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


CASH

DRUGS

Cash forDrugs

1


CASH

DRUGS

Transportation ofDrugs

Cash forDrugs

2

1


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement


Cash forDrugs

2

3

1


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement


Cash forDrugs

AdulterationConversion

2

3

Distribution

1


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement

Drugs forCash


Cash forDrugs


2

3

4Distribution

1


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement

CashManagement

Drugs forCash


Cash forDrugs


2

3

4Distribution

1

5


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement

CashManagement

Drugs forCash


Cash forDrugs

Operating ExpensesConspicuous Consumption

ConversionsInvestments


2

3

4Distribution

1

5


CASH

DRUGS

DrugManagement

CashManagement

Drugs forCash


Cash forDrugs

Transportation of Cash

Operating ExpensesConspicuous Consumption

ConversionsInvestments


2

3

4Distribution

1

5

6


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


• 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


• However,asnoted,dueprocessrequirementsarelessstringentthaninacriminalcase.

• Forexample,thereisnorequirementthatan“innocentowner”defensebegrantedtotheco‐ownerofanautomobilethatisforfeited,andnorequirementthattheinnocentownerbegrantedcompensationfromthestate.Bennis v.Michigan,516U.S.442(1996).

37


• 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


• Criminaloffensesthatcanleadtocivilforfeitureactions(continued):– Computercrimes;– Manufacture,possessionorsaleofillegalelectroniccommunicationdevices;

– Moneylaundering;– Cigarettetraffickingandcounterfeitcigarettes;– Drugmanufactureanddistribution;– Gambling;

40


• Criminaloffensesthatcanleadtocivilforfeitureactions(continued):– Anyweaponunlawfullypossessedorusedinafelony;

– Solicitingachildforsexualactivityusingacommunicationssystem;

– Extortion;and,– Illegalwagewithholding.

41


• Theauthorizingstatutesforforfeiturehavebeendevelopedpiecemeal.Differentcrimesallowfordifferenttypesofpropertytobeforfeited.

• Forexample:Realpropertycanbeforfeitedifconnectedwithterrorism,drugdistribution,moneylaundering,prostitutionorillegalwagewithholding.– Itcannotbeforfeitedifconnectedwithgambling,themanufactureofchildpornography,orcigarettetrafficking.

• Slightlydifferentproceduresandlimitationscanbeinvolved,dependinguponthestatute,evenforthesametypeofproperty.

42


• 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


• VehicleExample(continued):– UnderVa.Code§19.2‐386.35,avehicle(orotherproperty)canbeforfeitedforafirst violationofvariousprostitutionoffenses,includingmisdemeanorsolicitation.(Butnot misdemeanorprostitution).• However,theremustbeaconvictionandthecivilforfeitureaction“shallbestayeduntilconviction.”

44


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• Ifthepropertyseizedisamotorvehicle,aspecialprocedureisrequiredpursuanttoVa.Code§19.2‐386.2:1:– TheattorneyfortheCommonwealth“shallforthwithnotifytheCommissioneroftheDepartmentofMotorVehicles,bycertifiedmail.”

– TheCommissionerthen“promptlycertifies”totheCommonwealth’sAttorneythenameandaddressofthepersontowhomthevehicleisregistered,togetherwiththenameandaddressofanylienholders.

– TheCommissioneralsonotifiestheownersandlienholdersinwritingoftheseizureandwhereitoccurred.

51


• TheCommonwealth’sAttorneyMUSTfileaninformationinthecircuitcourtwithin90daysoftheseizure,orthepropertyshallbereleasedtotheownerorlienholder.Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(A).

• Allpartiesdefendantmustthenbeservedacopyoftheinformationand anoticetoappear.

• “Thenoticeshallcontainastatementwarningthepartydefendantthathisinterestinthepropertyshallbesubjecttoforfeiture…unlesswithin30daysafterservice,ananswerunderoathisfiled.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.3(B).

52


• Iftheinformationisfiledbeforethepropertyisseized,eithertheclerkofthecourtorajudgeofthecourt,uponamotionbytheCommonwealth’sAttorney,shallissueawarranttolawenforcementauthorizedtoservecriminalprocessinthejurisdictionwherethepropertyislocated,toseizetheproperty.Va.Code§19.2‐386.2(A).

• Ifthepropertyisrealproperty,anoticeoflispendensshallbefiledwiththeclerkofthecircuitcourtwherethepropertyislocated.Va.Code§19.2‐386.2(B).

53


• Atanytimepriortothefilingofaninformation,theCommonwealth’sAttorneymay,“uponpaymentofcostsincidenttothecustodyoftheseizedproperty,returntheseizedpropertytoanownerorlienholder.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.5.

