Both House Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly approved a bill allowing courts to order forfeiture of substitute assets equivalent to property acquired through the crime, directly traceable to property acquired through the crime, or property used to commit or assist in the crime. No state representative voted against the bill.
HB2695 also stipulated that the government may return property to the owner and that parties may file for a restitution or racketeering lien.
House Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert), the bill sponsor, explained during the House Judiciary Committee that the intent of the bill was to protect the innocent, such as theft victims from having their stolen property used to pay for lawyers, spent on houses, or given to family members for safekeeping.
Committee Chairman Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) concurred, adding that despite the legislation appearing to be mere technicality, it would end up helping a lot of people.
Last year, Grantham introduced similar civil asset forfeiture legislation to ensure property seized is evidence of a crime, abandoned, subject to forfeiture, or illegal for the owner to possess. After receiving near-unanimous support of the bill in both the House and Senate, Governor Doug Ducey signed that bill into law. The intent of the legislation was to ensure Arizonans not charged or convicted of a crime don’t experience seizure of their property.
Prior to Grantham’s legislation, Arizona law enforcement could seize property through civil asset forfeiture without charging anyone for a crime, so long as they have reason to believe the property was involved in a crime.
One recent example of this occurred with Melinda Harris, the client of Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute. Police took Harris’ vehicle in March of 2015. Although Harris wasn’t guilty of a crime and faced no charges, police suspected her son of selling drugs and included her car in their investigation because he borrowed it at the time of the suspected crime. Civil forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate property they believe was involved in criminal activity.
Last December, Harris testified to Congress about the reality of civil asset forfeiture, recounting how she was forced to wait six years and ultimately needed the assistance of the Phoenix think tank to recover her car. The Goldwater Institute intervened on Harris’ behalf in early March of last year; days later, the county returned Harris’ car and she was able to give it to her granddaughter as a graduation gift.
During her testimony to Congress, Harris offered insight on an average citizen’s experience with civil forfeiture. According to Harris, she allowed her son to borrow her car in 2015. Her son informed her later that same day that she should come get her car. When she arrived at her car, a group of at least five officers approached and informed her that they were seizing her car on suspicion of its involvement in criminal activity.
“They had no warrant, they didn’t show me any paperwork, I never got a receipt for my car. Basically they told me they were taking my car and that’s what they did,” explained Harris.
Even when Harris went to the police station the next day to follow up on the car, officers wouldn’t give her any information. All they would tell her was that an “ongoing investigation” was underway. Then, Harris explained that about six years passed before she heard anything back about her car, though she stated her son was murdered in 2018.
Police finally sent Harris a letter in October 2020 declaring that the car would be kept unless she answered them and retained a lawyer. By the time the letter arrived, the response window shrunk from 23 days to two weeks. Harris said she couldn’t afford a lawyer to respond, much less one that could put in a request for more time to obtain a lawyer. Additionally, certain options for legal aid weren’t available to her due to the pandemic.
“If it wasn’t for the Goldwater Institute taking my case pro-bono, I wouldn’t have gotten my car back. Fortunately for me they did a great job,” said Harris. “I don’t think people should be allowed to police for profit. I think that they should have a better burden of proof. And if they’re going to do it, they should be held accountable for how the money is spent. I really think it should go back into the community from which it was taken and do some good there. As opposed to lavish parties and trips to wherever.”
Goldwater client Malinda Harris tells Congress how the gov't stole her car:
"They had no warrant. They didn’t show me any paperwork. I never got a receipt for my car. They basically told me they were taking the car, and that’s what they did.” #stopcivilforfeiturepic.twitter.com/FH4qcW7iX0
Only four states abolished civil forfeiture entirely: North Carolina, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Maine. Although Arizona hasn’t abolished civil forfeiture, the legislature did institute some reforms through Grantham’s legislation. Arizona law now requires that an individual be convicted and that the state must show clear and convincing evidence. It also eliminated constructive seizure, repealed uncontested forfeiture, established post-deprivation hearings for the accused to seek release of property prior to judgment, and set a maximum value of forfeited property. However, the reform does allow officers to seize property without a court process if they have probable cause and believe that a court order delay would frustrate seizure.
