Asset seizures face higher burden of proof

Gov. Tom Wolf on Thursday signed into law a bill that reforms how law enforcers can seize private property suspected of being connected to drug dealing or other crimes.

Sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer (R-48), Act 13 of 2017 revises and reforms Pennsylvania's asset forfeiture law by placing higher standards of proof on the Commonwealth.

Under the previous law, prosecutors only had to prove with a preponderance of evidence that there was a connection between the property and the crime.

Under the new law, the prosecution must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the property and the crime are connected.

“Act 13 represents over two years of work by many different groups, and makes significant asset forfeiture reforms,” Folmer said. “This is a step towards smarter forfeiture practices to provide various protections to property owners.”

More:Civil forfeiture: Crime fighter or government grab?

More:Lebanon County legislators talk civil forfeiture

More:Drug bust helped Lebanon to $1M in forfeiture

Folmer's law was inspired by a case in Philadelphia in which a 72-year-old woman's house was seized after her son was caught selling small amounts of marijuana there.

Prosecutors defended the seizure on the grounds that the woman was aware of the dealing.

That case was recently heard by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which ruled that in order to seize property its owner must not only have been aware of the crime but also agreed to it.

Folmer's original bill would have required a conviction before asset seizure, but it was eventually watered down, in part because of push back from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which sees it as a valuable tool in the fight against drug dealing.

While supporting tougher restrictions, Wolf said the reforms made with bipartisan support are an improvement. Before going to the governor's desk, the new law unanimously passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives this week.

“While I support further reforms to expand the role of a criminal conviction in asset forfeiture, this bill is a step forward to create higher burdens of proof imposed on the seizure of private property by the government,” he said.

“Further, the bill increases transparency and accountability for law enforcement organizations and protects property owners who are not directly involved in a suspected criminal act. In divided government, we must recognize the value of bipartisan progress, while continue to advocate for greater reform.”

In addition to the higher burden of proof imposed on the state, Wolf said the new law also adds significant safeguards that include:

• Protection for third-party owners by placing an additional burden of proof on the Commonwealth.
• Improved transparency in auditing and reporting.
• Specific and additional protection in real property cases by prohibiting the pre-forfeiture seizure of real property without a hearing.
• An extra level of protection for anyone acquitted of a related crime who is seeking the return of their property.