• Theownerorlienholderofseizedpropertyalsohastherighttorequesttheclerkofcourtappraisethevalueoftheproperty.Hecanthenpostabondforitsfaircashvalue,pluscourtcostsandthecostsoftheappraisal,andhavethepropertyreturned.Va.Code§ 19.2‐386.6.

54


• Ifthepropertyseized“isperishableorliabletodeterioration,decay,orinjurybybeingdetainedincustodypendingtheproceedings,”thecircuitcourtmayorderthepropertysold,andholdtheproceedsofthesalependingfinaldispositionofthecase.Va.Code§19.2‐386.7.

55


• 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


• Ifapartydefendantfailstoappear,heshallbeindefault.However,within21daysaftertheentryofjudgment,apartydefendantmaypetitionDCJS“forremissionofhisinterestintheforfeitedproperty.”– OnlyonesuchpetitionwasfiledinFY14.

• Forgoodcauseshownanduponproofofthedefendant’svalidexemption,DCJSshallgrantthepetitionanddirectthestatetreasurytoeitherremittothedefendantanamountnotexceedinghisinterestintheproperty,orconveyclearandabsolutetitletotheforfeitedproperty.Va.Code§19.2‐386.10.

57


• 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


• Note:Theforfeitureaction“shallbeindependentofanycriminalproceedingagainstanypartyorotherpersonforviolationoflaw.However,uponmotionandforgoodcauseshown,thecourtmaystayaforfeitureproceedingthatisrelatedtoanyindictmentorinformation.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.10(B).

59


• TheexemptionsadefendantcanassertforseizedpropertyarelistedinVa.Code§19.2‐386.8:– Aconveyanceusedbyacommoncarrier,unlesstheownerwasaconsentingpartyorknewoftheillegalconduct;

– Aconveyanceusedbyacriminal,nottheowner,whowasinunlawfulpossessionoftheconveyance;

– Anypropertyiftheownerdidnotknowandhadnoreasontoknowoftheillegalconduct;

– Abonafidepurchaserforvaluewithoutnotice;– Theillegalconductoccurredwithouttheowner’s“connivanceorconsent,expressorimplied;”and,

– Theillegalconductwascommittedbyatenant,andthelandlorddidnotknoworhavereasontoknowofthetenant’sconduct.

60


• Theexemptionsofadefendantwhoisalienholderaresimilar:– Thelienholderdidnotknowoftheillegalconductatthetimethelienwasgranted;

– Thelienholderheldabonafidelienthatwasperfectedpriortotheseizureoftheproperty;and,

– Theillegalconductoccurredwithouthis“connivanceorconsent,expressorimplied.”

61


• Intheeventthereisasaleofthepropertytoabonafidepurchaserforvalueinordertoavoidtheconsequencesofaforfeiture,“theCommonwealthshallhavearightofactionagainstthesellerofthepropertyfortheproceedsofthesale.”Va.Code§19.2‐386.9.

62


• 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


• 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


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


• 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


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


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


• StaffrequestedthefollowingdatafromDCJS:– 10YearOverviewofAssetsSeizedbyAgency,FY06‐FY15

• Allparticipatingagenciesmustsubmitformsforeachandeverydrug‐relateditemseizedandmustupdateDCJSontheoutcomeofeachcaseforeachitem.

– SampleofCourtOrdersResultinginForfeiture• DCJSrequiresthatcopiesofcourtordersbesubmittedinallcasesresultinginaforfeiture.

– AnnualCertificationReports• ParticipatingagenciesmustalsosubmitanannualcertificationreportthatoutlinestheirbeginningAFbalance,AFfundsreceived,andanitemizedlistofhowAFfundswerespent.

74


• 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


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


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• Ofthe388forfeiturecourtorders:– 61%(237of388)werearesultof default;

• Defendantdidnotanswerinformationordidnotappear.

– 28%(108of388)involvedadefendantsigningapleaagreement,waiver,consenttoforfeitureorothertypeofsettlementpriortothehearing;

– 11%(41of388)involvedadefendant,ownerorGALappearingbutcaseresultedinforfeiture;and,

– <1%(2of388)resultedintrial.

82


• 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


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.


103

Recommendations

• Recommendation2:DCJSshouldprepareanannualreporttotheGovernorandGeneralAssemblyregardinginformationonalldrugandnon‐drugassetseizuresandforfeitures.– Thereportshallbemadeavailabletothepublic.– PublicconfidenceincivilforfeitureinVirginiamaybeimprovedifinformationisreadilyavailable.

– ThereportshouldalsoincludedisbursalsreceivedbyVirginiaagenciesfromtheFederalAssetForfeitureSharingProgram.


104

Recommendations

• Recommendation3:Theword“warrant”shouldbeaddedtoVa.Code§19.2‐386.10(B),sothataforfeitureproceedingmaybestayedifitisalsorelatedtoawarrant.– Currentlawonlyspecifiesforfeitureproceedingsbestayedwhenrelatedtoanindictmentorinformation.

