HB09-1238 if passed, would have been a Forfeiture Field Day for Colorado Sheriffs. Police would no longer need a conviction to Civilly Forfeit a person’s property. Public resistance was fierce.
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 could have been economically impacted by dropping real estate values, the probable-result of multi-family and other investors 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 at their home: 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. Under HB09-1238 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, “only a Preponderance of Civil Evidence” to forfeit property. No one need be charged with a crime: government can use as civil evidence to forfeit someone’s real property, that the owner reported to police their tenant was dealing drugs to show the owner—had prior knowledge of the activity. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations that can subject property 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.
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 that someone must first be convicted of a crime before their property can be forfeited.
Colorado Police did not want to wait for a criminal conviction before forfeiting someone’s property. Outrageously 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.
|
EVIDENCE THAT UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS WELCOMES FBI INTEL OPERATIONS AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER
5 hours 38 min ago
gsosbee
|
|
Evening of Solidarity for Dr. Mutulu Shakur
5 hours 51 min ago
denverabc
|
|
The Shortwave Report 11/20/09 Listen Globally
23 hours 54 min ago
Anonymous
|
|
Water and Imperialism
1 day 3 hours ago
NickB
|
|
la virgen de Guadalupe y los curas
1 day 5 hours ago
Anonymous
|
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA ~ TAX EXEMPT U.S. FOUNDATIONS OF OUR AMERICAN WEALTHY ELITE HAVE BECOME TAX EVASION FOUNDATIONS THAT NEED NEW FEDERAL GUIDLINES.....
2 days 1 hour ago
Anonymous
|
|
Chickenhawk Hall of Shame
3 days 4 hours ago
Anonymous
|
|
The False Hope of J Street and the Gentile Problem
4 days 2 hours ago
Anonymous
|
|
Epidemics for Dummies
4 days 8 hours ago
Anonymous
|
|
RAIM Crashes Racist Tea Party
4 days 21 hours ago
Anonymous
|
Comments
Asset forfeiture
April 2, 2009 by Anonymous, 33 weeks 22 hours ago
Comment id: 3508
American citizens have always either supported or gone along with the seizure of land, money or other assets around the world. Now that some of this comes home we hear squeals of outrage. Suck it up, yankees.
Chris Herz
Vheadline.com
Asset theft
August 25, 2009 by Anonymous, 12 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 3851
I think we should allow it, and the tack on a rider bill.
That rider should be if the seizure of the property is deemed unlawful, the LEOs and agency heads involved get ass-raped by a horse.
Everyone has to pay the Piper sooner or later!
It's bad
August 25, 2009 by Anonymous, 12 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 3852
I'm all for seisure of property for crime, especially white colar crime. But it should and must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The crime should have to be proven in a court of lawbefore the police can sieze the property. The police will benefit from really big property, so it's not like they can't afford a DA to prosecute the thing. Of course, I don't think a system like ours, run by the rich, would use such a law.
Sheriffs wanted asset
October 19, 2009 by alexdenipaul, 4 weeks 4 days ago
Comment id: 4177
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 wireless internet —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.
Post new comment