Brian Silber Law

Civil Forfeiture Attorney

Free Initial Consultation

(954) 462-3636

Show the Way

Seizure of Innocent Man’s Truck Leads to Civil Forfeiture Reform Attempt

By

silverado-2629366_1920-300x200Even though he was acquitted of the criminal charge leveled against him, Aaron Dorn still lost his truck to a process known as civil asset forfeiture. Inspired by Aaron’s case, a North Dakota state representative is introducing a bill to reform civil forfeiture in the state.

Last summer, I reported on Dorn’s situation. In the fall of 2016, he had traveled from his home in New York state to join the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Aaron was arrested by a police officer who claimed Dorn had attempted to ram the officer’s police car with his 2003 Chevrolet Silverado.

Dorn was charged with “reckless endangerment,” and his truck was taken by police using civil asset forfeiture. This is the legal procedure where police can take an individual’s property or cash if it was suspected of being involved in a crime. In most states, assets may be seized even when the property owner has not been convicted of—or even charged with—any crime.

According to the libertarian Institute for Justice, North Dakota ties with Massachusetts as having the worst civil asset forfeiture laws in the country. Not only are no criminal charges required, but police are only required to show “probable cause” to take property. This is far below the standard of proof required in criminal cases, which is that evidence must show guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Civil asset forfeiture is an important source of revenue for law enforcement in North Dakota as agencies may keep up to 100 percent of the profits from seizures. This has led to criticism of the practice as encouraging “policing for profit.”

State Rep. Rick Becker (R-Bismarck) wants to see the law changed to protect innocent owners. He is introducing a bill which would only allow civil asset forfeiture to take place if an owner is convicted of a crime.

“If you were eventually not even charged, or if you were acquitted, or if you were found not guilty,” said Becker, “then it should just be an automatic ‘I get my stuff back.’”

The proposed bill would also require law enforcement agencies to send the proceeds of civil forfeitures into the state schools trust. Agencies would further be required to produce reports on property that had been seized and forfeited.

This will be Becker’s second attempt to reform civil asset forfeiture in the state. In 2017, his bill passed the House, but was opposed by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and received no votes in its favor in the Senate.

State Sen. Diane Larson (R-Bismarck), who is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said she will assess Becker’s bill after it has been voted on in the House. This is “a complicated issue,” she explained.

Whatever the outcome, it will be too late for Dorn. Even though all criminal charges against Dorn were dropped in June of last year, the seizure of his truck was approved later in the summer. Dorn was unable to find a lawyer who would represent him and was unable to appeal the decision as a result.

“Just because I’m from New York doesn’t mean that laws in other states are not affecting me,” said Dorn who may travel to North Dakota to testify on Becker’s bill. “Look at my case, I traveled through your state, I got wrapped up in some legal case, and then I got my truck stolen.”

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

2019-01-08 North Dakota Lawmaker Brings Bill to Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture

Michigan Judge Orders $6 Million Returned to Doctor in Civil Asset Forfeiture Case

By

close-up-doctor-health-42273-300x200A year after a Michigan doctor was acquitted of criminally overprescribing medication, a judge has ordered that the $6.2 million in assets seized during the investigation be returned to him.

Dr. Joseph Edwin Oesterling of Saginaw in Central Michigan had been accused of running a “pill mill,” a term used by investigators to describe a doctor who inappropriately gives out medication, often for non-medical reasons.

Several clinics and residences linked to Oesterling were searched in October 2016. Police seized controlled substances and various electronic and financial records. The searches were part of a seven-month investigation led by the Thumb Narcotics Unit and the DEA’s Tactical Diversion Squad of Detroit. On two occasions, undercover agents visited Oesterling’s offices, faking their pain in order to obtain prescription drugs. Oesterling, who had earlier been the University of Michigan’s Chief of Urology, was formally charged in December 2016.

At the same time, assets worth $6.2 million were seized. These included four properties, five vehicles, and more than 20 bank accounts. They were seized using a process called civil asset forfeiture. This is a procedure where law enforcement may take an individual’s property if it is suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Since this is a civil and not a criminal procedure, these seizures were legally unrelated to the criminal case against Oesterling.

The criminal trial began in September 2017. Oesterling faced seven charges: continuing a criminal enterprise, maintaining a drug house, and five counts of delivering Schedule II controlled substances. Of these, the most severe charge was continuing a criminal enterprise as it carries a 20-year minimum sentence.

The trial, which lasted nearly a month, ended with Oesterling being acquitted of all charges. “We believed in Dr. Oesterling from the beginning,” said his attorney, Ronald W. Chapman. “We are very happy that Dr. Oesterling can now put his life back together after resolving these fictitious charges. Dr. Oesterling was at all times acting in the best interest of his patients in order to treat their legitimate pain complaints.”

Even though Oesterling no longer faced criminal charges, his problems were far from over. As Oesterling’s property had been seized using a civil procedure, it was not automatically returned at the end of his criminal trial. While the standard of proof in a criminal trial must be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard of proof in civil asset forfeiture is lower in most states. In Michigan, assets may be seized if there is “clear and convincing evidence.” In Michigan, the onus is often on the owner to prove his or her innocence. This is the reverse of a criminal case where it is the prosecution who must prove guilt.

Once Oesterling was acquitted of the criminal charges, he still had to fight to have his property returned. It took another year before the judge dismissed the county’s civil asset forfeiture suit. Chapman said the case was dismissed because the court “did not find that [the prosecutor’s] evidence established a substantial connection between the Defendant property and criminal activity.”

