EDITORIAL: Civil forfeiture on the docket for Assembly committee

Nevada lawmakers took a step toward reforming the state’s forfeiture laws on Monday. It’s long overdue.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony this week on a proposal that would expand legal protections for property owners and would end the practice of allowing law enforcement to seize property from certain suspects even if they are never charged with a crime.

Assembly Bill 425 would also preclude state and local law enforcement from piggybacking on federal agencies to operate under more lax federal statutes.

Civil forfeiture laws proliferated in the 1980s in an effort to separate drug kingpins from their ill-gotten gains. Over the years, however, the tactic has come under scrutiny given that, in many cases, the property owner is never formally accused of illegal activity.

Consider one high-profile case in Nevada from 2014. Californian Tan Nguyen was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 80 near Winnemucca by a Humboldt County deputy, who searched his vehicle and found $50,000 in cash. A lawsuit filed by Mr. Nguyen — which was later settled — alleged that the officer pressured him to sign a “property for safekeeping receipt” that would allow police to take his cash. Mr. Nguyen was never ticketed for the supposed traffic offense.

Civil forfeiture has become lucrative business for many police departments. In some jurisdictions, agencies receive a kickback related to the proceeds of the homes, cars or cash seized, creating incentives for officers to target suspects that might generate the most loot.

Under AB425, “Real property or personal property seized pursuant … of this act may not be forfeited and must be returned to the person from whom the property was seized if the State: 1. Does not file criminal charges against the defendant relating to the commission of an unlawful act relating to the possession, distribution or use of a controlled substance; or 2. Dismisses the charges filed against the defendant.”

The Legislature has previously only tinkered around the edges of state forfeiture law and has gutted substantive proposals in recent sessions. AB425 will no doubt be opposed by popular law enforcement interests. Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, a Las Vegas Democrat who moonlights as a Clark County prosecutor, could also be an obstacle.

But if lawmakers are serious about criminal justice reform, addressing civil forfeiture is essential. The issue has bipartisan appeal, as many Republicans recognize the constitutional problems inherent in current law regarding due process and property rights, while Democrats object that forfeiture is often used against the poor and defenseless, who don’t have the resources to fight back.

Several states have recently addressed the inequity of civil forfeiture. The time has come for Nevada to join them.