Civil asset forfeiture under legislative, judicial scrutiny.

Byline: Barry Bridges

One week after the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Timbs v. Indiana limited the ability of state and local governments to boost their bottom lines through property seizures, a local lawmaker introduced legislation that he said would usher in needed civil forfeiture reforms in Rhode Island.

House Bill 5721, the "Asset Forfeiture Process and Property Right Preservation Act," was introduced by Rep. Brian C. Newberry on Feb. 27 and has gleaned bipartisan support in that chamber, with several attorney lawmakers Majority Leader K. Joseph Shekarchi, Judiciary Chair Robert E. Craven Sr., Rep. Joseph J. Solomon Jr. and Minority Leader Blake A. Filippi signing on as co-sponsors.

Newberry has lobbed criticisms at the current system, faulting Rhode Island's forfeiture laws for allowing seizures based only on criminal suspicion. He is also concerned that the state sets too high a bar for innocent property owners to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

"The laws are poorly written as they exist now," Newberry said. "When I see a national organization giving us a 'D-minus,' it gives me pause."

Newberry was referencing a report by the Institute for Justice, a national libertarian public interest law firm headquartered in Virginia, which has given Rhode Island's "awful" asset forfeiture laws a grade of "D-minus" in terms of due process and transparency.

According to the institute, while "law enforcement need only show probable cause to seize property," Rhode Island property owners must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their property is not forfeitable" for it to be returned. The nonprofit further claims that the state's law enforcement agencies retain 90 percent of all forfeiture proceeds, which is "a generous incentive to wield their forfeiture powers."

"It's good to have idiosyncrasies among the states to some degree," Newberry said. "But with asset forfeiture there is a need to do things in a uniform way. It's an easily abused process, and there needs to be more predictability in how the laws are enforced, consistent with constitutional principles."

End of civil forfeiture?

With one of the bill's purposes being to "ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state," it requires proof of a criminal conviction and a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property is forfeitable.

Giovanni D. Cicione, who assisted in drafting the bill, confirmed that the legislation would abolish civil forfeiture in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT