Could SC cops be banned from keeping money seized in cases? Supreme Court hears arguments
Police seizures of money and guns during investigations could become banned across South Carolina depending on an upcoming Supreme Court ruling.
The state’s high court heard oral arguments Wednesday on South Carolina’s civil forfeiture practice and whether it’s unconstitutional.
“Those statutes allow officials to seize cash, cars and homes without so much as charging or convicting a person of a crime,” said Robert Frommer, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice.
Frommer represents a man who challenged an Horry County police agency trying to seize $20,000 from him. While an Horry County case is at the center of arguments, the Supreme Court’s decision could have wide-ranging impacts across South Carolina.
Typically when police seize items during investigations—such as trying to take money found in a drug raid—the county files a request in court to keep the money.’
Those seized funds are then spent by law enforcement and prosecutors within their budgets.
Civil forfeitures came into question following media reports about how money was being used and who was being targeted in forfeiture cases. The state legislature has also discussed changes to the state’s forfeiture laws.
Last year, 15th Judicial Circuit Presiding Judge Steven John ruled the state’s civil forfeiture practice was unconstitutional. The 15th Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office appealed John’s ruling to the Supreme Court.
The high court took no action Wednesday and will issue a ruling, which typically come weeks after hearing a case. If the Supreme Court Justices agree with John’s ruling, it could change how civil forfeitures work across the state.
How forfeitures work
Attorney James Battle, who represents the 15th Circuit Solicitor’s Office, explained how the forfeiture process is designed to work. The police only need probable cause that the property was involved in criminal activity to seize the items. Then, the state files a request in court and a judge orders the defendant to give up the property.
Once the items are forfeited, state law requires 95 percent of funds to go to law enforcement and prosecuting groups.
Frommer said the way the money is distributed leads to an incentive for police to seize property and file forfeiture cases. He added that poor people and groups not able to defend themselves in court are burdened by the current practices.
Many of the Supreme Court justices’ questions focused on potential abuses of the practice.
“There are many cases, that judges are well aware of, where the forfeiture statute has been abused,” Justice John Kittredge said.
Battle admitted there are cases where law enforcement agencies abused the law.
Justice Kaye Hearn asked Battle about the possible incentive for police to file cases to get money for the department. Battle said a judge must approve all cases. If there was a “bogus” case, a judge could deny the department’s effort to keep the money, he said.
Law enforcement won’t want to spend time and money on cases where a judge will deny the forfeitures, Battle said.
There was also discussion on whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated by the current procedures. Frommer said there is a higher burden of proof for a defendant to get their items back than there is for police to take the property. Basically, the defendant has to go to court and prove their innocence.
There is also no legal avenue for people to argue for their items to be returned until the state files its civil forfeiture actions, Frommer said. That state filing could happen years after an arrest or police take the items.
Battle said any forfeiture action is a civil case, so a defendant is notified about the action and can file motions before a forfeiture case goes to trial.
He also said that he settles some forfeiture cases before they go to trial.
As Battle argued for the solicitor’s office, the mood between he and the justices turned contentious as they accused him of not directly answering their questions. It was noticeable at the end of the hearing as Chief Justice Donald Beatty pushed Battle about how many defendants have criminal charges dismissed after forfeitures are ordered.
Battle said he didn’t know and he doesn’t work on the criminal cases, only the forfeitures. A clearly frustrated Beatty berated him for not answering the questions directly.
“To be quite frank, I don’t believe ya,” Beatty said in response to one of Battle’s answers.
It was then the Chief Justice declared the question-and-answer portion over and ended the oral arguments.
