[T]he Vermont Senate on a unanimous voice vote Friday gave preliminary approval to an animal-fighting bill that would start the process of allowing civil asset forfeiture.
S.102 has bifurcated support between animal rights advocates who want to stop people from training animals to fight and police officials who advocate for being able to seize and sell private assets in order to fund drug investigations.
But civil liberties advocates oppose the bill out of concern that the state is encouraging local police departments to take someone’s property without the person being convicted or charged with a crime.
Civil asset forfeiture, distinct from criminal forfeiture often done under federal laws, was criticized following a six-part Washington Post investigation last summer. The issue went viral in October following a YouTube satire video called “Civil Forfeiture” by HBO comedian John Oliver.
Under the nine-section bill in the Vermont Senate, three have to do with animal-fighting laws or animal rights advocacy, and six relate to either criminal asset forfeiture or civil asset forfeiture.
On the animal-fighting side, instead of police needing to see an animal fight to convict someone of a crime, police would need only to prove that the parties are training animals to fight in order to convict them. An advisory task force of stakeholders in animal cruelty cases would also be formed to help the Legislature combat abuse.
On the asset side, the state’s existing drug laws would be expanded to allow Vermont police departments to seize assets from someone convicted of a crime or from someone who agrees “to provide information regarding the criminal activity of another person” using a judicial process.
The law would also add a process to let police take property worth less than $25,000 in an “administrative,” or civil, process. The property owner would not need to be convicted of a crime to have his assets taken under the administrative process, but the owner could contest the action.
“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing,” Gilbert said. “It’s really not an animal-fighting bill. It’s an asset forfeiture bill. Vermont is moving in exactly the wrong direction of governments around the country.”
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, chair of the Judiciary Committee, co-sponsored the bill. Sears said Friday he was inspired to introduce legislation to combat animal fighting after his pets’ veterinarian treated about 20 dogs in Bennington for what the veterinarian deemed “clear fighting wounds.”
Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, the bill’s other co-sponsor, said he wanted to “strengthen the language around the criminalization of animal fighting” because animal-fighting rings may move toward Vermont from the southern part of the country.
Ashe said on the floor Friday that lawmakers rewrote portions of the law and to require “clear and convincing” evidence to take assets under the administrative process. That level of scrutiny is a moderate increase over the “preponderance of evidence” required in many other states to seize assets under an administrative process.
In the original version of the bill, which was supported by animal advocates and a representative from the Department of Public Safety, the state would have been able to seize assets under the administrative law that value less than $50,000, and seize real property under criminal laws by making the case to a judge.
Sears said Senate Appropriations rewrote the bill to prohibit police from taking real property, because taking real estate would be “beyond the scope” of going after animal-fighting paraphernalia. Banks, which usually hold the liens on real property, opposed the real estate clause at the committee level. The $50,000 threshold was also lowered to $25,000.
“When we did the forfeiture section, there was a lot of concern from the ACLU and others that we not set up an incentive to do forfeiture, but on the other hand, we should be able to reimburse towns for their expenses for dealing with these animals, or in drug cases, too,” Sears said.
The new bill still lets prosecutors sell the assets under civil or criminal procedures, but sends the money to the state treasurer. Then it is divvied up between the general fund and local law enforcement. The judiciary branch was taken out of the bill because of a perceived conflict of interest.
“Vermont has what people refer to as criminal asset forfeiture,” said Gilbert, of the ACLU. “In Vermont up until now, it’s only been criminal, but when you add the administrative part, it becomes civil,” Gilbert said. He said criminal asset forfeiture is usually done as “adoptive” forfeiture with federal law enforcement agencies.
“If they were just to have existing laws apply to animal cruelty, we’d be OK with that,” Gilbert said. “If [the Judiciary] were being removed because of a specific conflict of interest, then why weren’t the police departments removed?”
Sen. Michael Sirotkin, D-Chittenden, said he wants to work with the Senate Judiciary Committee to amend the bill. Sirotkin said the bill’s current version also affects prosecutors.
“I’m more concerned as to the prosecutors who have discretion as to which cases to take whether to pursue this or not based on some kind of return of funds in the end to their departments,” Sirotkin said.
The bill is scheduled for a third reading next week before moving to the House.
