EDITORIAL: Legislature should support asset forfeiture reform bill

Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be a hallmark of the American justice system. But in the case of asset forfeiture, it doesn’t work that way in many states, including Nevada for the moment. Civil asset forfeiture laws override constitutional rights, allowing law enforcement to legally steal property of individuals without a conviction, an arrest or even so much as a citation.

That could change during the current legislative session in Carson City. Senate Bill 138, sponsored by Republican state Sens. Don Gustavson and James Settelmeyer, requires that any forfeiture be accompanied by a criminal conviction, plea bargain or other agreement. The legislation also switches the burden of proof to prosecutors to justify forfeiture from co-owners or associates of the accused.

Further, the proposed law would remove the profit incentive by directing forfeiture proceeds to the state general fund, rather than to the coffers of law enforcement agencies. Over the years, police across the country have used asset forfeiture laws to bolster department budgets, with profiled traffic stops becoming a pretext for bogus searches that lack probable cause. Here in Nevada, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department made national news recently by shaking down Interstate 80 travelers without so much as writing them a ticket. Two out-of-state motorists were pulled over and had thousands of dollars in cash seized. They were threatened with arrest if they did not sign “receipts” that documented the takings.

In one of those instances, in September 2013, a deputy pulled over Tan Nguyen for going 78 mph in a 75 mph zone. Mr. Nguyen was never arrested nor indicted for any crime. He wasn’t even issued a speeding ticket. But the deputy took a briefcase containing $50,000 in cash, and the next day, the sheriff’s office released a video with the deputy displaying the cash haul and bragging about how the money would “benefit Humboldt County with training and equipment.”

Never mind that it came at the expense of trampling an innocent person’s constitutional rights. It’s more important that the department gets training and equipment, right? How about some training in due process? To that end, at least, Mr. Nguyen sued in federal court and got his money back, as did a driver in another case involving the seizure nearly $14,000.

New Mexico is a step ahead of Nevada and perhaps the nation, on the verge of enacting a law that would be among the country’s strongest with regard to restricting civil asset forfeiture. The Daily Caller reported that the law requires conviction of a crime, and proof that the property was used in the crime, before law enforcement can seize it. And like Nevada’s proposed law, any money gained from the property would revert to the state general fund. The bill passed unanimously in the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-led House.

Now it sits on the desk of New Mexico Republican Gov. Susana Martinez. Should it be signed, the state would surely improve its grade for civil asset forfeiture laws; in a 2010 study by the Institute for Justice, New Mexico received a D-plus — the same lowly grade Nevada received.

Silver State legislators have an excellent opportunity to follow New Mexico’s lead. They should do so, and with the same unanimous fervor, in order to restore the hallmark of innocent until proven guilty.