Hawaii Governor Wants To Veto Bill That Would Stop “Government-Sponsored Theft”

Without ever filing criminal charges, law enforcement officers in Hawaii routinely confiscate cash, cars, and other valuable property using the state’s “civil forfeiture” laws. Worse, the state actively encourages aggressive seizures as police, prosecutors, and the attorney general all get a cut of the proceeds from forfeiting property, a system that’s generated over $11.5 million between 2006 and 2015. Tellingly, over 92% of the attorney general’s forfeiture expenditures last year—nearly $314,000—funded payroll for its Asset Forfeiture Unit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/07/01/hawaii-governor-wants-to-veto-bill-that-would-stop-government-sponsored-theft/#2093ba28b5c0

Blasting the state’s civil-forfeiture regime as “government-sponsored theft,”Hawaiian lawmakers backed a bill (HB 748) that would accomplish two major reforms. First, it would bar agencies from keeping forfeiture proceeds for themselves. Instead, after paying administration and storage costs, all forfeiture revenue would be redirected to the state general fund.

“Civil forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in Hawaii today,” Institute for Justice Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath said in a statement. “Enacting HB 748 would eliminate the financial incentives that encourage the pursuit of revenue over the pursuit of justice.”

In addition, HB 748 would outlaw forfeiture based on misdemeanors and would require a felony conviction (or its equivalent) in criminal court before the state could forfeit property in civil court. Similar laws are already on the books in 15 states, including California and Oregon.

But in a surprise move, Gov. David Ige announced last week that he intended to veto the bill. Parroting talking points from law enforcement, the governor claimed that “safeguards presently exist in Hawaii’s asset forfeiture statutes that prevent the abuses cited in the bill.”

“The notion that there is no abuse of civil asset forfeiture here in Hawaii is quaint,” remarked Carl Bergquist, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii.

A state audit from last summer revealed that the government forfeited property “without a corresponding criminal charge in 26% of the asset forfeiture cases closed” in fiscal 2015. And in another 4% of cases, the state forfeited property even when charges were dismissed. In other words, property was confiscated without a criminal conviction in nearly one-third of Hawaii’s forfeiture cases.

Moreover, unlike in criminal cases, property owners facing civil forfeiture do not have a right to an attorney nor are they presumed innocent until proven guilty. But before owners can even challenge a seizure in court, they must first file a claim and post a bond equal to either 10% of the property’s value or $2,500, whichever is greater. If owners don’t file within 30 days of receiving notice, their seized property is automatically forfeited to the government. Only two other states—Rhode Island and Tennessee—force owners to post bond before they can access a neutral arbiter.

Hawaiians can also lose their property to the feds. A federal forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing” lets state and local law enforcement collaborate with a federal agency and collect up to 80% of the forfeiture proceeds, even if this would bypass state law. According to an in-depth investigation by The Washington Post, Hawaiian agencies conducted 435 cash seizures “without search warrants or indictments” through equitable sharing.

Gov. Ige now has until July 9 to act on HB 748, while the legislature can hold a special session solely for overriding bills. Though rare (the last veto override was held in 2016 and succeeded), the governor is free to change his mind. In fact, since 2013, roughly one in four bills Hawaii’s governor originally intended to veto ultimately became law anyway, either with or without his signature.

Should Gov. Ige follow through and veto forfeiture reform, he’d be far outside the political mainstream. The Hawaii Legislature unanimously passed HB 748, with the bill earning support from the LGBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the state chapter of the ACLU. Since Ige announced his intent to veto, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Honolulu Civil Beat have penned editorials urging the governor to reconsider.

Nationwide, forfeiture reform is one of the very few issues that’s won resounding bipartisan support. Polls have consistently found overwhelming majorities opposed to civil forfeiture. In 2016, the national party platforms for both the Republicans and Democrats endorsed fixing forfeiture laws, with the latter calling on states to “reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to ‘police for a profit.’”

In the past five years, 33 states have enacted reforms, including progressive strongholds like California and Illinois and deep-red states like Alabama and Nebraska. (The latter went even further than the Hawaii bill and abolished civil forfeiture entirely, replacing it with criminal forfeiture.) And just last month, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously voted to defund a notorious federal forfeiture program.

“The fair administration of justice means ensuring that not a single innocent individual’s personal property is permanently seized without just cause and conviction, or compensation,” the first section of HB 748 declares. “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”