When a small business owner is charged with, or in some way tied to, a crime, the risk of losing cash and other personal property to police confiscation is very real. Even when cleared of any wrongdoing, however, current civil asset forfeiture laws can make it daunting, if not impossible, to get their rightful property returned. Based on past horror stories of such experiences, one of the state’s leading small business advocates, the Michigan chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business is applauding legislation being introduced to resolve some of those issues.
NFIB State Director for Michigan, Charlie Owens, says his organization is grateful that Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield and Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel are collaborating on legislation that would make further reforms to Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
Owens says, “Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to seize private property from a citizen or small business owner without ever charging them with a crime and the government (typically police departments) often pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure.” He argues, “There is no incentive or requirement for the government to charge the business owner with a crime. Once the property is seized, government agencies are free to keep the property until the business owner pursues return of the property, which is often a costly and lengthy legal process that is stacked in favor of the government.”
Owens says the legislature has already passed some reforms in the previous session that included reporting requirements, raising the burden of proof to a “clear and convincing standard,” and repealing the requirement for a property owner to provide a cash bond before they could contest a civil forfeiture seizure of their property. However, Owens says a survey of NFIB small business owner-members on the issue, shows that 74-percent of NFIB members still want to see more reforms to protect property owners from over-zealous law enforcement agencies.
The state NFIB Director points out that, “Many small business owners carry large cash sums to the bank and to other business locations for use in making change or deposits and other small business owners still use cash to make large supply purchases”, and argues, “All of these and other scenarios create a situation where a small business is exposed to the potential of civil forfeiture seizures.” He adds, “Private property is the bedrock of free enterprise, whereas civil forfeiture laws seize property without due process.”
Police records research shows that for the most recent full year report, the state acquired more than $13.1-million in cash and personal property under the civil forfeiture act in more than 6,0000 cases, and charges were never actually filed in more than 735 cases. That is data from 2017 alone.
Owens also related situations where a landlord may have tenants engaged in illegal activity, without the property owner’s knowledge or approval, and the landlord’s assets could be subject to seizure without a criminal charge ever being filed.
As the new civil asset forfeiture law makes its way through the legislative process, the NFIB advocates will be watching closely to make sure it stays on track with the original intent of protecting small business owners and operators in the future.
