[ad_1]
Criminal justice reform advocates are pushing state legislation that would make it more difficult for government agencies to seize someone’s assets before they are convicted of a crime.
State law currently allows law enforcement and prosecutors to seize someone’s house, vehicles and other assets before they are convicted. Prosecutors argue this is necessary to ensure criminals do not sell off or hide assets that could be used to pay restitution if they are convicted.
But reform advocates say seizing someone’s assets before they are found guilty violates people’s rights and limits their financial ability to defend themselves.
Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, is sponsoring a bill that would clamp down on pre-conviction seizures.
The bill has the backing of many of the most vocal advocates for criminal justice reform, a seemingly unlikely band of liberal groups such as the American Friends Service Committee and conservative organizations like Right on Crime.
But it’s also found an unexpected support group: Backers of Paul Petersen, the former Maricopa County Assessor and attorney who faces dozens of felony charges across three states related to an alleged international adoption scam.
Prosecutors allege that in addition to illegally transporting pregnant women from the Marshall Islands to the U.S., Petersen fraudulently enrolled the women in Arizona’s Medicaid system, bilking the state out of more than $800,000.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has used this allegation to seize Petersen’s office building, his vehicles, his Mesa home, his family’s vacation home and four properties he owned in Arizona, Utah and Arkansas, as well as to freeze 11 personal and business bank accounts.
Petersen has pleaded not guilty and is not expected to go to trial for months.
During a committee hearing on Farnsworth’s bill Wednesday, Petersen’s ex-wife, Raquel “Rocky” Petersen, testified in support and shared her family’s personal experience with asset forfeiture.
“I can tell you that it’s not pretty,” she said.
Ex-wife says family is struggling to survive
Rocky Petersen told the lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee that she wasn’t aware of asset forfeiture until she experienced herself.
She said the seizures forced her and her kids out of their family home — a 4,500-square-foot home in a gated community in Mesa with an estimated worth of $800,000, according to the StreetScout valuation website — because they could no longer afford the mortgage and utilities.
Petersen, who is an interior designer, said they’re struggling to survive and are only getting by with help from friends and family members.
Petersen also said the forfeiture has depleted herex-husband’s ability to defend himself in court. However, he has hired a private attorney.
“It stacks the deck so strongly in favor of the prosecution no matter what the criminal offense is,” Petersen said.
At the time of the seizure, Attorney General’s Office spokesman Ryan Anderson said the seizures do not prevent Petersen from mounting a strong defense or from paying for lawyers.
Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen made his initial court appearance on Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2019.
USA TODAY Handout
Andersonsaid the law allows “untainted” property seized in connection with a criminal case to be released in order to pay for legal representation, and Petersen can make that argument to a judge.
“Untainted means the property was not the proceeds of, or was not used to facilitate, the illegal activity,” he said, citing a two-year-old U.S. Supreme Court case.
Rocky Petersen filed for divorce from Paul Petersen in December, claiming her husband secretly used their joint money “for his own personal benefit,” according to court documents. The divorce was finalized in February.
She told lawmakers that the forfeiture has left her unable to access her property, even though she’s not the one facing charges.
“It has affected me and my children and I don’t have the ability to be proven not guilty. I haven’t been charged with anything,” she said.
Conflicting views of the bill
Asset forfeiture is controversial and complicated.
Prosecutors and law enforcement say asset seizure is a necessary tool that prevents criminals from shielding properties or other wealth under shell companies.
The money acquired through forfeiture also helps fund state and county prosecuting agencies and law enforcement programs. Changes to state law could have drastic impacts on agency budgets, opponents to the bill warned.
Arizona Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman Katie Conner said Attorney General Mark Brnovich supports asset forfeiture reforms “that make sense,” but warned that this bill would do more harm than good.
“This legislation would amend state law in a way that will only make it easier for scammers and white-collar criminals to escape financial accountability for their crimes and reduce restitution to their victims,” Conner said in a statement.
Kurt Altman, the state director of Right on Crime and Paul Petersen’s attorney, said asset forfeiture had a purpose when it was created, but law enforcement now uses it excessively, “often.. to the detriment to people who are really, in the end, innocent.”
He said that many asset forfeiture cases aren’t high-profile or involving large sums of money. He said he’s heard from many people who’ve had their vehicles seized because their children were arrested for marijuana possession.
“Unfortunately, it’s just been abused to the point that something needed to happen,” Altman said.
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee backed the bill on a vote of 6-4.
Democrats opposed the measure, despite support for the bill from liberal groups and its passage out of the Senate with a unanimous bipartisan vote of 30-0.
The opposition from Democrats in the committee was partly a protest of Republicans calling the House back into session on bills unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic, which Democrats argue should be the Legislature’s sole focus. But Democrats also said that while they generally support changing the civil asset forfeiture process, they are concerned that this bill would undercut county budgets, which would lead to cuts not just to prosecutors but to public defenders, too.
“That is going to come back on someone else sooner rather than later. To pretend this body has the wherewithal or the intestinal strength to say we’ll make it up in the budget — come on,” said Rep. Diego Rodriguez, a Democrat from Phoenix and criminal defense attorney.
Republicans on the committee argued it is a simple matter of due process and ensuring that the government is not overreaching to take property away from people who have not had their day in court.
“We shouldn’t go after innocent people, the real victims in Arizona, to fund agency budgets,” said Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake.
Some pointed to Petersen’s testimony as an example of civil asset leaving families struggling to survive.
Advocates: Petersen not the motive
Paul Avelar with the Institute for Justice has been backing asset forfeiture reform for years.
In an interview in February, he said Farnsworth’s bill will make sure the legal process plays out before forfeiture occurs.
“The point is ensuring that everybody should get their day in court,” Avelar said.
He said he doesn’t believe Petersen’s case and subsequent seizures were the motivation for the bill and said the sponsor, Farnsworth, was working on asset forfeiture reform long before Petersen’s arrest.
That said, Avelar said Petersen’s case did provide a high-profile example of how asset forfeiture can impact the accused.
“None of this stuff is prompted by Paul Petersen, however, the Petersen case demonstrated some of the shortcomings that need to be addressed,” Avelar said.
Reach the reporter at [email protected] or 480-694-1823. Follow her on Twitter @jboehm_NEWS.
Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentral.com today.
Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2020/05/20/paul-petersen-adoption-scam-law-change-pre-conviction-seizures-bill-asset-forfeiture/5229629002/
[ad_2]
Source link