– Thereareinstanceswheretheforfeitureisrelatedtoacasethatispendingforapreliminaryhearing,andnoindictmenthasyetbeenprepared.


105

Recommendations

• Recommendation4:DCJSshouldrequireparticipatingagenciestosubmitinformationonallstatelawenforcementseizuresandstateforfeitureactionsstemmingfromcriminalactivity,notjustthoserelatedtodrugoffenses.– Currently,Virginiadoesnothavedetaileddatareadilyavailableonnon‐drugassetforfeitures.

– Thiswouldcaptureinformationrelatedtoabout 20othercrimeswhereforfeituresarepermitted.


106

Recommendations

• Recommendation5:DCJSshouldcollectadditionaldatarelatedtoassetforfeituresforcriminalchargesandconvictionsthatmayaccompanydrugandnon‐drugrelatedcivilassetforfeitures.– Currently,theabilitytomatchcriminalchargesandconvictionswithcivilforfeitureproceedingsisnotreadilyavailable.


107

Recommendations

• Recommendation6:DCJSshouldconsiderautomatingtheirstateAFprogramtoaffordLEandCA’stheabilitytouploadallforms,annualcertificationreportsandsupportingdocumentation.– Surveyresultsindicatedthatparticipatingagenciesdesiredamoreautomatedprocess.

– ParticipatingagenciessubmitthousandsofformsandsupportingdocumentationeachyeartoDCJS.

– DCJSreceives10%ofdrug‐relatedforfeiturestoadministertheStateForfeitedAssetSharingProgram.

– DCJSalreadyhasanonlinegrantmanagementsystemforquarterlyreporting.


108

Recommendations

• Recommendation7:CrimeCommissionstaffshouldworkwithlawenforcementandprosecutorstohelpimplementtrainingthatcanbereadilyaccessibleonlinetonewassetforfeiturecoordinators.– Thereisahighturnoverrateforassetforfeiturecoordinators.

– Whenanewindividualisdesignatedasanassetforfeiturecoordinator,heshouldbeabletoreceivetrainingandeducationquickly,ratherthanwaitingforthenextavailablecourse.

– Traininghasalreadybeendevelopedbutisnottypicallyofferedonlineorregularlyscheduled.


109

ItemsforConsideration

• Virginia’scurrentstatutesandpracticesbalancetheinterestsofpropertyownersandtheCommonwealth.

• AdditionalprotectionsforcitizenscouldbeimplementedinVirginia.

• However,nodirectevidencewasfoundofsystemicabuseoftheassetforfeitureprocessinVirginiabylawenforcementorprosecutors.

• Asmallminorityofstateshavestatutorilyenactedprovisionsthatraisetheburdenofprooforrequireaconvictionforforfeiturestoproceed.


110


A. Mandatethatthedefendantwouldbeentitledtoastayuntiltheresolutionofanypendingcriminalcase.– Currentlawsaysthedefendant“may”begrantedastay.– 40%(38of94)ofCommonwealth’sAttorneys’OfficesreportedthattheyhadapolicytostaycivilAFcasesuntiltherelatedcriminalcaseiscompletelyresolved(i.e.,allappealsfinalized).


111


• BothlawenforcementandprosecutorshaveverysimilarmixedopinionsregardingarequirementtostayacivilAFcaseuntilanyrelatedcriminalchargesareresolved:


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


B. Mandatethatifthedefendantwantedtheforfeitureproceedingtobeheardpriortotheresolutionofapendingcriminalcase,theCommonwealthcouldnotstaythecaseoverthedefendant’sobjection.


113


C. IncreasetheburdenofproofontheCommonwealthfrom“preponderanceoftheevidence”to“clearandconvincingevidence.”


114


D. Requireacriminalconvictionbeforeanyforfeiturecouldbeordered.– 93%(104of112)oflawenforcementagenciesdonot requireacriminalconvictionagainstsomeonebeforereferringarelatedcivilAFcasetotheCA.

– 18%(17of95)ofCommonwealth’sAttorneys’Officesreportedthattheyhadapolicyrequiringacriminalconvictionagainstsomeone,beforeproceedingwitharelatedAFcase(understandingthattheymayhavealreadyfiledinformationbeforethedefendant’sconviction).


115


• Themajorityofrespondinglawenforcementandprosecutorsatleast “somewhatoppose”arequirementforancriminalconvictionbeforearelatedcivilAFcasecanproceed.


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


E. Requireacriminalconviction,andtheconclusionofallappeals,beforeanyforfeiturecouldbeordered.– ThiswastheproposalofSB684andHB1287.– Exemptionscouldbeprovided,suchasdefaultswithinacertaintimeframeorpleaagreements.


Discussion

asset forfeiture final.pptvscc.virginia.gov/asset forfeiture_final-1.pdfbackground • deterring and...

Documents