New Mexico Legislators Sue City For Refusing To Follow New Asset Forfeiture Law

Nice, so expected civil forfeiture is actually part of their annual projected budget. If they do not steal enough cars to sell from the populace, they can't make their budget. The City's answer to this problem: ignore recently passed legislation against the practice and just continue to steal enough cars to sell.

www.techdirt.com...

From the we-thought-it-was-just-a-suggestion dept

Earlier this year, the state of New Mexico passed one of the most solid pieces of asset forfeiture reform legislation in the country. All it asked for was what most people would consider to be common sense: if the government is going to seize assets, the least it could do in return is tie the seizure to a conviction.

Now, the government is going after another part of the government for its refusal to stop taking stuff without securing a conviction.

Two New Mexico state senators are suing Albuquerque after the city has refused to stop seizing residents’ cars, despite a law passed earlier this year ending the practice of civil asset forfeiture.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, New Mexico state senators Lisa Torraco and Daniel Ivey-Soto said Albuquerque is defying the new law and “has continued to take property using civil forfeiture without requiring that anyone—much less the property owner—be convicted of a crime.”

These would be the two senators who pushed for the much-needed reform. They managed to get the law passed, but Albuquerque (along with other cities in the state) haven't shown much interest in altering their tactics. The only incentive the new law has on its side is the threat of legal action or legislative pressure. The old incentives -- hundreds of thousands of dollars -- are still motivating local law enforcement.

Albuquerque has a particularly aggressive program to seize vehicles from drivers suspected of DWI. According to the Albuquerque Journal, the city has seized 8,369 vehicles and collected more than $8.3 million in forfeiture revenues since 2010.

The city's attorney argues this newly-illegal activity is still legal, because drunk driving.

“Our ordinance is a narrowly-tailored nuisance abatement law to protect the public from dangerous, repeat DWI offenders and the vehicles they use committing DWI offenses, placing innocent citizens’ lives and property at risk,” city attorney Jessica Hernandez said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “The ordinance provides defenses to forfeiture to protect innocent owners and has been upheld by the courts.”

Stacking the deck further is the fact that the city counts its seizures before they're seized as part of its budgetary plans.

According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, Albuquerque forecasts how many vehicles it will not only seize but sell at auction. The city’s 2016 budget estimates it will have 1,200 vehicle seizure hearings, release 350 vehicles under agreements with the property owners, immobilize 600 vehicles, and to sell 625 vehicles at auction.

When government agencies have predetermined the amount of vehicles they will need to seize to hit budget projections, they will do everything in their power -- including, apparently, ignoring new laws forbidding this sort of thing -- to ensure the number of vehicles they seize is the number of vehicles they planned to seize. The incentives could not be more perverted and yet, government officials claim the system will somehow result in only the vehicles of the truly guilty being taken and sold to pay for more vehicles being taken and sold.

edit on 10-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

a reply to: infolurker

Wait.. by the way bump. sarc/ Wait.. I thought the armed robbers
could just sack your house, take the valuables and tow away
everything but your siding.. and never even give you a receipt.
Much less give anything back after you took out a crippling loan
to defend yourself against godless despots that lie for a living.
I'm surprised anybody is speaking up about this... they'll get put
on the looting list./sarc I want them all lined up after it's all over.
T&C forbid my voicing an opinion of what should happen to the
people that created the quota.

a reply to: infolurker

Not much to say to that besides sit here and shake my head.

A local government seizing property is nothing new historically speaking but to put it in the budget projection? Ballsy.

a reply to: infolurker

I don't think a lot of people realize how dangerous these asset forfeiture laws really are. Reform is badly needed, and kudos to NW for making an effort! That the city has budgeted property stolen from citizens is an outrage! Every single politician in that city should be voted out of office. Come on, "suspected DUI"?? So, anyone a cop decides they don't like, they can steal their car?? That's what it amounts to!

I knew they used those laws for drugs cases, but I didn't know they were used for DUI as well.

As it stands, anyone with power can accuse a person they don't like, and many places, property can be taken even if there is no arrest, much less a conviction. Great way for an out-pf-control government to punish any that dare disagree with them, eh?