A 2000 citizen initiative that passed by 69% of the vote in Utah introduced substantial restrictions on asset forfeiture—the process whereby the government seizes a citizen’s property—but several key provisions were overturned unanimously by the legislature in 2013 after lawmakers were deceived into believing that the bill was a simple “recodification.”
The initiative was created in large measure to prevent law enforcement agencies from directly profiting from the property they seized, as this financial opportunity created an incentive to seize property. The 2013 bill gutted many of the important protections introduced through the 2000 initiative. It was presented as a mere “clean up bill” with no substantive changes being made. In the rush of the last days of the session, with no legislators reading over 50 pages comprised heavily of new text, and with the assurance of the bill being a re-codification only, both chambers unanimously approved the bill.
As it turns out, the bill actually altered forfeiture law in an alarming way, gutting several key protections introduced by the initiative to limit police taking property from innocent people. Prosecutors in the Attorney General’s office were responsible for the sneak attack, lying to legislators when telling them nothing major was changing.
Our policy analysis broke the news on this change and brought media attention to the problem. As we said in our conclusion to the analysis:
Given the direct vote of Utahns in 2000 making clear their intent in altering the law, we believe that any changes to that initiative must be done in good faith—something that the 2013 amendments cannot claim. As such, we recommend rolling back the key changes outlined in our analysis to restore what the public, and legislators, understood forfeiture law to be. Once reverted, those who desire to introduce these or other changes in the law may make their case and determine whether sufficient support exists once all parties are informed and hear all sides of the debate.
In response to our claims, the Attorney General’s office penned a misleading response designed to thwart the repeal effort. We rebutted the letter and easily persuaded the legislature to implement our proposed “rollback,” restoring the private property and due process protections that had been deceitfully removed. The Legislature unanimously passed the bill, solidifying our leadership position on this policy issue which continued in the years ahead through many additional forefeiture reforms we enacted.
