Carnivorous Colorado “Asset Forfeiture Bill” Postponed Indefinitely

HB09-1238 if passed, would have been a Forfeiture Field Day for Colorado Sheriffs. Police no longer wanted to wait for a criminal conviction to forfeit someone’s property, a requirement in Colorado.

Sheriffs wanted asset forfeiture bill HB09-1238 to repeal the “conviction first” requirement and to enact the low standard of civil evidence to forfeit property—“A Preponderance of Evidence”, little more than hearsay. HB09-1238 would have repealed police having to file an-annual asset forfeiture report with the department of local affairs—blocking public view what assets were seized by police.

HB09-1238 would have opened the door for police to target business and homeowners for Civil Asset Forfeiture in “poor communities” where crime rates are higher. Poor neighborhoods, schools and community services dependent on property taxes might have been economically impacted by dropping real estate values, the result of multifamily and other residential investors being frightened away by the HB09-1238 “no conviction needed” to forfeit property law.

Colorado’s HB09 civil asset forfeiture law could have hit the rich. Expensive Colorado resort properties used by occupants for illegal purposes—even if unbeknownst to the owner, could be civilly forfeited on the basis an owner “had reason to know” of lawbreaking activities. For example a parent “had reason to know” their teenager staying at the Colorado vacation house might get into trouble—again. Under HB09-1238 no one would need to be convicted of a crime for police to civilly forfeit a vacation owner’s property.

Had this bill passed, it is foreseeable less people would want to purchase a Colorado vacation home if they intended to rent it: property management companies might have been vulnerable to lawsuits from property owners losing rented homes to civil asset forfeiture.

Realistically it is not possible 100% of the time for owners to stop patrons and tenants breaking laws at their e.g., rented home, apartment building, restaurant, or motel. Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture requires a lower standard of evidence—than criminal evidence.“ a Preponderance of Civil Evidence.” Some states may require “Clear and Convincing Evidence.”

Civil asset forfeiture does not require that anyone be charged with a crime: government can use as civil evidence to forfeit a real property, that the owner reported to police their tenant was dealing drugs to show the owner—had prior knowledge. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations that can make assets subject to civil asset forfeiture. For example a misrepresentation on a federally insured mortgage loan application can make your home—forever subject to federal civil asset forfeiture i.e., the five-year statue of limitations begins to run from the date a federal agency discovers the misrepresentation on a loan application.

To help protect Americans from continuing police forfeiture abuse, Congress should pass legislation that raises the standard of evidence U.S. Government uses for Civil Asset Forfeiture from a mere “Preponderance of Evidence”, to “Clear and Convincing Evidence. All states should require someone must first be convicted of a crime before their property can be forfeited.

Outrageously Colorado HB09-1238 would have prevented—a court—staying a “Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding” until a criminal trial related to the owner’s seized property was finished.

Colorado Citizens need to be Alert to stop the next “police asset forfeiture bill.”

HB1238_C.001 NOT AMENDED
HOUSE COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE REPORT
_______________________________ March 23, 2009
Chairman of Committee Date
Committee on Judiciary.
After consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the
following:
HB09-1238 be postponed indefinitely.