoimproperbargaininghasoccurred.
99
OtherStates
• Examplesofotherstatutoryprovisions:– Texasspecificallyprohibitslawenforcementfromrequesting,requiring,orinducingapersontoexecuteadocumentpurportingtowaivethatperson’sinterestinorrightstoseizedproperty.
• Texasalsoprohibitsprosecutorsfromdoingthisbeforeacourtproceedinghasbeeninitiated.
100
Summary• Summaryofotherstatestatutes:
– Virginia’sstatutoryschemeisverysimilartomostotherstates.
– Morethan30statesandthefederalgovernmentarelikeVirginia:apreponderanceoftheevidencestandardisused;norequirementforacriminalconviction;theburdenisontheclaimant,afterthestateprovesthepropertyissubjecttoforfeiture,toestablishthatheisan“innocentowner.”
– Virginiaisintheminorityofstatesinrequiringreimbursementofattorneyfeestotheclaimantifheprevails.
101
Recommendations
• Staffrecommendations,whicharebaseduponthekeyfindingsofthestudy,focuson:– TransparencyoftheForfeitureProcessinVirginia– PreventingthePotentialforAbuses– AutomationandEfficiencies
• Thefirst3recommendationswouldrequirelegislation.Theother4couldbehandledadministratively.
• Severalotheritemsforconsiderationarealsoincluded.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
102
Recommendations
• Recommendation1:Theuseof“waivers”bylawenforcement,wherebythedeclaredownersorlawfulpossessorsofproperty“waive”theirrightstocontestforfeiture,shouldbeprohibited.– Thiswouldnotapplytocaseswheresomeonedeniesheistheownerorlawfulpossessorofproperty.
– Havinglawenforcementdirectly“negotiate”withapropertyowner,withoutthedirectinvolvementofaprosecutorand/oranattorneyfortheowner,canraisetheappearanceofunfairdealingorcoercion.
– Inotherstateswherethispracticebecamewidespread,therehavebeenreportsthattheprocesswasabused.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
103
Recommendations
• Recommendation2:DCJSshouldprepareanannualreporttotheGovernorandGeneralAssemblyregardinginformationonalldrugandnon‐drugassetseizuresandforfeitures.– Thereportshallbemadeavailabletothepublic.– PublicconfidenceincivilforfeitureinVirginiamaybeimprovedifinformationisreadilyavailable.
– ThereportshouldalsoincludedisbursalsreceivedbyVirginiaagenciesfromtheFederalAssetForfeitureSharingProgram.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
104
Recommendations
• Recommendation3:Theword“warrant”shouldbeaddedtoVa.Code§19.2‐386.10(B),sothataforfeitureproceedingmaybestayedifitisalsorelatedtoawarrant.– Currentlawonlyspecifiesforfeitureproceedingsbestayedwhenrelatedtoanindictmentorinformation.
– Thereareinstanceswheretheforfeitureisrelatedtoacasethatispendingforapreliminaryhearing,andnoindictmenthasyetbeenprepared.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
105
Recommendations
• Recommendation4:DCJSshouldrequireparticipatingagenciestosubmitinformationonallstatelawenforcementseizuresandstateforfeitureactionsstemmingfromcriminalactivity,notjustthoserelatedtodrugoffenses.– Currently,Virginiadoesnothavedetaileddatareadilyavailableonnon‐drugassetforfeitures.
– Thiswouldcaptureinformationrelatedtoabout 20othercrimeswhereforfeituresarepermitted.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
106
Recommendations
• Recommendation5:DCJSshouldcollectadditionaldatarelatedtoassetforfeituresforcriminalchargesandconvictionsthatmayaccompanydrugandnon‐drugrelatedcivilassetforfeitures.– Currently,theabilitytomatchcriminalchargesandconvictionswithcivilforfeitureproceedingsisnotreadilyavailable.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
107
Recommendations
• Recommendation6:DCJSshouldconsiderautomatingtheirstateAFprogramtoaffordLEandCA’stheabilitytouploadallforms,annualcertificationreportsandsupportingdocumentation.– Surveyresultsindicatedthatparticipatingagenciesdesiredamoreautomatedprocess.
– ParticipatingagenciessubmitthousandsofformsandsupportingdocumentationeachyeartoDCJS.
– DCJSreceives10%ofdrug‐relatedforfeiturestoadministertheStateForfeitedAssetSharingProgram.