When Governor Doug Ducey signed the reform into law, he published a corresponding letter written to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. He expressed confidence that the reforms would protect constitutional rights while not inhibiting law enforcement’s efforts to handle crime.
“[This law] ensures that law enforcement has the ability to seize property pending forfeiture or if the property is evidence of a crime. It ensures that property being taken is truly connected to criminal activity while innocent persons have the ability to get their property back,” wrote Ducey.
The legal concepts behind civil asset forfeiture can be traced back to common law practices in England. However, the modern form of civil forfeiture used currently is relatively new; its growth spanned over the course of several different administrations and included both parties, from Nixon to Clinton.
Our current leadership was a primary cause for the introduction and expansion of modern civil asset forfeiture. President Joe Biden pushed for increased civil forfeiture for decades, often years ahead of his colleagues when it came to expansion efforts.
In 1981, when Biden was senator, he requested a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the assets accrued from forfeitures. The GAO report asserted that the government’s total forfeiture revenues weren’t “impressive” compared to the estimated billions that drug traffickers generated annually.
A month after receiving that report, Biden introduced a bill to expand forfeiture radically, by encompassing all profits and proceeds acquired indirectly or directly from crime. That bill never made it out of committee. He proposed this expansion about a decade after the groundwork for modern civil asset forfeiture was laid.
In 1970, about one year before Nixon called for the “war on drugs” officially, Congress passed laws enabling law enforcement to seize assets such as drugs and drug equipment, like the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Sec. 511), the Organized Crime Control Act (Sec. 844), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO, Sec. 1963), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE, or “Kingpin,” Sec. 848) Statute. Eight years later, Congress expanded on the scope of forfeiture to include suspected proceeds of drug trade with the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978.
Congress expanded forfeiture’s scope again six years after that with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which Biden co-sponsored. On top of the actual illicit substances and equipment, law enforcement were permitted to seize property and assets. Not only could law enforcement seize those — they could keep them. The law also established a program that incentivized state law enforcement to seek forfeitures by offering them 80 percent of the monetary value of seized property and assets.
Then in 1986, Congress permitted law enforcement to seize any property equal to the forfeitable property through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Fourteen years later, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 imposed deadlines for property seizure notifications and established recovery procedures for property owners, but it also expanded the list of crimes that fell under civil forfeiture authority.
Harris wasn’t the only one who received her seized property shortly after the Goldwater Institute intervened.
Tucson handyman Kevin McBride also had his car seized by police after his girlfriend was accused of selling three grams of marijuana; a $25 crime. Although the charges were dropped against McBride’s girlfriend, the county refused to return McBride’s car unless he paid them $1,900. If he hadn’t, the county threatened to sell his car.
Mesa contractor Luis Garcia had fundraiser money seized after law enforcement raided his home based on an investigation into his adult son. The money was collected for a youth soccer tournament and in no way connected to any criminal activity.
Just as with Harris, McBride and Garcia were given back their property not long after the Goldwater Institute intervened.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Both the Arizona House and Senate passed bills this week to supply hundreds of millions for Arizona to finish construction on its portion of the border wall.
On Wednesday, the Arizona House passed along party lines State Senator Wendy Rogers’ (R-Flagstaff) SB1032, appropriating $700 million. Rogers estimated during the Senate Appropriations Committee that the amount would cover the approximately 17 miles of construction that remains.
“This is our chance to continue to protect ourselves because we aren’t having this built by the federal government and since we have purview over approximately 17 miles of the wall, this money would be appropriated to build that,” said Rogers.
Then on Thursday, the Arizona House passed its version, HB2317, along party lines on Thursday. State Representative John Kavanagh’s (R-Fountain Hills) bill appropriates $150 million in 2023 to finish the border wall. Kavanagh relayed during the House Appropriations Committee hearing some data given to him by Border Patrol: the number of crossings reportedly quadrupled over the last year.
“The border is in chaos and it’s out of control. The Border Patrol, besides needing more personnel, would be helped by some physical barriers which do in fact stop crossers, or at least funnel them, making the area that needs to be patrolled smaller,” said Kavanagh. “I think it’s a reasonable investment in Arizona’s security and safety.”
