FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Charles Samuelson, 651.645.4097x121 or csamuelson@aclu-mn.org
Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws Must be Prevented
St. Paul, Minn – The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a brief in the case Garcia-Mendoza v 2003 Chevy Tahoe. In this case an individual’s vehicle and money were seized after police made an illegal stop and found drugs in the vehicle. The ACLU-MN believes if the original stop was illegal, law enforcement should no longer be able to seize the property. This case is currently before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In Minnesota civil forfeiture laws are ripe for abuse because they give law enforcement too much discretion, and the police department gets to keep half of all the money and property they seize. In 2005 – 2009, the Metro Gang Strike Force abused civil asset forfeiture laws in Minnesota by seizing millions of dollars worth of cash and property. The seized property was used to not only fund police activity but was also found in the personal homes of a number of the officers involved in the Strike Force. When law enforcement receives direct benefit from the dollar value of what they seize this can easily lead to abuse if not carefully monitored through judicial oversight.
“For too long Minnesota law enforcement has used the seizures of money and property as means to fund their departments,” stated Charles Samuelson, Executive Director of the ACLU-MN. “The Minnesota Supreme Court needs to send a clear message that abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws to benefit the coffers of police departments will not be tolerated.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded in the Garcia-Mendoza case that the “exclusionary rule” does not apply in civil forfeiture cases. This means that even if the initial stop was illegal, the vehicle could still be seized. In this case, the District Court found that the initial stop of Daniel Garcia-Mendoza was illegal because law enforcement had no cause to pull him over in the first place. Mendoza was issued a ticket for driving without a license and after his vehicle was impounded, drugs were found in the vehicle. The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the forfeiture was a civil proceeding, not criminal, the forfeiture was acceptable and that the “exclusionary rule” does not apply.
The ACLU-MN believes that the exclusionary rule should apply in civil forfeiture cases. In criminal cases evidence would not be admitted if it was obtained in an illegal search. In a decision in 1964, the US Supreme Court said that evidence seized during “quasi-criminal” proceedings should be subject to the exclusionary rule. Minnesota law confirms that civil forfeiture laws are “quasi-criminal”. In their brief the ACLU-MN argues that because the Chevy Tahoe and money were seized as a result of an illegal stop the property should be returned to the owner, and that the Minnesota Supreme Court should definitively say that the exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture cases.
“The constitution protects us from the police taking our property without a legal process,” stated Bruce Jones of Faegre Baker Daniels. ”By arguing that police can seize property found during an illegal stop, they are trying to create a loophole where there shouldn’t be one.”
Cooperating attorneys working on the case are: Peter Routhier and Bruce Jones of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and Teresa Nelson of the ACLU-MN.