New Mexico Passes Law Against Cops Stealing Your Stuff: Albuquerque Decides It Doesn't Apply To Them
Any person who values due process and fairness will probably have their blood boiling about how things work in Albuquerque.
Nicky Woolf writes for The Guardian:
A woman is suing the city of Albuquerque, claiming it illegally seized her car on only suspicion of a crime, and is seeking to resell it, despite a new state law banning the practice.After her son was arrested in April for drunk driving while at the wheel of her borrowed Nissan Verso, Arlene Harjo, 56, found herself in court being told that she had to transfer ownership of the car to the city, or else settle the case for $4,000 to get it back.
But last year, New Mexico governor Susana Martinez signed a bill into law that made the practice, called civil asset forfeiture - under which police forces can confiscate and resell personal property based only on suspicion of its involvement in a crime, whether the owner was involved or not - illegal in New Mexico.
However, Albuquerque's city government is choosing to interpret that law as only applying to state, rather than municipal police departments.
So Harjo has found herself stuck in a bureaucratic labyrinth in which she is making loan payments on a car as it sits in a government impound. On top of that, if she signs over ownership to the city, for resale, she will still have to keep making loan payments for a car she no longer possesses.
"Oh god, it's been a nightmare," Harjo, who works in customer service for Southwest Airlines, said. "I'm losing sleep over it, thinking, 'Oh god I have to pay this loan' and I can't buy another car until I pay this loan off. And then the waiting game, I don't know how long it's going to take."
People whose vehicles are impounded are on the hook for $50 for an administrative hearing, and $10 in lot fees for every day their car is in the impound, according to Reason.com, who first reported on Harjo's case.
The city made $8.3m from civil asset forfeiture of vehicles alone between 2010 and 2015, according to the Albuquerque Journal, seizing more than 1,000 cars every year.
Harjo is one of the lucky ones, believe it or not, because she has some chance of getting her car back. She's being represented by the Institute for Justice's Robert Everett Johnson. He observed to the reporter from The Guardian:
"The government shouldn't have a financial incentive to take money from innocent people, but they have exactly that incentive."
From IJ:
Arlene Harjo has done nothing wrong. Even the city of Albuquerque acknowledges that she has done nothing wrong. But that fact hasn't stopped city law enforcement officials from attempting to seize her car, sell it, and keep the proceeds. If the city succeeds, Arlene will be left with a $10,000 loan to pay off but no car to drive.The city claims it can take Arlene's car because her son, Tino, asked to borrow her car to drive to the gym in the middle of the day, but then took the car for a day-long trip and was found that evening allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. Tino was previously arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2009. During her initial hearing contesting the forfeiture, the hearing officer lectured Arlene for trusting her son, despite the fact that it has been seven years since his prior incident. Arlene does not approve of drunk driving; if Tino broke the law, she agrees he should be punished. But she does not see why she should be punished for something she did not do and never condoned.
"Arlene is being treated like a criminal, even though she has never even been accused of a crime," said IJ Attorney Robert Everett Johnson. "This is exactly what New Mexico's legislature voted to end when they abolished civil forfeiture last year, and now it has to stop."
When you don't have a lot of money floating around, a problem like this -- losing your vehicle but still having to pay for it -- can upend you and your family in life-ruining ways. You can lose your job (because you can no longer get there) and then end up homeless.
Many people live paycheck to paycheck, and no, the answer isn't sneering, "well, they shouldn't..." -- just in case the government decides to keep thieving from citizens, sans due process, under the color of law.
via @TimCushing
I hope she wins. And her son is an irresponsible, thieving jerk.
Patrick at September 1, 2016 5:15 AM
Overlord317 posted this on Reddit.
"A few months ago I won a trial to have a house (valued at around 1.2 million dollars) returned to its rightful owners after the Attorney General for California seized it. I was the third attorney on the case and this was a nearly two year fight.
What was their crime? They were in-laws of someone convicted of an embezzlement racket. And one of my clients had done work for the convicted embezzler's company and been paid, like hundreds of other employees, roughly ten thousand dollars. And another inlaw (not one convicted, or even charged with, a crime) had acted as realtor for the sale.
For this the California A.G. seized the house. We shredded them in Court, but the process was a nightmare and I actually swore I wouldn't take another one of these cases ever again. You basically have to prove innocence. The A.G. was flabbergasted someone was actually willing to take them to trial. The only offer they made was to let them keep the house in exchange for all the equity in the property.
One of the biggest hurdles was the lack of a timely challenge to the seizure. Why was there no challenge? Because the A.G., even though they knew where my client lived (since they were seizing his house), chose service by publication. Which is a guarantee of non-service. And where did they publish it? IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY THAN WHERE THE HOUSE WAS LOCATED. The judge decided service was sufficient anyway based upon a contest eventually being filed. Thanks to prosecutorial immunity it's almost impossible to bring a malicious prosecution or abuse of process suit (although in this case, due to the A.G. actually misrepresenting facts to the Court, I strongly considered it)."
ppen at September 1, 2016 5:31 AM
By the way in later comments overlord317 states it was the worst business decision he ever made and he is not taking on a case like that again.
So the government wont just bankrupt you but probably your lawyer as well.
ppen at September 1, 2016 5:37 AM
If the ACLU actually stood for what its name says, it would take this case.
Speaking of California, there's this, which would establish some reforms if Gov. Brown signs the bill (which I've seen reports saying he will). But the article also points out that the bulk of asset seizures in California are done under the federal government's booty-sharing program, which pre-empts state laws and is pretty specifically designed to bypass due process.
Cousin Dave at September 1, 2016 6:37 AM
We shredded them in Court, but the process was a nightmare
Deer Barrister: the process is the punishment.
Or as Heinlein wrote Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 1, 2016 6:57 AM
The state has nothing to lose. Its not their money they are wasting just the taxpayers. With the immunity prosecutors have, they will never face any serious repercussions.
When facing the government leviathan, you have everything to lose. Your car, your life savings, your freedom. The government knows they have you by the balls and they use it to extort citizens. Gangster government. Welcome to the third world. This is how you get there.
Shtetl G at September 1, 2016 7:45 AM
Her car was taken even though she was innocent.
The focus on guilt or innocence is already an injustice. Even if the car had been owned by the son, it is illogical to confiscate any and all property used in the crime. The person committed the crime, and any punishment or fine should be directed at the person, not the things he may have been using at the time.
This is just a confused excuse to confiscate property. The state is becoming all powerful. This attracts self-interested and amoral people who will use the power of the state to the limits of personal punishment, not just the limits of the law.
Should a person lose his house because he runs gambling in the house? Logically, no. But, governments are routinely arguing that they should confiscate the house. I suppose it is "electricity"; the criminal was touching the house at the time of the crime.
Why are people voting continuously more power to government? Can't they see?
We see recklessness in leaving a gun unattended, available for anyone to pick up. We correctly fear that an amoral person may pick it up. Why not the same fear of leaving government power lying around, availabe to the next amoral person who will expend great effort to pick it up and use it.
Andrew Garland at September 1, 2016 11:47 AM
Why are people voting continuously more power to government? Can't they see?
Kip's law: every advocate of central planning envisions themselves AS the central planner.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 1, 2016 1:33 PM
Leave a comment