Woman sues Albuquerque for seizing car despite ban on civil asset forfeiture

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Woman sues Albuquerque for seizing car despite ban on civil asset forfeiture

Arlene Harjo is suing city, claiming it illegally seized her car on only
suspicion of a crime, despite a 2015 law making the practice by
police illegal

Nicky Woolf
Wednesday 31 August 2016 22.49 BST

A woman is suing the city of Albuquerque, claiming it illegally seized her car on only suspicion of a crime, and is seeking to resell it, despite a new state law banning the practice.

After her son was arrested in April for drunk driving while at the wheel of her borrowed Nissan Verso, Arlene Harjo, 56, found herself in court being told that she had to transfer ownership of the car to the city, or else settle the case for $4,000 to get it back.

But last year, New Mexico governor Susana Martinez signed a bill into law that made the practice, called civil asset forfeiture – under which police forces can confiscate and resell personal property based only on suspicion of its involvement in a crime, whether the owner was involved or not – illegal in New Mexico.

However, Albuquerque’s city government is choosing to interpret that law as only applying to state, rather than municipal police departments.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/woman-sues-albuquerque-seizing-civil-asset-forfeiture-ban

[Ohioblue22]

1. I wonder if they consider the car collateral

[Warpy]

2. This whole state has a horrific problem with drunk drivers

with arrests that go into the double digits. If you take their licenses, they drive without them. If you put them in jail, they hit the first bar they can find on the way out. If you put interlock devices in their cars, they'll get someone else to blow into them so they can drive away blotto.

Car confiscation was the last resort for multiple offenders. Once their own car is gone, they'll try to sweet talk some fool into lending them one so they can go get drunk and drive that way. That's why borrowed cars are confiscated.

There are hearings during which people can argue for the return of the vehicle. Many borrowed vehicles are returned. However, if it's found the person is in the habit of lending the vehicle to someone who is a habitual DWI offender, either driving drunk or continuing to drive without a license, the car is declared a public nuisance and it's gone out of their possession.

http://newmexicodwilaw.com/forfeiture.htm

With civil asset forfeiture, no one need be accused of a crime. Property is just taken because it might be used to commit a crime at some point, like that wad of cash in a traveler's pocket might go to buy dope. Nothing has to be proven and the person who's lost the property has to pay to get a hearing. That's how this is different.