|
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division/Amicus
Ed Barocas/ACLU-NJ
On March 19, 2003, the ACLU-NJ filed a brief supporting a challenge to New Jersey's civil forfeiture statute. Under the civil forfeiture laws of New Jersey, county prosecutors (or the Attorney General) can seize funds and property "utilized in furtherance of an unlawful activity." The same county prosecutor's office then determines how to distribute the funds, and may retain some of the funds for itself and/or the law enforcement agency that seized the funds. The ACLU has opposed civil forfeiture laws because they violate due process, punish people twice for the same offense, and give police incentive to arrest offenders with desirable assets. They also often leave family members in dire straits when family assets are forfeited and family wage earners go to prison. Carol Thomas, who lost her 1990 Ford Thunderbird to forfeiture after her son was caught using it to sell drugs, sued the State. She argued that the forfeiture laws, and the seizure of her vehicle pursuant to those laws, violate her Due Process rights because the police who seized the property and the prosecutor who decided to go forward with the case derive substantial institutional gain from the forfeitures they initiate and prosecute. The Superior Court judge in Cumberland County sided with Thomas and against the State. The judge noted that, although guidelines assure that the funds can't be used directly for salaries, forfeiture monies were used by prosecutors and law enforcement for such things as rent for a motor pool crime scene facility, office furniture, computer equipment, automobiles, fitness equipment, etc. The judge found that the amount of gain that they received from forfeitures in the past three years was so great that it "exceeded the limitation on the financial and personal interest of one in a prosecutorial function which may be allowed in order to avoid a due process challenge." On appeal, the ACLU-NJ filed a brief explaining that the lower court's decision is consistent with the numerous New Jersey Supreme Court cases which seek to limit the discretion of police and prosecutors and which seek to root out arbitrariness and lack of uniformity in law enforcement and prosecution. However, on July 21, 2004, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Courts overturned the lower court's decision. The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to review the case. After returning to the lower court to get a final order, Ms. Thomas will again be petitioning the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
|