– DCJSalreadyhasanonlinegrantmanagementsystemforquarterlyreporting.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
108
Recommendations
• Recommendation7:CrimeCommissionstaffshouldworkwithlawenforcementandprosecutorstohelpimplementtrainingthatcanbereadilyaccessibleonlinetonewassetforfeiturecoordinators.– Thereisahighturnoverrateforassetforfeiturecoordinators.
– Whenanewindividualisdesignatedasanassetforfeiturecoordinator,heshouldbeabletoreceivetrainingandeducationquickly,ratherthanwaitingforthenextavailablecourse.
– Traininghasalreadybeendevelopedbutisnottypicallyofferedonlineorregularlyscheduled.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
109
ItemsforConsideration
• Virginia’scurrentstatutesandpracticesbalancetheinterestsofpropertyownersandtheCommonwealth.
• AdditionalprotectionsforcitizenscouldbeimplementedinVirginia.
• However,nodirectevidencewasfoundofsystemicabuseoftheassetforfeitureprocessinVirginiabylawenforcementorprosecutors.
• Asmallminorityofstateshavestatutorilyenactedprovisionsthatraisetheburdenofprooforrequireaconvictionforforfeiturestoproceed.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
110
ItemsforConsideration
A. Mandatethatthedefendantwouldbeentitledtoastayuntiltheresolutionofanypendingcriminalcase.– Currentlawsaysthedefendant“may”begrantedastay.– 40%(38of94)ofCommonwealth’sAttorneys’OfficesreportedthattheyhadapolicytostaycivilAFcasesuntiltherelatedcriminalcaseiscompletelyresolved(i.e.,allappealsfinalized).
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
111
ItemsforConsideration
• BothlawenforcementandprosecutorshaveverysimilarmixedopinionsregardingarequirementtostayacivilAFcaseuntilanyrelatedcriminalchargesareresolved:
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
Opinion LawEnforcement Commonwealth'sAttorneysStronglyFavor 19%(21) 19%(18)SomewhatFavor 25%(27) 19%(18)SomewhatOppose 12%(14) 15%(16)StronglyOppose 33%(39) 34%(32)Undecided 12%(14) 12%(11)#Respondents 115 95
SupportofRequirementtoStayaCivilAFCase
Source: Virginia State Crime Commission, Law Enforcement and Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Asset Forfeiture Survey, 2015.Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
112
ItemsforConsideration
B. Mandatethatifthedefendantwantedtheforfeitureproceedingtobeheardpriortotheresolutionofapendingcriminalcase,theCommonwealthcouldnotstaythecaseoverthedefendant’sobjection.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
113
ItemsforConsideration
C. IncreasetheburdenofproofontheCommonwealthfrom“preponderanceoftheevidence”to“clearandconvincingevidence.”
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
114
ItemsforConsideration
D. Requireacriminalconvictionbeforeanyforfeiturecouldbeordered.– 93%(104of112)oflawenforcementagenciesdonot requireacriminalconvictionagainstsomeonebeforereferringarelatedcivilAFcasetotheCA.
– 18%(17of95)ofCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Officesreportedthattheyhadapolicyrequiringacriminalconvictionagainstsomeone,beforeproceedingwitharelatedAFcase(understandingthattheymayhavealreadyfiledinformationbeforethedefendant’sconviction).
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
115
ItemsforConsideration
• Themajorityofrespondinglawenforcementandprosecutorsatleast “somewhatoppose”arequirementforancriminalconvictionbeforearelatedcivilAFcasecanproceed.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
Opinion LawEnforcement Commonwealth'sAttorneysStronglyFavor 9%(11) 5%(5)SomewhatFavor 16%(18) 15%(14)SomewhatOppose 11%(13) 16%(15)StronglyOppose 51%(59) 62%(59)Undecided 13%(15) 2%(2)#Respondents 116 95
SupportofRequirementforaCriminalConvictionBeforeRelatedCivilAFCase
Source: Virginia State Crime Commission, Law Enforcement and Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Asset Forfeiture Survey, 2015.
116
ItemsforConsideration
E. Requireacriminalconviction,andtheconclusionofallappeals,beforeanyforfeiturecouldbeordered.– ThiswastheproposalofSB684andHB1287.– Exemptionscouldbeprovided,suchasdefaultswithinacertaintimeframeorpleaagreements.
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION
Discussion