On a party line vote, the Arizona House approved HB2317. This bill sets aside money to build our own border wall. If the Feds won't protect us from this continued invasion, we will do it ourselves. ?? pic.twitter.com/dIHtZBEgCI
Passage of the bill comes weeks after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) projected that the border crisis would only worsen this year. This prediction concurred with the latest data on border crossings from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
According to a report from AZ Free News this week, border patrol encountered almost 154,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border in January — the highest in over 20 years — with a low estimate of over 504,600 “gotaways” since President Joe Biden took office.
On Wednesday, the Arizona House approved a bill to expand open meeting law to require enough seating for anticipated attendance and that the agenda include the time when the public may have physical access to the meeting place. The vote panned out evenly along party lines: 31-28, with all Democrats opposed and all Republicans in favor of expanding open meetings.
The legislation, introduced by State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), included a civil penalty for leaders of the public body violating the seating and access time requirements.
When addressing the House Government and Elections Committee, Kavanagh said that governing bodies should anticipate controversial issues that would cause sudden spikes in public attendance. Kavanagh cited the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) incident last year, in which the governing board closed the doors half an hour early to their meeting after enduring overwhelming public attendance the previous week. The legislator explained that he was turned away from attending the meeting because the room was full.
“This is simply meant to prevent a town council, or a school board, or anyone who has a controversial topic from suppressing public input by keeping the meeting in a tiny room so people can’t get in. And that happens,” said Kavanagh.
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) noted that he’d experienced something similar to Kavanagh’s SUSD experience. Hoffman recounted how Higley Unified School District (HUSD) officials refused to allow public attendance beyond 20 percent room capacity, turning away individuals attempting to participate.
Committee Democrats expressed concern that governing bodies wouldn’t be able to anticipate public attendance adequately. Kavanagh said that it would be up to citizens to file open meetings complaints if they suspected government officials weren’t adhering to reasonable accommodations as directed in this bill. He noted that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns wasn’t in opposition to this bill.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) explained in his “no” vote that the bill’s intent was “noble,” but failed to spell out how government officials should anticipate public attendance to accommodate seating. State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) argued that limiting public access to open meetings was a matter of safety, citing the presence of COVID-19 and violence at school board meetings.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona House passed HB2507 on Wednesday, a bill declaring that religious services are to be considered essential during a state of emergency. While all House Republicans voted for the bill, several Democrats voted against the majority of their party to pass it: State Representatives César Chávez (D-Maryvale), Diego Espinoza (D-Tolleson), Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson), Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson), Robert Meza (D-Phoenix), and Lorenzo Sierra (D-Avondale).
However, the bill would require that religious organizations comply with safety or occupancy requirements contingent upon other essential services. The only way around occupancy requirements would be in the case that the government couldn’t provide proof that their requirement was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling interest. If the government violates these protections, then a religious organization could receive declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorney fees.
In Canada, worship wasn’t considered an essential practice throughout the pandemic. One preacher, Artur Pawlowski, has been arrested five times for keeping his church open and opposing the draconian government. Last week, Pawlowski was arrested for speaking to members of the Freedom Convoy, the truckers protesting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s dictatorship. Pawlowski’s speech reportedly caused the truckers to change their mind about abandoning their protest: instead of leaving the border for Edmonton, they heeded Pawlowski’s charge to “hold the line.” According to Pawlowski’s lawyer, law enforcement keeps Pawlowski in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.
The Canadian government further winnowed away at the freedom of religion by outlawing certain beliefs, such as opposition to homosexuality.
Pawlowski grew up under the Soviet Union’s Communist regime in Poland. Like Pawlowski, the state representative behind HB2507, Ben Toma (R-Peoria), grew up in a dictatorship that his family eventually fled: the communist dictator of Romania from 1965 to 1989, Nicolae Ceaușescu. Toma offered details of his experience in an interview with James T. Harris on “The Conservative Circus.” Toma expressed fear that the government’s response during COVID-19 marked a descent into an authoritarian state. He noted how his bill helped push back against dictatorial trends exhibited by the government throughout 2020: disincentivizing and outlawing religion to increase government reliance and subservience.
“If your ultimate allegiance is to God, then you have something on which to rely on, to sort of fight back against state overreach,” said Toma. “But once you take God out of it, then the only thing you can rely on is what? You end up having to trust the state. To me, that’s the scariest possible solution because that’s how we got some of the worst dictators and some of the worst criminals, guilty of genocide and everything else across the world.”
