Institute for Justice
California
March 2010
-
Scott G. Bullock
President and General Counsel
| Grades |
State Law Evasion Grade | Final Grade |
|
|
California
|
 |
 |
 |
Forfeiture Law |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Compared to most other states, California’s forfeiture laws provide better protections to property owners and do not provide as strong of a profit incentive to law enforcement to take property. For the government to forfeit property in California, it must have, at a minimum, clear and convincing evidence for cash associated with criminal activity and requires a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for forfeiting real property. Furthermore, when an innocent person with an interest in the property seeks to protect that interest, the burden is on the government to show that the owner knew about the property’s illegal use. Law enforcement in California keeps 65 percent of all revenues generated through civil forfeiture.However, the behavior of law enforcement officials tells a different tale. Given that California places greater limits on state and local governments in forfeiting property, it should not be surprising that it aggressively participates in equitable sharing with the federal government, collecting an astonishing $305 million in an eight-year period from 2000 to 2008. In 2000, California legislators voted to forbid state and local agencies from using the federal equitable sharing loophole except in limited circumstances, but then-Governor Gray Davis vetoed the measure.
|
