Maine Abolishes Civil Forfeiture, Now Requires A Criminal Conviction To Steal Your Property

About time, it is a damned shame that there are only 4 states that have banned the practice and another 46 that still allow this BS to continue.

How about all these activist organizations start doing some thing good and start protesting this.

www.forbes.com...

Maine Abolishes Civil Forfeiture, Now Requires A Criminal Conviction To Take Property

Maine became the fourth state to abolish civil forfeiture, a practice that enables law enforcement to confiscate millions of dollars worth of property without ever filing criminal charges. Taking effect on Tuesday without the governor's signature, LD 1521 fully repeals Maine’s civil forfeiture laws, while simultaneously bolstering its criminal forfeiture process, which only authorizes forfeiture after a criminal conviction (apart from a few narrow circumstances, like the owner’s death or deportation).

In Maine, half of all cash forfeitures were under $1,670.

“It’s a very simple concept; you don’t lose your property unless you used it in the commission of a crime, or knowingly allowed someone else to use it in the commission of a crime,” bill sponsor Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham wrote in May testimony supporting his bill. “It is time to end this work around that makes people prove innocence, rather than prosecutors proving guilt. This is one of the founding principles of our country.”

I live in Maine and we have relatively low crime so apart from drug arrests they probably didn't seize that much per year. A step in the right direction though.

About time is right! This goes against the 4th and 5th. By the time you are proven innocent, your cash, your property and even your home is sold. It only gives police more of an incentive to trump up charges.


This practice has always smelled of the most horrible corruption. If your local law still does this, vote in an honest sheriff.

I also live in Maine.

I've only ever once seen this "law" used- probably 15-20 years ago.
A good friend of mine was heading out to buy a car- we were in college, so he had about 2k cash on him (You could still buy a decent used car for that back then, and get a few years out of it before the sticker laws turned it to garbage)

he was pulled over in a borrowed car heading from South Portland to... Buxton, I think. Used to be lots of cheap cars out that way.
Anyway, he was passing through Windham, and Windham cops have always been real jerks. Not sure why he was pulled over, but the car was registered to someone else, so they decided it may be stolen and they wanted to search it- and him.
They found the cash, decided it was being used to buy drugs- or had been made selling drugs, and confiscated it siting the Civil Forfeiture law as a valid reason.

By the time the court date came around, it was his word vs the officers word- and the cash was nowhere to be found, ever again. There was no record of the confiscation, so he just never got his cash back. On top of that, he still had to pay a ticket for some reason, but I can't recall what for.

Laws like this should have never have been written in the first place.

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Well it did not require crime as a prerequisite which is the problem. You could have been on your way to buy a four wheeler from someone from Craigslist and get pulled over for a minor traffic offense. A subsequent search of you and your vehicle reveals the $1200 dollars you earlier took from your legitimate bank account to make the purchase but that state trooper decides it was from illegal proceeds and confiscated it instead.

Now it becomes your burden to prove otherwise. This is why civil forfeiture should be declared illegal in all 50 plus territories so that the Constitution still applies and the government must prove illegal activity and not just declare it so on the street

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
I live in Maine and we have relatively low crime so apart from drug arrests they probably didn't seize that much per year. A step in the right direction though.

Maine became the fourth state to abolish civil forfeiture, a practice that enables law enforcement to confiscate millions of dollars worth of property without ever filing criminal charges.

If they didnt need to file a criminal charge then they didnt need actual crimes to do this.

A business partner had a 10 gauge black powder "coach gun" mounted in his home above the fireplace in his livingroom (a modernized log cabin from 1835). He had an inspector in to check out some upgrades. The inspector said he had a sawed off shotgun in the house in a police report.

At the end of the day, the police came and took the antique (never saw it again), tried to Sherrif off his house, and it cost him about $20,000 grand to get settled. He tried to counter sue and lost.

This was in rural New Jersey.

What the heck. Damage was done to a citizen yet no recouse?

Get rid of this corruption.

Jeff Sessions strengthened civil asset forfeiture after Obama had curbed it. I remember thinking wouldn’t it be funny if that ends up biting Trump in the ass lol. It just might.

a reply to: lordcomac

That's terrible. There are many instances of that and often times people don't get the money back.

It's millions that have been taken under civil forfeiture. It's legal robbery.

Getting cops to be held responsible for abusing one's rights is something we all she be in support of. That's why i understood where the anti police sentiments from BLM protests were coming from. Despite the blm organization being a bad organization.

you shouldn't need to be just convicted of an offense to have your property stolen. after yow are convicted, they should then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that said property is in fact proceeds of crime (such as bought with drug money), or was used in the commission of a crime you (or those you let use said property, knowing full well it was to be used in a crime), were convicted for.

a separate trial requiring evidence be used. to prove it. and until such a time as it has been proven, said property retained by the owner of it.