Federal Court Allows ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Civil Asset Forfeiture to Proceed—A Win in the Fight Against Policing for Profit
PHOENIX - On Friday, a federal court ruled that a far-reaching lawsuit challenging the profit motive at the core of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture law can move forward because the plaintiff has properly asserted that policing for profit violates her constitutional rights.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case against the Pinal County Sheriff, the Pinal County Attorney, and other Pinal County officials for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
Arizona law allows law enforcement to seize — and then keep or sell — property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be charged with or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.
In this case, Pinal County law enforcement used this unconstitutional scheme against Rhonda Cox, an innocent county resident, to seize and keep her truck. Ms. Cox sued, arguing that the policing for profit law violates her due process rights and seeking to prevent the sheriff and county attorney from enforcing the law against her ever again. U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa, formerly the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, ruled Friday that the claims at the heart of Ms. Cox’s case will move forward, even though the defendants sought to have the whole case thrown out of court.
“For too long, Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws have motivated law enforcement officials to line their pockets rather than fight crime,” said Emma Andersson, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “The court’s order is a huge step towards protecting our client from this perverse system that is fundamentally incompatible with the right to have due process before the government can deprive you of your property.”
“The court’s ruling pointed to numerous specific pieces of evidence offered in Ms. Cox’s lawsuit that show the unconstitutional profit motive inherent in Arizona’s forfeiture laws – a motive that has long corrupted the work of law enforcement in our state," said Jean-Jacques Cabou, a partner at Perkins Coie in Phoenix. "We’re confident that our upcoming discovery will reveal even more about these unconstitutional laws and the practice of policing for profit in Arizona.”
Explicitly rejecting defendants’ arguments that Ms. Cox’s lawsuit failed to properly allege that county officials did anything legally wrong, Judge Humetewa cited several documents filed by Ms. Cox that “[b]olster” the argument forfeiture laws provide a financial incentive for law enforcement. For example, the order notes that “[a]n excerpt from a forfeiture training stat[es] ‘when your bosses can’t find any money in their budget they get depressed. When they get depressed they tell you to start doing forfeiture cases ... When you feel like a winner you go back to your jurisdiction and just start seizing everything in sight.’” The order also notes that Ms. Cox “specifically identified how defendant Voyles used the forfeiture proceeds … to fund ‘pet projects’ including many that provide[d] favorable exposure to him amongst his [former] constituents.”
Judge Humetewa recognized that U.S. Supreme Court precedent “implie[s] that there is a limit” “‘on a financial or personal interest of one who performs a prosecutorial function,’” and she concluded that Ms. Cox’s “complaint sets out a plausible claim for violation of her due process rights in the enforcement of the Arizona forfeiture statutes because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
The Judge’s Order on the Motions to Dismiss is at: /legal-document/cox-v-voyles-et-al-judges-order-motions-dismiss
More information about the lawsuit, Cox v. Voyles, et. al. is available at: /cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al
Criminal Law Reform
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
Criminal Law Reform
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.