Appeals court rules in favor of pair fighting AZ civil forfeiture case
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that a Washington couple whose car was seized by Arizona law enforcement in 2016 can continue pursuing a lawsuit against the government alleging it infringed on their constitutional rights.
Terry and Ria Platt had loaned their 2012 Volkswagen Jetta to their son in the spring of 2016 for him to use on a vacation. Their son was driving from the East Coast back to Washington on Interstate 40 when an Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper stopped him in Navajo County for having tinted windows.
Members of the Navajo County Drug Task Force had a K-9 unit search his car and found a small amount of marijuana for personal use and over $31,000 in cash, according to court documents. Law enforcement seized the vehicle and money on suspicion they were being used or planned to be used for illegal purposes. But none of them were ever charged with a crime.
The seizure was part of a practice known across the country as civil asset forfeiture under anti-racketeering, or RICO, laws. In many states, if government officials think property is connected to crime, they can take it.
Several states, including Arizona, have recently reformed their civil forfeiture laws to make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to seize and keep property without a criminal conviction.
With this ruling, the Platts can proceed with their lawsuit alleging their constitutional rights were violated when they attempted get their car returned.
Libertarian nonprofit says case is unconstitutional
Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based libertarian nonprofit which has written about and litigated civil forfeiture cases, agreed to take the Platts’ case pro bono.
Paul Avelar, a managing attorney for the organization’s Arizona office, told The Arizona Republic that the state’s civil forfeiture system was designed to make getting one’s property back after it had been seized near impossible without experienced attorneys, whom the Platts couldn’t afford before the Institute for Justice took on the case.
The couple filed a petition to get their car back, but a prosecutor argued their paperwork was invalid and asked the court to give the car to his office without even showing the forms in court.
Avelar said the government voluntarily returned the Platts’ vehicle after Institute for Justice got involved but maintained that it wasn’t wrong in seizing the vehicle. Avelar said although the couple got their car back, the government still needs to admit it violated their constitutional rights.
“It’s kind of like a kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar,” Avelar said. “It wants to pretend that if it gives the cookie back, nothing more can be done. But we have the right to have our rights be secured and the courts are the part of the government that we go to when our rights have been violated.”
Civil forfeiture:A man flew to Phoenix with $39,500 cash to buy a truck; police seized it with no proof
Avelar said the unconstitutionality aspect stems from the Navajo County Attorney’s Office deciding the Platts’ petition didn’t meet the necessary qualifications and telling the court as such without having to show the documents or explain how they were incorrect.
“What the court recognized in this ruling was that the Arizona statutes in place at the time set up this weird loophole where the attorney — the prosecutor whose very agency was going to profit from the forfeiture of your car — was allowed to rule, essentially unchallenged , was allowed to rule on whether or not you met all of the qualifications to try and get your car back,” Avelar said. “And as you might imagine, letting someone make that important decision when they have this big financial incentive is a big no-no under the Constitution.”
Avelar said Institute for Justice is pursuing a nominal payment of one dollar as it attempts to have the Navajo County Attorney’s Office admit the action was unconstitutional.
Avelar said he doesn’t expect the government to appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision and said the case will likely be remanded back to Arizona District Court or Navajo County Superior Court.
Arizona reformed civil forfeiture law this year
The 9th Circuit’s opinion came several months after Arizona reformed its civil forfeiture laws, making it much more difficult for the government to keep seized property without a criminal conviction.
The reform requires the government to return the property to its owner within 10 business days unless it meets certain conditions, such as the property was being held as evidence or was illegal for the owner to possess.
It also barred law enforcement from coercing people into signing waiver forms — documents that, when signed by the owner, indicate the property in question isn’t theirs — and threatening to lock them up if they refused.
Reach the reporter Perry Vandell at 602-444-2474 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @PerryVandell.
Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.
Comments are closed.