Class-action lawsuit Archives

If anyone knows how unjust civil asset forfeiture can be, it’s Philadelphia resident, Norys Hernandez. Law enforcement attempted to seize the house she owned with her sister even though she had done nothing wrong. The authorities attempted to take her home after her nephew was arrested for dealing drugs on the property. It took years, but Norys eventually got her house back. She was part of a class-action lawsuit that was settled for $3 million last year.

Civil asset forfeiture is the legal process where police may take someone’s property if it is suspected of being involved in a crime. A criminal conviction is not required in most states. In fact, of the four plaintiffs named in the class-action lawsuit who had their houses seized, none were accused of having committed a crime. In three cases, the houses were seized because a relative had been caught selling drugs in the house.

In 2018, Philadelphia reformed its civil asset forfeiture procedures. This change was fêted by many as an end to the heavy-handed use of civil forfeiture in the city. While these reforms should reduce the worst excesses of civil asset forfeiture in Philadelphia, it will not eliminate the practice altogether. Law enforcement may also be able to partner with the fed in their “equitable sharing” plan in order to avoid the city’s restrictions altogether.

Describing the city’s former approach, City Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sánchez said, “We tried to confiscate and arrest our way out of the drug problem.”

The seizures of people’s homes were heavily centered on Latino and black districts of the city. In fact, more than two-fifths of all seized properties came from only four ZIP codes all of which had high rates of poverty and had a majority Latino or black population. On one block in Waterloo Street between 2011 and 2015, law enforcement attempted to take ownership of almost a quarter of the houses.

The large number of seizures in such a small area has negatively impacted those communities. “Forfeiture is a perfect example of what the city’s strategy was,” said Quiñones-Sánchez. “It was a lot of people reacting to the drug issue, but no one thinking about how to actually stabilize the properties.”

Once they had seized the properties, law enforcement would then auction them off. However, there was no plan for how to use these sales to improve the neighborhoods affected by drug crime. Between 1993 and 2018, the Philadelphia DA auctioned off more than 1,600 properties. Many of these were sold to investors or absentee landlords who had either no motivation or interest in improving the houses they bought, leading to further deterioration in the neighborhood.

Often police would seize the same house several times. After being auctioned, these houses found themselves being used for criminal activity time and again.

Many houses were left to decay while they are in legal limbo, leading to further problems in the affected communities. “It was in poor condition. It had been abandoned for a long time,” said Andrew Bowers of the house next to his which the DA attempted to seize in 2004 and has been vacant ever since. “It would need a total rehab job to make it livable again.”

While people such as Norys Hernandez have been able to keep their property, the scars of law enforcement’s use of civil asset forfeiture in Philadelphia will live with the city for a long time.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2018-12-10 Inside the Philadelphia DA’s Side Hustle—Selling Seized Homes to Speculators and Cops

On July 2, 2015, police officers pulled Stephen Nichols over in Lincoln Park near Detroit, Michigan. When they discovered Stephen didn’t have valid insurance for his 1998 Toyota Avalon, they seized it and impounded it in a lot in nearby Brownstown Township.

In cases where property is seized, the law is clear: cases must be brought to court promptly. However, it is over three years since his car was taken, and Stephen still hasn’t had his day in court.

Attorney Ed Zelenak believes Stephen’s case has been held up because the prosecutor’s office is understaffed. He also notes that Stephen pleaded guilty to the charge of having fraudulent insurance on his vehicle. However, Shaun Goodwin, Stephen’s attorney, stressed that the law is quite clear: “The law says prosecutors have to bring a case promptly, but it’s just been in limbo for three years.”

Stephen’s Toyota was seized using a process known as civil asset forfeiture. This is a procedure where law enforcement officers can take an individual’s property if it is suspected of being involved in a crime. Since it is a civil process, in most states neither a criminal conviction nor even criminal charges are required for property to be seized. In Michigan, the standard of proof required for property to be seized is “clear and convincing evidence.” This falls far short of the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, where the proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In addition, up to 100 percent of the proceeds from civil asset forfeitures in Michigan go directly to law enforcement funds. This has led to accusations of “policing for profit” as there is a clear benefit to law enforcement for taking an individual’s property.

With his car seized, Stephen found himself with three options. Firstly, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office offers to settle seizures out of court—as long as they pay $900. This fee is the same whether the owner is innocent or guilty. Stephen’s second option was to forfeit his car. The third option was to pay for a lawyer and take his chances in the courts. Stephen chose the third option, and so far, nothing has happened.

Back in August, I reported on the case of Ryan Chappell whose vehicle was seized in 2016. He also tried his luck with the court system. He took time off work three times to attend hearings, but each time the hearing was rescheduled. Ryan got his car back in 2017, but the transmission had been damaged in storage. The car was no longer drivable.

Now, Ryan and Stephen have joined together as part of a class-action federal lawsuit claiming their constitutional rights have been violated. The suit alleges that the delays both men faced while attempting to retrieve their vehicles violate their right to due process as outlined in the 14th Amendment.

Robert Stevenson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, argues the system is not broken. “Even in those cases where there may have been something improper, the person gets their day in court. It would be ludicrous for police just to take stuff from people,” he said.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

Sources

2018-07-20 Michigan Man Files Suit After Waiting 3 Years for a Hearing to Get His Seized Car Back

2018-07-16 Class-Action Suit Challenges Civil Forfeitures in Wayne County

Free Initial Consultation

(954) 462-3636

Philadelphia’s Problems With Civil Asset Forfeiture Run Deep

After Three Years, Stephen Nichols of Michigan is Still Fighting To Get His Car Back