Current Georgia law for civil asset forfeiture says that government entities can wait until criminal proceedings have concluded – but are not required to do so. Law enforcement goes through civil courts, which do not require appointed attorneys and the burden of proof is not as high as criminal courts. Additionally, individuals are required to prove the assets in questions were not part of any criminal activity, but if the criminal case is not concluded this can be difficult – particularly if an attorney is not on hand.
A bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth), and co-sponsored by some heavy hitters, would require the conclusion of criminal proceedings prior to civil asset forfeiture proceedings. There are exceptions allowed, for instance if the owner or interest holder of the property waives the stay of forfeiture proceedings. The law also states that an acquittal or dismissal in a criminal proceeding would preclude civil forfeiture proceedings.
Those heavy hitting co-sponsors could boost its chances of passage. Other co-sponsors include the chairman of the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee – the committee assigned the bill from the House, Rep. Chuck Efstration (R-104 Dacula) and the “Dean of the House” Rep. Calvin Smyre (D-135 Columbus). Smyre is joined by another Democrat in bipartisan co-sponsorship Rep. William Boddie (D-62 East Point), who just happens to be the Minority Whip.
The bill did have some contention during the committee process. Chairman Efstration is a sponsor and supporter of the bill, noting that “In the United States, we have due process. The best description for this bill is ‘post-conviction’ meaning a conviction is required for assets to be seized.” Efstration also told InsiderAdvantage that existing law allows for no redress if assets are seized from an innocent party. “It is inconceivable to me that a person could be acquitted but still have their assets seized in forfeiture,” said Efstration.
However, the vice-chair of that committee, Rep. Bert Reeves (R-34 Marietta), was vehement in his opposition to the bill, citing his experience as a prosecutor. “Having participated in civil asset forfeiture hearings in court, I believe the process works, includes adequate due process, and does not need to be changed in order to address the outliers that we have heard about,” said Reeves. “Those situations should be dealt with individually, and we do not need to alter the entire system because of these. CAF is a critical tool for law enforcement to hit organized crime hard where it hurts – their assets. I’m not supportive of a movement to reduce this tool from our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors.”
The Institute for Justice (IJ), a law firm that bills itself as the National Law Firm for Liberty, currently gives Georgia a “D-“ for its civil asset forfeiture law. It works to limit the size and scope of government power, largely as to how it relates to criminal justice issues and other things like occupational licensing.
According to the IJ, Georgia has a low bar to forfeit and no conviction is required and the state has poor protections for innocent third-party property owners. Also, as much as 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement in the state.
Despite some recent ads in other Georgia races for November (see: Collins v. Loeffler), criminal justice reform remains a focus for some Republicans – following in the wake of Governor Nathan Deal who had made it a priority during much of his eight years.
This bill may have some momentum in the House this time. Governor Brian Kemp is also a fan of criminal justice reform, but the senate is often the brake on bills coming out of the House so stay tuned until Sine Die on this one.
