老澳门开奖结果

PHOENIX - On Friday, a federal court ruled that a far-reaching lawsuit challenging the profit motive at the core of Arizona鈥檚 civil asset forfeiture law can move forward because the plaintiff has properly asserted that policing for profit violates her constitutional rights.

The 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case against the Pinal County Sheriff, the Pinal County Attorney, and other Pinal County officials for their enforcement of Arizona鈥檚 civil asset forfeiture laws.

Arizona law allows law enforcement to seize 鈥� and then keep or sell 鈥� property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be charged with or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

In this case, Pinal County law enforcement used this unconstitutional scheme against Rhonda Cox, an innocent county resident, to seize and keep her truck. Ms. Cox sued, arguing that the policing for profit law violates her due process rights and seeking to prevent the sheriff and county attorney from enforcing the law against her ever again. U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa, formerly the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, ruled Friday that the claims at the heart of Ms. Cox鈥檚 case will move forward, even though the defendants sought to have the whole case thrown out of court.

鈥淔or too long, Arizona鈥檚 civil asset forfeiture laws have motivated law enforcement officials to line their pockets rather than fight crime,鈥� said Emma Andersson, staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭he court鈥檚 order is a huge step towards protecting our client from this perverse system that is fundamentally incompatible with the right to have due process before the government can deprive you of your property.鈥�

鈥淭he court鈥檚 ruling pointed to numerous specific pieces of evidence offered in Ms. Cox鈥檚 lawsuit that show the unconstitutional profit motive inherent in Arizona鈥檚 forfeiture laws 鈥� a motive that has long corrupted the work of law enforcement in our state," said Jean-Jacques Cabou, a partner at Perkins Coie in Phoenix. "We鈥檙e confident that our upcoming discovery will reveal even more about these unconstitutional laws and the practice of policing for profit in Arizona.鈥�

Explicitly rejecting defendants鈥� arguments that Ms. Cox鈥檚 lawsuit failed to properly allege that county officials did anything legally wrong, Judge Humetewa cited several documents filed by Ms. Cox that 鈥淸b]olster鈥� the argument forfeiture laws provide a financial incentive for law enforcement. For example, the order notes that 鈥淸a]n excerpt from a forfeiture training stat[es] 鈥榳hen your bosses can鈥檛 find any money in their budget they get depressed. When they get depressed they tell you to start doing forfeiture cases ... When you feel like a winner you go back to your jurisdiction and just start seizing everything in sight.鈥欌�� The order also notes that Ms. Cox 鈥渟pecifically identified how defendant Voyles used the forfeiture proceeds 鈥� to fund 鈥榩et projects鈥� including many that provide[d] favorable exposure to him amongst his [former] constituents.鈥�

Judge Humetewa recognized that U.S. Supreme Court precedent 鈥渋mplie[s] that there is a limit鈥� 鈥溾�榦n a financial or personal interest of one who performs a prosecutorial function,鈥欌�� and she concluded that Ms. Cox鈥檚 鈥渃omplaint sets out a plausible claim for violation of her due process rights in the enforcement of the Arizona forfeiture statutes because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.鈥�

The Judge鈥檚 Order on the Motions to Dismiss is at: /legal-document/cox-v-voyles-et-al-judges-order-motions-dismiss

More information about the lawsuit, Cox v. Voyles, et. al. is available at: /cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al