Although Oesterling will now have his property returned, it has taken two years to have his name cleared. “After he was acquitted just under one year ago,” explained Chapman, “the prosecution kept their claim on his property and continued to allege he was a drug pusher.”

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.

Sources

2018-10-02 Judge Orders $6 Million Returned to Doctor Cleared in “Pill Mill” Case

2017-10-02 Jury Acquits Prominent Doctor of Overprescribing Meds

Utah Police Seized Over $2.5 Million in Cash and Property in 2017

By

Last year, police in Utah seized over $2.5 million in cash and property using civil asset forfeiture. This is a sharp increase on the $1.4 million seized in 2016, fueling concerns that property may be taken from innocent people.

Civil asset forfeiture is a system which allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime. Before the property can be seized permanently, law enforcement in Utah is required to show clear, convincing evidence that it was linked to a crime. However, this requirement falls below the standard followed in criminal cases: that it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt.” No criminal charges are needed for police to take property.

Police departments deposit cash obtained through civil asset forfeiture into a state grant. This is then given back to law enforcement agencies in the form of grants. 100 percent of money gained through civil forfeitures is used by law enforcement in Utah to fund itself. Opponents of civil asset forfeiture claim that, because of this, police are incentivized to seize cash and property, leading to accusations of “policing for profit.”

The annual report released by Utah’s Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice outlines the grants awarded to law enforcement. For example, the Davis Metro Drug and Major Crimes task force obtained over $122,00 to be used on overtime, surveillance, and to fund confidential informants. The largest grant awarded, in excess of $227,000, was given to the Weber-Morgan Narcotic Strike Force. Grants awarded to other agencies included money for body cameras and weapons.

Law enforcement reported 334 cases of civil asset forfeiture in 2017. Over 60 percent of these cases ended in a default ruling. That is, these owners did not even attempt to get their property back in court. Since asset forfeiture is a civil and not a criminal procedure, property owners do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Critics say this system unfairly penalizes low-income property owners who may well be innocent but cannot afford to go to court in order to get their property back.

“In the past few years, the public has become increasingly aware of these laws that allow their government to permanently take ownership of a person’s property without even charging that person with a crime,” said Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute. “I think it really rubs people the wrong way to find out the government can take things from innocent people.”

The libertarian Libertas Institute would like to see the system reformed so that a criminal conviction is required before property can be taken permanently. In 2017, only 58 percent of cases where property was taken by civil asset forfeiture ended in convictions.

Brent Jex, president of the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, agrees that cases of property seizure should be tied to criminal charges. Jex does not believe property is currently being taken away from innocent people, but he wants there to be a safeguard to help build public confidence in the system. “You have to be concerned about that to make sure you’re doing it right,” he said.

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

2018-07-03 Utah Police Can Take Cash and Property From Suspects, Even If Charges Are Never Filed. Last Year, Officers Seized Items Worth $2.5 Million

Utah Police Seized Over $2.5 Million in Cash and Property in 2017

By

Last year, police in Utah seized over $2.5 million in cash and property using civil asset forfeiture. This is a sharp increase on the $1.4 million seized in 2016, fueling concerns that property may be taken from innocent people.

Civil asset forfeiture is a system which allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime. Before the property can be seized permanently, law enforcement in Utah is required to show clear, convincing evidence that it was linked to a crime. However, this requirement falls below the standard followed in criminal cases: that it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt.” No criminal charges are needed for police to take property.

Police departments deposit cash obtained through civil asset forfeiture into a state grant. This is then given back to law enforcement agencies in the form of grants. 100 percent of money gained through civil forfeitures is used by law enforcement in Utah to fund itself. Opponents of civil asset forfeiture claim that, because of this, police are incentivized to seize cash and property, leading to accusations of “policing for profit.”

The annual report released by Utah’s Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice outlines the grants awarded to law enforcement. For example, the Davis Metro Drug and Major Crimes task force obtained over $122,00 to be used on overtime, surveillance, and to fund confidential informants. The largest grant awarded, in excess of $227,000, was given to the Weber-Morgan Narcotic Strike Force. Grants awarded to other agencies included money for body cameras and weapons.

Law enforcement reported 334 cases of civil asset forfeiture in 2017. Over 60 percent of these cases ended in a default ruling. That is, these owners did not even attempt to get their property back in court. Since asset forfeiture is a civil and not a criminal procedure, property owners do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Critics say this system unfairly penalizes low-income property owners who may well be innocent but cannot afford to go to court in order to get their property back.

“In the past few years, the public has become increasingly aware of these laws that allow their government to permanently take ownership of a person’s property without even charging that person with a crime,” said Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute. “I think it really rubs people the wrong way to find out the government can take things from innocent people.”

The libertarian Libertas Institute would like to see the system reformed so that a criminal conviction is required before property can be taken permanently. In 2017, only 58 percent of cases where property was taken by civil asset forfeiture ended in convictions.

Brent Jex, president of the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, agrees that cases of property seizure should be tied to criminal charges. Jex does not believe property is currently being taken away from innocent people, but he wants there to be a safeguard to help build public confidence in the system. “You have to be concerned about that to make sure you’re doing it right,” he said.

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

2018-07-03 Utah Police Can Take Cash and Property From Suspects, Even If Charges Are Never Filed. Last Year, Officers Seized Items Worth $2.5 Million