11 Real Property Forfeitures

• Library: Asset Forfeiture: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts (ABA) (2014 Ed.)

11 Real Property Forfeitures

A. Introduction

It is a well-acknowledged principle of American law that "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights," see United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al., 510 U.S. 43, 61 (1993), and "[r]espect for the sanctity of the home...has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic." See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980). Because many federal and state statutes authorize the forfeiture of all real property from a "hobo's hovel to the Empire State Building," some jurists have expressed reservations concerning the breadth of such governmental power. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property 510 U.S. at 81-82; (J. Thomas dissenting); United States v. One Parcel of Property, 964 F.2d 814, 818 (8th Cir. 1992). In response, Congress and state legislatures have established higher burdens of proof and procedures to protect against government overreaching.

This section will review some of the constitutional and statutory procedures and issues unique to the litigation of real property forfeitures.

B. Theories of Forfeiture

Federal and most state forfeiture statutes provide for the forfeiture of real property on the theory that it was used or intended to be used to facilitate the commission of the offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). These statutes are intended to deter and punish owners who use their property, or allow others to use their property, to facilitate drug offenses. See von Hofe v. United States, 492 F.3d 175, 182 (2d Cir. 2007). Table 11-1, pages 258-260, is a list of state statutes that authorize real property forfeiture on a facilitation theory. There are five states—Alaska, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont— that do not contain any statutory authority for the forfeiture of real property used to facilitate criminal activity. See Ak. Stat. § 17.30.112; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-31-34; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-112; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 4241.

Table 11-1 Summary of State Asset Forfeiture Statutes Civil Forfeiture—Real Property

State	Statute	Burden of Proof
Alabama	Ala. Code § 20-2-93 (a)(8)	Prima Facie Evidence
Arizona	Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4304	Preponderance of the Evidence
Arkansas	Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505(a)(8)	Preponderance of the Evidence
California	Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11470 (g)	Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Colorado	Co. Rev. Stat. § 16-13-303 (1)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Connecticut	Con. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-36h (a)(2)-(5)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Delaware	Del. Code Ann. title 16 § 4784 (a)(8)	Probable Cause
District of Columbia	D.C. Code Ann. § 48-905.02 (a)(8)	Probable Cause
Florida	Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.701 (2)(a) 6	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Georgia	Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-49 (d)(2)-(3)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Hawaii	Hawaii. Rev. Stat. § 712A-5 (2)(a)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Idaho	Idaho Code § 37-2744A	Preponderance of the Evidence
Illinois	720 Ill. Compiled Statutes 550/12(a)(6)	Probable Cause
Indiana	Ind. Code Ann. § 34-24-1-1(a)(5)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Iowa	Iowa Code Ann. § 809A.4 2	Preponderance of the Evidence
Kansas	Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-4105 (b), (f)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Kentucky	Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.410 (k)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Louisiana	La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2604 (2), (3)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Maine	Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Title 15 Ch. 517 § 5821 7	Preponderance of the Evidence
Maryland	Md. Ann. Code Crim. Pro. § 12-102 (a) (10)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Massachusetts	Mass. Ann. Laws. Ch. 94C § 47 (a)(7)	Probable Cause
Michigan	Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4702 (1)(b)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.5311 Subd. 2	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Mississippi	Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-153 (a)(7)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Missouri	Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 513.605(7); 195.140 2	Preponderance of the Evidence
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. § 44-12-102	Probable Cause
Nevada	Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.301 8	Clear & Convincing Evidence
New Hampshire	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 318-B:17-b I (e)	Preponderance of the Evidence
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:64-1 a (2)	Preponderance of the Evidence
New York	N.Y. Civil Practice Law § 1310.1	Clear & Convincing Evidence
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code § 19-03.1-36 1h	Probable Cause
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2981.02(A)(2)-(3)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Oklahoma	Okla. Stat. Ann. § 63-2-503 8	Preponderance of the Evidence
Oregon	Ore. Rev. Stat. § 131A.020 (7)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Pennsylvania	Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. Title 42 § 6801 (a) 6 (C)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28-5.04 (a)	Probable Cause
South Carolina	S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-520 (a)(4), (7)	Probable Cause
South Dakota	S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 34-20B-70.1	Probable Cause
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-452(a)(1)	Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Texas	Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. § 59.01 (2)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Utah	Utah Code Ann. § 24-4-102	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Vermont	Vt. Stat. Ann. title 18 § 4241(a)(5)	Clear & Convincing Evidence
Virginia	Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-386.22.A	Preponderance of the Evidence
Washington	Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 69.50.505 (1)(h)	Preponderance of the Evidence
West Virginia	W. Va. Code § 60A-7-703 (a)(8)	Preponderance of the Evidence
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. Ann. § 961.55 (1)(f)	Reasonable Certainty
Wyoming	Wyo. Stat. § 35-7-1049 (a)(vii)	Probable Cause

Real property has been forfeited as facilitating property when it was used to sell or store drugs. People v. 25651 Minoa Drive, 2 Cal. App. 4th 787, 791 (1992) (selling drugs on premises); In re Forfeiture of 45649 Maben Road, 173 Mich. App. 764; 434 N.W.2d 238, 242 (Mich. App. 1988) (storing drugs on property); Levingston v. Washoe County By and Through Sheriff of Washoe County, 112 Nev. 479; 916 P.2d 163, 165 (Nev. 1996) (crack house); In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich. 242; 439 N.W.2d 246, 261 (Mich. 1989) (building site of drug deals or cultivating marijuana); United States v. All Tract 686.64 Acres of Property, 820 F. Supp. 1433, 1434 (M.D. Ga. 1993); In re Forfeiture of 30800 Grandview, 178 Mich. App. 434; 444 N.W.2d 547, 548 (Mich. App. 1989). The facilitation theory applies because the real property is being used to hide, conceal, or shelter drug trafficking. State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25; 635 N.E.2d 1248, 1254 (Ohio. 1994); State v. Harold, 109 Ohio App.3d 87; 671 N.E.2d 1078, 1080 (Ohio App. 1996).

There should be a substantial connection between the illegal use and the real property. United States v. 3148 Woodlawn Drive, 2012 WL 9661 17, *5 (E.D. Tex. 2012). Factors relevant in finding a substantial connection include:

• Large quantities of drugs on the premises;
• Drug records documenting a large customer base;
• Witness testimony documenting long-term sales at the residence;
• Scales and packaging material indicative of drug sales;
• Marked bills from prior undercover drug sales; and
• Admissions of prior sales from the location.

See In re Forfeiture of 5118 Indian Garden Road, 253 Mich. App. 255; 654 N.W.2d 646, 648 (Mich. App. 2002); In re Forfeiture of One 1978 Sterling Mobile Home, 205 Mich. App. 427; 517 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Mich. App. 1994).

Real property that has been used "in any manner or part" to commit or facilitate the offense is forfeitable under this provision. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). This means that even if only a portion of the real property is used in the underlying offense, the entire parcel is subject to forfeiture. United States v. Hull, 606 F.3d 524, 528 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Real Property Described in Deeds, 962 F. Supp. 734, 740-41 (W.D.N.C. 1997).

An alternative basis of forfeiture for real property is under the proceeds theory that it is "a thing of value" traceable to the exchange of a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). All states provide for proceed theory forfeitures, so in...