News

Actions

Calls for civil forefeiture reform increase

Posted at 11:38 AM, Sep 30, 2015
and last updated 2015-09-30 11:38:50-04

Some strange bedfellows are teaming up to try to get rid of the rules that allow the police to seize your stuff – even if you’re not convicted of a crime.

For several months, the 7 Investigators have been exposing the problems with this concept of policing for profit.

Now the ACLU and the more conservative think-tank the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are coming together to call for an end to civil forfeiture.

“They’re taking millions from people," Michael Dula told the 7 Investigators in May. "Hard working people, people with jobs, they’re taking millions from people.”

Dula is just one of several people who say police took their money, their cars and their peace of mind - without any sort of criminal conviction.

The in July, Ginnifer Heney told us, “They have had my stuff for 10 months. My ladders, my iPads, my children’s iPads, my children’s phones.”

Under Michigan’s asset forfeiture laws police can seize money and property that they believe is related to drug crimes – even if you’re never even charged or convicted of the crime.

During a 12 year period, police seized more than $272 million in forfeiture proceeds.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy have released a report on civil forfeiture and both groups want the practice outlawed.

They’re saying Michigan should only allow forfeiture through the criminal courts – not the civil courts – and only after a criminal conviction.

They also want to reduce the incentive for police to abuse the rules. Right now, the agency that seizes the property gets to keep the proceeds.

“There’s really no cap on what they can use this money for.  It is policing for profit,” attorney William Maze told us.

There are several bills on the Senate floor right now. One of them would require agencies that seize property to send detailed reports of what they’ve taken to the state police. The other would change the standard of evidence that police would need to take your property.