WSJ Features Left-Right Victory, Led by Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance)

The Wall Street Journal featured California Republican Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance).

No one can make this stuff up.

For a Republican in California, who inhabits the minority party barely bouncing back from a record number of failures at the state and local level, to get featured in an internationally respected newspaper like The Wall Street Journal is a true accomplishment!

Left-Right Win in California

A rare coalition comes together to limit civil forfeiture.

Americans on the right and left don’t agree on much these days, but they can unite in reining in government abuse of civil forfeiture. An example is California’s new law that closes a loophole that allowed police to seize property without adequate due process.

Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a bill to require a criminal conviction before forfeiture proceeds can be sent to state law enforcement. Since 1994, California law has required a criminal conviction for forfeitures under $25,000. That’s better than many other states, but local police began to use federal law as a way to dodge the state restrictions. California police would file state charges against a target, but then outsource the forfeiture to the federal government.

This ducked the state criminal conviction requirement and increased the cash haul from forfeiture. The feds have a process known as “equitable sharing” that divides forfeiture proceeds with local police. California cops were getting about 80% of federal forfeiture proceeds, compared with 66.25% if they kept the actions local.

Can you imagine the forum shopping that has been sweeping throughout the United States, specifically in California?

David Hadley defending SB 443
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

This is unconscionably. The Fourth Amendment has to mean something!

According to the Institute for Justice, whose reports on “policing for profit” galvanized political reaction against forfeiture abuse, from 2000 to 2013 the Justice Department kicked back some $696 million in forfeiture money to state and local law enforcement. The new California law closes the federal loophole and will protect those who can’t afford to fight unjust forfeiture. The new law also raises the threshold for forfeiture to $40,000 from $25,000. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, 94% of California forfeitures in 1992 were $5,000 or less, and it had barely increased in real dollars by 2013.

I had not learned about the closure of the federal loophole before. So glad that that has been removed.

The reform was the product of a rare left-right coalition led by Democratic state senator Holly Mitchell and Republican assembly member David Hadley. Prosecutors have used civil forfeiture to prop up state and municipal budgets, but it has become a racket that exploits those least able to defend themselves. More states should follow California’s lead.

Wow!

More legislators should follow David Hadley's lead!

Let's clarify a few things, though.

First of all, there was no way that "Black Lives Matter" Holly Mitchell was going to get that bill passed through the state assembly. Her hard-edged opposition to police in particular and authority in general left a bad taste in many assemblymembers' mouths.

In 2015, Mitchell tried to pass a similar bill, and it died. Only four Republicans voted for it, including Hadley.

The Republican assemblyman took a stronger lead to work with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, and the second time they managed to pass it with overwhelming support.

Mitchell could not cobble together the necessary compromise.

Hadley did!

How David Hadley (R-Torrance) Helped Pass Civil Asset Forfeitfure Reform

Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance --YES!) has disappointed me at times.

But his latest legislative victory deserves promotion.

Last year, he worked with State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) to shepherd SB 443 through the state legislature.

The state senate near-unanimously supported the legislation.

In the state assembly, it failed.

Only four Republicans voted for it, but the moderate, pro-business Democrats (?) voted against.

Hadley was really crushed about it at the end of the 2015 legislative session.

When I looked over possible reasons why the  large majority of California Republican Assemblymembers rejected the measure, I noticed that many of them run on a pro law enforcement platform.

Many of them covet endorsements from law enforcement agencies too.

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, police have relied on civil asset forfeiture, in many cases for dubious reasons.

Originally, the idea was to shut down the funding for drug cartels, when proving actual crime proved elusive.

Now, police departments admit openly that they rely on the unconstitutional practice to pad their resource and expense accounts.

As Assemblyman Hadley had announced during a 2015 press conference: "I value our law enforcement too much for them to have to work on commission."

Indeed.

The bill stalled but thankfully did not die.

Fast-forward to today.

SB 443 finally passed out of the state assembly with widespread bipartisan support.

What made it work this time?

Hadley was leading the charge, stressing the limited government and pro-constitutional aspects of the bill. Senator Holly Mitchell actively promotes a "Black Lives Matter" and anti-law enforcement message. That kind of negativity would not encourage Republicans to support SB 443.

A libertarian lean was needed, and Hadley provided for it.

As he had shared with me:

"It is the right thing to do."

The bill that passed was s a modified reform from 2015. With the new bill--soon to become law--the state cannot seize assets up to $40,000 without proving a crime.

Reason Magazine delineated the other added amendments and revisions:

The conviction requirement remains in this version of the bill, but a section has been added to allow police to seek seizure without a conviction if the defendant doesn't show up for court, flees to evade prosecution, or is deceased.

Some conservatives bellyached, claiming that more wealthy property owners would still get shafted.

I disagree. This reform is monumental.

A freshman Republican Assemblyman smoothed over resistance from colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a compromise which expands individual liberty while limiting the power of the state. He played offense to get this monumental reform through the state legislature, in one of the bluest states in the union.

Hadley reported on the compromise:

I am proud to be the principal co-author of a significant bipartisan reform bill, SB 443, which passed the Assembly 69-7 on Monday. Los Angeles Senator Holly Mitchell - from across the aisle - is the bill's lead author.

SB 443 reforms civil asset forfeiture, by which law enforcement can take a suspect's cash and property without obtaining a conviction or even charging the suspect with a crime.

SB 443 is a well-structured compromise, the product of several months of serious work. It improves Constitutional protections for Americans while enabling law enforcement to retain an important tool as they combat drug trafficking and organized crime.

Back to the Senate for a concurring vote, and on to Governor Brown's desk! SB 443 is a good example of how bipartisanship and hard work have yielded a great result!

Organized crime will still face stiff challenges to their operations, but innocent individual property owners will no longer have to face legalized theft from rapacious police departments.

Despite its disturbing left-leaning agenda in the page, the American Civil Liberties Union is embracing more libertarian views, which appeal to conservatives.

ACLU SoCal released the following statement:

SACRAMENTO—A California bill to limit civil asset forfeiture abuses was approved today by the State Assembly on a 66 to 8 vote. The bill will now return to the Senate for a concurrence vote.

Senate Bill 443, co-authored by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach), provides individuals with stronger property rights protections by requiring a conviction in most state civil asset forfeiture cases. The bill also addresses a problematic financial incentive that has driven some California law enforcement agencies to bypass state law in favor of federal law, opening the door to abuses.

“Today’s vote is a tremendous victory for fairness and justice,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, criminal justice and drug policy director for the ACLU of California. “For years, the scales of justice were tipped in favor of profits and against the fundamental rights of countless Californians who were unfairly deprived of their life savings and property through civil forfeiture laws. Today, the Legislature got it right.”

People before profits--where have I heard this statement before?

The progressive left loves to pretend that they care about people more than money. In California, however, the Democratic Dominance is riddled with cronyism and corruption, where local and statewide lawmakers pretend to do what is best for others, but really want to enrich themselves.

This reform ends one destructive practice.

Let's hope that more states and lawmakers embrace this thoughtful process for future reforms.