Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Civil Asset Forfeiture Coalition Letter 3 Pages Total

    Caricato da

    Sandra Crosnoe
    17 visualizzazioni3 pagine
    This letter was written in response to a letter written by the District Attorney's Council in Oklahoma and is being placed online for reference only. It was sent as a coalition effort from the following groups: Stop Taking our Property, ACLU, OCPA, OK2A, OK Policy Institute, NAACP. Letter from District Attorney’s Council for reference: https://www.ok.gov/dac/documents/CAF%20Opposition%20Letter%201-5-16.pdf (you will need to copy and paste the link in your browser)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    This letter was written in response to a letter written by the District Attorney's Council in Oklahoma and is being placed online for reference only. It was sent as a coalition effort from the following groups: Stop Taking our Property, ACLU, OCPA, OK2A, OK Policy Institute, NAACP. Letter from District Attorney’s Council for reference: https://www.ok.gov/dac/documents/CAF%20Opposition%20Letter%201-5-16.pdf (you will need to copy and paste the link in your browser)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    17 visualizzazioni3 pagine

    Civil Asset Forfeiture Coalition Letter 3 Pages Total

    Caricato da

    Sandra Crosnoe
    This letter was written in response to a letter written by the District Attorney's Council in Oklahoma and is being placed online for reference only. It was sent as a coalition effort from the following groups: Stop Taking our Property, ACLU, OCPA, OK2A, OK Policy Institute, NAACP. Letter from District Attorney’s Council for reference: https://www.ok.gov/dac/documents/CAF%20Opposition%20Letter%201-5-16.pdf (you will need to copy and paste the link in your browser)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 3
    QORPOLICY.one Chl cena Plicy Vo January 6, 2016 Dear Legislator, We are a cealitige af organizations concerned about Oklahama’s current ‘secret forfemure Laws, We are plaased Sen. Kyle Loveless ib working to raise arwareness.of this process arcite better protect orivate property rights and due process of law, Yesterday, you received a letter fram the Oklahoma Disticy Attorney's Association; we would like to address sorwe points made In that atta. From a historical perspective, forfeiture was introduced in 2789 for shins that slated paying taritts and not as part of routine traffic stops, Wt wasn’e until {hae 1980s that forfeiture became a prominent fiebune in America’s court rooms. Since that time forfeiture proceeds have skyrocketed. Today, more than 400 fedteral laws and various state laws can be used to undergo forfemure, tn fact, in 2028 more funds were takan from Americans theaugh forfeiture than by burgiars. “While specific forfolture cases have Been upheld by the Courts, there has never been a ruling of their specific comstitutorulity. ‘wo don’t question the commnment. af ni laa enforcement officers oF dietrict attorneys. We believe Oklahoma's cument law ts Broken and are ‘working to fir It, The United States has had unjust laiws—siavery, poll taxes and citaees being denied the ight 10 vote. Now i the time to add civil asset fortemure to that listof outdated, unjust laws, Werbelieve the pendulum nas swung 100 fer from due process ard the principle of innocent until proven guilty. ‘Thve first builot point in thair latter elares “law ervorcamant cen only seize money found in close proximity 10-crug[sic] ot money derived from drug qramactions, along with vahicies used 19 tranapart or ‘conceal drugs.” However, the majceity af forfenures, according to widely reported prediminary research fy the ACLU, are ot wecompanied by any crrminal charges, Iftnese peosie ara truty involved in the trafficking of drugs our law cenforeoment cificers ave betting tham walk free, ‘seconuily, the betber claimsall farfeltures are revisewed by prosecutors prior t0 the fling of a ferfeiture action. Again, this statement s partially tue but does rect provide the full picture. It is enportant to-reaiae tha office in charge of ting the forfeinure isthe same office that gets ta deposit the proceeds of the forfeiture into their revating fund, Bert haw much reviews actually done? im one care in Oklanama County, both the peosecutor and judge moved forward with a eletault forfeliura despite the owner fling the proper paperwork to Fight the case, Eventually, the awner's atterray pointed out the error and got the forfesure reversed. How man tienos has this happened to someone who anttafford sevattoeney? The third bulet point addresses notice, While notice must be given when. forfeiture action is being, sought, the ewmae must hire an attorney and object to tne forfeiture within 45 days. Faihes to do 30 wil result in as automatic of default forfeiture —this is how mast forleiiures: end. ‘The fourth point made in the letter Calms the state mast prawe tive property Is invobeed in the drug treet ‘The law roquires the state to file 2 notice of intended farkeiture, as mentioned above, ancl the own must ccojact within 45 days to this notice, However, this notice does not require any actual evidence. The ‘Oklahoma County District Attorney's office explainad it beet in a bret filed in 2013, saying tne law “does nat require the State 10 include a detailed set of facts supporting forfelture.” Humber fives an Interesting argument. We would challange the DAC to tind a case where a jury was: itvvolved in a forfeiere casa. In cur findings, the state will offer a sattiement before the case makes it toa Jury. Fa etiven fights the forfeiture thoy will likely recetva apercentage of thelr money or property. In ane insteree, a property owner forfeited $429 and wat allowed to pay an addiional $500 in exchange fer her ‘ear not being forlalted. She had to bur har car back from the governenent. That's not(ustie, that's being bald up for ransom. Finally, pot 6 ts the biggest hatf-truth in the better. While a judas is involved in every forfeiture case, fevatonce bs not. As mentioned in pokvt four, the law does net require any set of facts in the rests of forfekure. Thus, a forfeited case determined by default never has avidence prevented. ‘on one pointaf the letter we must agree: “There hasbeen much misinformation sbout the asset forfeiture prowess in Oklahoma.” The farfenure reform package by Lavaless wil be ready to introduce in the next few weebs and we logk forward to eneeting with each af you te discuss how it wil protect true duc process and private property rights while being more offective in combating drug addiction in Oblahoma, instead of paying student loans arbuying plaques like how the currant fund is utHized, properly forfeited furds wil pay for addkton tremiment, our underserved drug courts and pravide grants to our kaw enlorcamant officers onthe frant Ines of the drug trade Attached isa one page memo of the reform plan aad » handful of forfeiture cases recently brought to Fight in the media, Respectully, ACLU at akbore ‘Oklahoma Counc of Public Affairs Oklahoma Policy Institute “Ollahoma Second Amendment Association NAACP, Ollshorna City Branch ‘What SB 839 and accompanying legislation will achieve: 1) Require a conviction before property can be permanently forfeited tothe government. There ‘will be some exeenptions to this requirement for criminal informants and those whe have ‘fled from justice. Nothing in this section will affect law eciforcerment’s ability tn seize property wath probable causelin the course of an investigation. 2) lnstinte a timeline far charged to br brought agninst property awmers. This would ensure timely return of property if the government dogsn't have enough evidence to proves crime was-comeni 3) Remewe the direct profit from forfeiture. Currently, agencies are able ta keep wp te 100% af the proceeds they forfeit. Language \s being drafted to divert this meney £2 drug interdiction. drug courts and drug treatment programs. This would attack the drug crisis from all sides. 4) Finally, the bepislation will raise the burden of proof from the current standard of preponderance of the evidence, essentially 80.114 mare likely than nat thata vidlation ofthe law occurred, to requiring the government to prove the property Was invatved in

    Potrebbero piacerti anche