Mass. lawmaker wants to make civil forfeiture laws even worse

Civil asset forfeiture (as distinct from criminal forfeiture) is the process whereby police can seize your possessions even if you aren’t charged with any crime, much less convicted. It’s quite literally state-sanctioned highway robbery. Here’s an obligatory John Oliver piece explaining it in infuriating detail, including a few infamous cases:

“John Oliver did a segment about this” is becoming the new “there’s a German word for it”.

The problem has grown prevalent enough that public pushback is reaching a tipping point, with several states reconsidering their civil forfeiture laws; just this week, Connecticut banned civil forfeiture unless cops secure a conviction. The notion that law enforcement cannot seize your property unless they can prove you actually committed a crime should be a no-brainer.

Speaking of no-brainers: Not only does a lawmaker in Massachusetts disagree, he wants to make his state’s already famously terrible civil forfeiture laws even worse – with full police support, of course, because why wouldn’t they want more leeway to steal all the money and other things they want?

With the support of state law enforcement, a Massachusetts Democratic state representative has filed a drug war bill that would send violators to prison for a mandatory minimum two years (five years for a second offense) and allow police to seize their vehicles—all without the presence of any actual drugs.

Sponsored by Rep. Stephan Hay (D-Fitchfield), the measure, House Bill 1266, makes it a crime to have a hidden compartment in one's vehicle or to try to add one—and it presumes that any hidden compartment in a vehicle is for "for the purpose of transporting or distributing controlled substances" and related contraband, such as cash or weapons. As the bill specifies in its asset forfeiture section:

Proof that a conveyance contains a hidden compartment as defined in this section shall be prima facie evidence that the conveyance was used intended for use in and for the business of unlawfully manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.

The Drug Warrior/prohibitionist mentality is as immune to partisan politics as it is to basic reason. (For another example, see Sen. Chuck Schumer, who’s calling for a crackdown on “snortable chocolate”.) Sure, hidden compartments in cars may seem a bit shady, but it should go without saying that their mere existence is no solid proof of present or even past wrongdoing. Maybe the owner uses it to stash sensitive items so that potential thieves don’t see them through the windows – paranoid, perhaps, but hardly criminal. Or possibly the vehicle’s previous owner was up to no good, but that’s not the responsibility of anyone else who later buys the car from them. Hell, I’d be more inclined to buy a car with hidden compartments or similar tricks up its sleeve just for the fun of imagining myself as an everyday James Bond in his tricked-out ride. (That may just be me, though.)

The fact remains that presuming that something that looks suspicious is automatically evidence of criminal wrongdoing, even in the total absence of any concrete proof, is ridiculously short-sighted; the fact that it mandates an automatic prison sentence is downright draconian. I’d say that such an extreme and ludicrous bill should have no chance of passing, but given the weighty backing of state police and the anti-drug zealotry pervading Massachusetts in general, the proposal’s future is as uncertain as is anything else in US politics these days.