Hey Brenda: In case you have not seen ours.  We will of course be appealing
to the NJ Supreme Court!

Scott Bullock
=========================================

Institute for Justice


1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.  Suite 200       Washington, D.C.
20006            (202) 955-1300       FAX (202) 955-1329

Home Page:  WWW.IJ.org



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT:                            Lisa Knepper

July 21, 2004
John Kramer

                         (202) 955-1300
New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds

"Policing for Profit,"
Overturning Trial Court Decision



Property Owner Will Appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court



Washington, D.C.-The New Jersey Appellate Court today upheld the
constitutionality of a law that permits police and prosecutors to keep the
money and property confiscated from individuals through the state's civil
forfeiture law, giving law enforcement officials a direct financial stake in
the outcome of forfeiture efforts.  The decision by the three-judge panel
overturns a December 2002 state trial court decision that struck down the
law as unconstitutional under the Due Process clauses of the U.S. and New
Jersey constitutions.

"We are disappointed that the appellate court, unlike the trial court,
refused to protect New Jersey property owners from this kind of conflict of
interest and perverse incentive system," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney
at the Institute for Justice, the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law
firm litigating the New Jersey case.  "We will definitely appeal this
decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, where we are confident that this
law will again be declared unconstitutional."

From 1998 to 2000 alone, New Jersey police and prosecutors collected an

astonishing $31-plus million in property and currency through the state's
civil forfeiture law.  During that same period, on average, close to 30
percent of the discretionary budgets of county prosecutor offices came from
civil forfeiture proceeds.  Those figures demonstrate the financial
incentives seizing and keeping forfeited bounty creates for law enforcement
officers.

As Superior Court Judge G. Thomas Bowen of Salem County recognized in his
original opinion striking down the law, forfeiture money has been used for
"rent for a motor pool crime scene facility, office furniture,
telecommunications and computer equipment, automobile purchase, fitness and
training equipment purchase, a golf outing, food, including food for
seminars and meetings, and expenses of law enforcement conferences, at
various locations."

The New Jersey case, State of New Jersey v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird, has
been followed nationwide.  David Smith, an Alexandria, Va., attorney who has
written a treatise on forfeiture laws and is a former deputy chief of the
Department of Justice's asset forfeiture office declared, "This is the
single most important civil forfeiture case being litigated anywhere."
Several other states and the federal forfeiture law also permit police and
prosecutors to keep forfeited property and proceeds.

The case was filed by perhaps an unlikely crusader, Carol Thomas of
Millville in southern New Jersey.  Thomas' case arose in 1999 when her then
17-year-old son used her Thunderbird without her knowledge and consent to
sell marijuana to an undercover officer.  Her son was arrested and punished,
but that did not end the matter.  The State still went after the car by
filing a civil forfeiture action because the car was involved in
-More-


Institute for Justice-Policing for Profit


July 21, 2004

Page Two of Two


illegal activity.  Ironically, at the time of her son's arrest, Thomas was a
seven-year veteran officer with the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office.
Thomas has subsequently left the sheriff's department and decided to fight
abusive forfeiture laws.

Thomas said about today's decision: "I view this simply as a setback.  I got
my car back, we won in the first round, and I believe the New Jersey Supreme
Court will also find this law unconstitutional-and it must for the sake of
the citizens of New Jersey." 
Thomas concluded, "Police officers should be concerned with the fair
administration of law, not with bounty hunting.  The current law creates too
much of an incentive for law enforcement officers to abuse individuals'
rights so they can take in more money.  I've experienced this first hand and
the law needs to change."



# # #



[NOTE:      To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may call John
Kramer, the Institute for Justice's vice president for communications, at
(202) 955-1300 or in the evening/weekend at (703) 527-8730.



For an on-line media kit offering one-stop shopping on this subject, please
visit www.ij.org and then go to our Media Center.]



******************************************************
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest
******************************************************