AZ State Rep. Ben Toma discusses the tyranny going on in Canada as he speaks on his personal escape from Romania un https://t.co/KEIfNHfVwI
In addition to the hostility toward religion, Toma observed that other signs of communism were present in the country, with implementation or entertainment of ideas like rationing, supply chain shortages, social credit, and censorship.
Governor Doug Ducey hasn’t lifted Arizona’s state of emergency yet.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-07) advocated that authorities take away the trucks from truckers participating in the U.S. version of the “Freedom Convoy” that took Canada’s capital by storm one month ago: “Freedom Convoy USA 2022.” In response to the pending convoy protest, Washington, D.C. law enforcement called in support from the National Guard.
Perfect time to impound and give the trucks to small trucking companies looking to expand their business. https://t.co/1pHURh0hbr
One of the leaders of Freedom Convoy USA 2022, Kyle Sefcik, informed President Joe Biden in a video that their convoy would be meeting in Washington, D.C. on March 1: the day of Biden’s State of the Union Address. Sefcik clarified that the truckers will protest lawfully and constitutionally: their routes are public, they have a permit for the National Mall, and will come peacefully. He requested that Biden end the national state of emergency and all mandates related to COVID-19.
“Sir, the world is watching us, because they know that if what’s happening in Canada happens here to us in the land of the free, then freedom as we know it is gone,” said Sefcik. “The government, the elected officials of both parties have failed us tremendously, and now it’s time for us, we the people, to fix this, to end this. We’re ready to get back to our lives, the ones promised and guaranteed in the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the contract that you signed and swore an oath to under the one true God. This is simple. End this.”
For Gallego, it appears that protests are only valid insofar as they align with his personal political preferences. As riots broke out nationwide from Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, Gallego pledged to the Arizona Republic that he would take to the streets alongside BLM protestors in response to President Donald Trump’s announcement that he would deploy military personnel to quash violence outbreaks at the protests.
I refuse to let this Democracy die. I will resist. I do not consent and I will not follow martial law. #resist
Freedom Convoy truckers and protestors occupied downtown Ottawa for nearly an entire month in protest of the country’s COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. Law enforcement was only able to break up the protest successfully after freezing protestors’ bank accounts and crypto transactions, towing away vehicles, arresting protestors, and deploying pepper spray and stun grenades.
Bigger Announcements Coming! Our convoy will arrive in DC on March 1st! Our full routes are on IG and FB ( FreedomConvoyUSA2022 ). I will keep everyone updated on Twitter as well. #FreedomConvoyusa2022pic.twitter.com/5p4dXCdKWL
According to the latest data released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), law enforcement encountered nearly 154,000 illegal immigrants crossing the Southwest border. This number doesn’t include those illegal immigrants who evaded apprehension, known as “gotaways”: different than those who evade encounters entirely, or go through the catch-and-release process.
According to CBP data obtained through Border Patrol and by Townhall, CNN, and The Washington Postcompiled by the Republican National Committee (RNC), over 504,600 estimated gotaways have occurred since President Joe Biden was sworn in. Former and current border officials clarified that those estimates are conservative. National Border Patrol Council’s Rio Grande Valley Chapter Vice President and Spokesman Chris Cabrera told Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that the actual number of gotaways is likely “twice, if not three times” the Biden Administration’s November estimate of around 400,000 — which would be around 1.2 million.
As evidenced by the CBP chart “Southwest Land Border Encounters by Month,” encounters remain far above those over the last three years. Unlike the last three years, however, there’s been a sharp downturn in encounters from December to January. Similar sharp downturn trends occurred in 2016 and 2017. Overall, Southwest border encounters dropped about 14 percent from December to January: 19 percent for the Office of Field Operations (OFO) and nearly 14 percent for U.S. Border Patrol.
CBP’s latest numbers come nearly a month after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) toldReuters that the country should expect the border crisis to worsen throughout 2022. A majority of Arizona law enforcement expressed support for mitigation efforts proposed by Governor Doug Ducey: federal legislation to increase border security through completing border wall, physical barriers, and virtual surveillance; requiring asylum seekers to show proof of attempt to claim asylum prior to crossing and at a port of entry; increasing the number of immigration judges; and increasing funding for local law enforcement and humanitarian efforts.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
