Civil Forfeiture - June 24, 2022 Windham Independent

A Bipartisan Cause: Ending Civil Forfeiture

While criminal forfeiture takes property from convicted criminals (which is desirable under specific circumstances), civil forfeiture takes cash, cars, businesses, homes or other property from victims that have not been convicted of a crime, or even charged with one.

Created under the guise of the drug war, civil forfeiture destroys due process, treating property owners worse than criminals by turning “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. Victims are treated as guilty until they prove their innocence, with the vast majority of them being unable to ever mount and prevail in a lengthy and expensive legal battle against the government. Forcing the victims to sue the government to (maybe) get their property back after spending tens of thousands in attorney fees disproportionately hurts the most disadvantaged amongst us, raising major concerns of equal protection under the law and of basic fairness. 

To make matters worse, law enforcement has a strong profit motive to confiscate property, with 90% of civil forfeiture proceeds going to law enforcement (split between local law enforcement and the state drug forfeiture fund). While I was the Finance Director for the Town of Windham, I have never seen our Police Department engage in civil forfeitures, and I am immensely proud of them for that… but since policing for profit is morally bankrupt and leads to abuses, law enforcement should never be given such incentives.

The burden of proof required to take property away under civil forfeiture is much lower than the burden of proof required to secure a criminal conviction, which is morally wrong - if the government cannot secure a conviction, the government should not be able to take someone’s property.

Despite the fact that public opinion surveys consistently show sizable majorities oppose current forfeiture practices and support reform/elimination of the practice, the NH Legislature was only able to pass a couple of bills making minor improvements to civil forfeiture (SB522 in 2016 and SB 498 in 2018), while bills that would have eliminated the practice altogether failed.

I believe in properly funding law enforcement agencies, but not through civil forfeiture , which ruins due process and erodes public confidence in police. It’s the Legislature and the town budgets that should be providing the appropriations - no more law enforcement funding through civil forfeiture.

If elected, I will stand up to the special interests that lobby for civil forfeiture and work across party lines to end civil forfeiture by eliminating civil proceedings as an alternative to criminal asset forfeiture. If we cannot eliminate it, we must at least direct all forfeiture proceeds to the general fund or a victim compensation fund, strengthen protections for innocent third-party owners, close the equitable sharing loophole, and increase transparency and accountability requirements.

Please don’t hesitate to text or call me at (617) 755 2590 or email me at dpmwindham@gmail.com if you need more information to help you decide if I deserve your support on September 13th.

Daniel Popovici-Muller

Republican Candidate for State Representative