>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: New Mexico just keeps going sane. >Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 00:39:13 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Pubdate: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 >Source: Albuquerque Journal (NM) >Copyright: 1999 Albuquerque Journal >Contact: opinion@abqjournal.com >Address: P.O. Drawer J, Albuquerque, N.M. 87103 >Website: http://www.abqjournal.com/ >Author: Barry Massey, The Associated Press > >FORFEITURE LAW SCALED BACK > >The state Supreme Court on Thursday broadened the constitutional >protections for people arrested for drug trafficking by making it harder >for state and local governments to seize their cars, cash and some other >property. The court's 3-2 ruling led to a sharply critical dissent by two >justices, who described the majority's decision as a "radical departure" >from the legal holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court. > >The ruling involves a state law that allows the government to seize >vehicles, aircraft and boats used in drug trafficking as well as any money >involved with the crime. > >The state law -- unlike federal forfeiture laws -- does not allow for >seizure of land or a person's residence. > >The Supreme Court concluded that civil forfeiture under the state's >Controlled Substances Act is a form of punishment for purposes of New >Mexico's constitutional protections against double jeopardy -- multiple >punishments for the same crime. > >In making its ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the drug-related >convictions of several people who had lost vehicles or cash in forfeiture >proceedings. The court also upheld the dismissal of criminal charges of >other people who had lost cars or money by forfeiture. > >Currently, governments can quickly bring a civil forfeiture action to seize >cars and cash after a person is arrested on a drug case. Then criminal >charges are brought and decided later. > >"We hold that the New Mexico Double Jeopardy Clause forbids bringing >criminal charges and civil forfeiture petitions for the same crime in >separate proceedings," the court said in a 41-page opinion written by >Justice Gene Franchini. > >Chief Justice Pamela Minzner and Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Donnelly >concurred in the opinion. > >The court said that forfeiture and criminal drug charges for the same crime >can be brought only in a "single bifurcated proceeding." > >In addition, the court said government prosecutors also would face a higher >legal burden of proof in the forfeiture proceedings "to provide by clear >and convincing evidence that the property in question is subject to >forfeiture." > >The court said its ruling would be retroactive only to those criminal and >forfeiture cases pending when the opinion was filed. That includes cases >that are pending on appeal in the court system. > >Justice Patricio Serna wrote a 27-page dissenting opinion, and Justice >Joseph Baca joined in it. > >Serna described the majority's legal analysis as "deeply troubling" as well >as "unprecedented and unsupported; it is also certainly bad policy." > >In extending double jeopardy protections in forfeiture proceedings >involving drug money, Serna wrote, "the majority takes the extraordinary >step of elevating the fruits of a crime to the level of a constitutional >interest." > >"Thus, the majority holds, as no other court has held and as no justice on >the (U.S.) Supreme Court has advocated, that individuals have a >constitutionally protected property right to the proceeds of the unlawful >sale of illicit drugs." > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: