By Jon Augelli
The Supreme Court ruling in Nelson v. Colorado, on April 19th, could spell the end of Civil Asset Forfeiture in America. The court ruled that the State of Colorado had no right to retain money or assets extracted from defendants once their convictions were reversed. Colorado’s “Compensation of Certain Exonerated Persons Statute” (Exoneration Act) - which required the defendants to prove their innocence to recover their money - violated the presumption of innocence; a key component of due process protected by the 14th Amendment.
The case involved petitioners Nelson and Madden, who were erroneously convicted of a series felonies and misdemeanors at trial in Colorado. The court imposed fines and incarceration on both. Their convictions were later reversed, and their legal innocence restored, upon appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which found them both victims of trial error. Nonetheless, Colorado withheld a portion of their fines in accordance with the Exoneration Act. They appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals which ruled the defendants had a right to refunds, but the Colorado Supreme court disagreed arguing that they were only entitled to a refund if they complied with the Exoneration Act. Finally, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the Exoneration Act violated the 14th Amendment on numerous counts.
For one, the 14th amendment requires that due process shall not be held to a lower standard by the respective states. Constitutionally speaking, if the defendant is declared innocent, the state has no right to restrict their freedom. Colorado argued that they are entitled to a portion of the funds because the defendants were declared guilty at some court. To counter, Justice Ginsberg relied on Burks v. United States stating that if an appellate court overturned the ruling of a trial court, the trial court ruling no longer holds and the party is presumed innocent in all respects and should be refunded in full. In the court’s own words:
The Supreme Court ruling in Nelson v. Colorado, on April 19th, could spell the end of Civil Asset Forfeiture in America. The court ruled that the State of Colorado had no right to retain money or assets extracted from defendants once their convictions were reversed. Colorado’s “Compensation of Certain Exonerated Persons Statute” (Exoneration Act) - which required the defendants to prove their innocence to recover their money - violated the presumption of innocence; a key component of due process protected by the 14th Amendment.
The case involved petitioners Nelson and Madden, who were erroneously convicted of a series felonies and misdemeanors at trial in Colorado. The court imposed fines and incarceration on both. Their convictions were later reversed, and their legal innocence restored, upon appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which found them both victims of trial error. Nonetheless, Colorado withheld a portion of their fines in accordance with the Exoneration Act. They appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals which ruled the defendants had a right to refunds, but the Colorado Supreme court disagreed arguing that they were only entitled to a refund if they complied with the Exoneration Act. Finally, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the Exoneration Act violated the 14th Amendment on numerous counts.
For one, the 14th amendment requires that due process shall not be held to a lower standard by the respective states. Constitutionally speaking, if the defendant is declared innocent, the state has no right to restrict their freedom. Colorado argued that they are entitled to a portion of the funds because the defendants were declared guilty at some court. To counter, Justice Ginsberg relied on Burks v. United States stating that if an appellate court overturned the ruling of a trial court, the trial court ruling no longer holds and the party is presumed innocent in all respects and should be refunded in full. In the court’s own words:
“When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, is the State obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction? Our answer is yes.”
Furthermore, requiring proof of innocence to retrieve seized assets violates the presumption of innocence - an essential component of procedural due process. The Institute for Justice , the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted briefs supporting this argument. Under procedural due process, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. An integral part of this is the legal concept, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat - (Latin) “the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”. Colorado's Exoneration Act flipped this on it’s head by requiring the defendants to prove their innocence to recover their assets. The court ruled that this burden of proof shifting blatantly violated the 14th Amendment:
“Absent conviction of a crime, one is presumed innocent. Under the Colorado law before us in these cases, however, the State retains conviction-related assessments unless and until the prevailing defendant institutes a discrete civil proceeding and proves her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This scheme, we hold, offends the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process … Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions.”
The implications of this ruling on Civil Asset Forfeiture are clear. It too violates the presumption of innocence by allowing law enforcement to seize assets without a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge. Thankfully, some States are waking up to this and are taking steps to correct it. Montana, New Mexico, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Vermont now require criminal convictions first. Several of these States also require clear and convincing evidence that the assets were used in conjunction with the crime in addition to the conviction. New Mexico and Nebraska go still further by setting restrictions on equitable sharing - the loophole allowing state law enforcement to seize assets under federal law and keep up to 80% of the proceeds.
Wisconsin has also seen the light. The State Senate Bill SB61 places the burden of proof back on the plaintiff, and requires a criminal conviction prior to seizure. It also requires that the amount seized be proportional to the crime and all revenue generated go directly to a school fund to remove the incentive for abuse.Furthermore, the bill also limits equitable sharing with Federal Agencies for any assets valued less than $50,000. This bill improves the practice, but ultimately we need to abolish it entirely at the Federal level. Civil Asset forfeiture has been a stain on our justice system for too long. It is a direct violation of our country’s founding principles and has no place in the land of the free.
Wisconsin has also seen the light. The State Senate Bill SB61 places the burden of proof back on the plaintiff, and requires a criminal conviction prior to seizure. It also requires that the amount seized be proportional to the crime and all revenue generated go directly to a school fund to remove the incentive for abuse.Furthermore, the bill also limits equitable sharing with Federal Agencies for any assets valued less than $50,000. This bill improves the practice, but ultimately we need to abolish it entirely at the Federal level. Civil Asset forfeiture has been a stain on our justice system for too long. It is a direct violation of our country’s founding principles and has no place in the land of the free.