“Review State law governing forfeiture of property
associated with criminal activity, including the
system for distribution of assets seized
and accountability for their expenditure”
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT:
Senator Louis F. Kosco, Chairman
Senator James S. Cafiero, Vice-Chairman
Senator Joseph L. Bubba
Senator John A. Girgenti
Senator Edward T. O’Connor Jr. ALSO PRESENT:
Anne M. Stefane
Office of Legislative Services
Aide, Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by
The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office,
Hearing Unit, State House Annex, CN 068, Trenton, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Deborah T. PoritzAttorney GeneralNew Jersey Department ofLaw and Public Safety
Terrence P. FarleyDirectorDivision of Criminal JusticeNew Jersey Department ofLaw and Public Safety
Carl F. E. PetersMercer County Libertarian Party
Earl G. DickeyChairmanResolutions to the Stateof New Jersey
Harry BoeselagerMemberHands Across New Jersey,United We Stand, America,National Rifle Association
Carmen Messano, Esq.
ProsecutorHudson County, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Sharon B. RansavageProsecutorHunterdon County, New Jersey, andPresidentCounty Prosecutors’ Associationof New Jersey
John T. PaffSecretaryForfeiture Endangers American Rights, Inc.
Edward WiessmannNew Jersey Libertarian Party
Bob FigueroaPublic Relations CoordinatorNew Jersey Militia
Statement and articlessubmitted byJohn T. Paff
SENATOR LOUIS F. KOSCO (Chairman):
At this point, we’ll
ask our Attorney General to come forward, because I know you have a
What this Committee is going to do right now General -- and
anyone else you want to bring with you.A T T Y. G E N E R A L D E B O R A H T. P O R I T Z:
Farley should be here momentarily, but I can start.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay.
What this Committee is going to do at this point is to try to spend
about an hour reviewing the State laws governing forfeiture of property andwhat has been done since our last hearing, what changes have been made, how
effective those changes have been that you made back in December, and whatthe results of some of those changes have been. The bottom line of what we’re
trying to find out is, if certain things that we have been reading about innewspapers throughout the United States that people are concerned about
could possibly happen in the State of New Jersey. If so, how can we correctthat? This Committee would like to know whether or not there is legislation
needed or whether it can be handled through the Attorney General’s officewithout resorting to the legislative process.
So what we are trying to do is see if there is a problem, and if we
determine there is a problem, what can we do to correct it. We would also like
to find out if there is no problem. We would like to know that, too.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before this Committee today. The appropriate use of the
civil forfeiture remedy is a subject that has generated a lot of discussion. I do
not pretend to be an expert on all of the issues that have been raised. For thatreason, I would like this morning to discuss, in general terms, how our
forfeiture statute and regulations work and what steps we have taken to makecertain that the civil forfeiture remedy is used fairly and in accordance with
I will leave to the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice,
Terry Farley, the task of providing more detailed information, since, as manyof you know, Mr. Farley is a nationally recognized expert on the subject of civil
forfeiture. He has traveled extensively across the country speaking on thistopic in his former capacity as the Director of the National Drug Prosecution
Center, an arm of the National District Attorneys Association. Mr. Farley hasalso written an article which was printed in the New York Law School Review,
which deals with half-truths in connection with actual forfeiture cases. Terry’sarticle sets the record straight on those cases. I trust he will set the record
I did not come here this morning to be an apologist for our
forfeiture laws and regulations. While I would not presume to suggest that ourforfeiture procedures are perfect, I am here to say that there has been, in recent
years, significant revisions and reforms; that our forfeiture procedures havebeen steadily evolving to meet the objectives of the Legislature and to protect
the rights of New Jersey’s citizens, including those whose property has becomethe subject of a forfeiture proceeding.
I know that Senator Kosco has been at the forefront of these
reforms, and I look forward to working with you, Senator, and the rest of the
Committee in addressing any concerns that you may have. I would add that
very recently, we have put in place new guidelines that Terry will address, andI will say up front here, before I go into more of my prepared remarks, that we
would recommend that you continue to examine the way forfeiture is workingin this State, particularly under the new guidelines we have put in place and
the work the Prosecutors’ Association has done to monitor the use offorfeiture funds, as well, and that you do not take legislative action until you
see whether the new guidelines and what has been put in place is working. Iwould urge you to do that, but let me go further in my prepared remarks to
just give you some more background about some of the questions that SenatorKosco has raised, and about the forfeiture laws in this State and the way they
I don’t think there is much need for me to spend a lot of time
discussing the enormous value of the civil forfeiture remedy to the lawenforcement community and to all law abiding citizens of this State. Civil
forfeiture is designed, first and foremost, to deter crime for profit by attackingthe profits, thereby removing the incentive to commit the crime and, in some
cases, removing the instrumentality of the crime, as well.
Forfeiture has emerged as a powerful adjunct to our criminal laws
and provides us with an important tool to deter criminals, one which does notrely entirely on prisons and other traditional sanctions imposed by the criminal
Indeed, there are many criminal justice experts who believe that
forfeiture has emerged as one of the most powerful weapons against drugtraffickers and other persons engaged in criminal activity for profit. It is,
ironically, the success of our aggressive use of the forfeiture remedy which has
prompted some to attack our efforts. The fact is that the forfeiture programin New Jersey has been highly successful. Millions of dollars earmarked for
criminal purposes have instead been put to use for law enforcement purposesand to protect the public safety.
There are, however, a few cases that have raised concerns about
forfeiture laws and programs in other states, whether they are fair or whether
they are misused. As you know, much attention has been focused in the lastcouple of weeks on a United States Supreme Court decision arising under a
peculiar Michigan statute which provides that innocence is no defense in aforfeiture action.
In my view, it makes absolutely no sense to take the property of
a person who did not know and could not reasonably have known that the
property at issue was being used in furtherance of criminal activity. What isclear, however, is that that case could not occur in New Jersey. Our State
Constitution, as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court, along with theliteral text of Chapter 64 of our Penal Code, establishes an innocent owner
exception to the general rule that property used in furtherance of an indictablecrime is subject to forfeiture.
We in New Jersey have put in place more procedural, statutory,
and regulatory safeguards than any other state. In addition to codifying the
innocent owner exception, our laws and procedures make clear that forfeitureis achieved only after a decision made by a neutral court. Property is not
forfeited by a prosecutor, but rather, pursuant to a court order. In allcontested cases, this occurs only after a hearing at which due process rights are
afforded to all interested parties. In New Jersey, unlike in many states and
under Federal law, there is no administrative forfeiture, in which the decisionto forfeit property is vested solely in the discretion of the prosecutor.
Nor do we allow property to be forfeited because it was used in the
commission of a disorderly persons offense -- a misdemeanor, to use the phrase
commonly employed in other jurisdictions. Rather, civil forfeiture is onlyavailable in New Jersey upon proof that the property was directly involved in
the commission of an indictable crime.
Further, and of great importance under New Jersey law, the
prosecutor has the burden of establishing that the property claimed to besubject to forfeiture was causally -- not casually -- related to the criminal
conduct at issue. In New Jersey, prosecutors must prove a clear nexus betweenthe property which is the subject of the forfeiture proceeding and the
Also under New Jersey law, the prosecutor has the burden of proof
and must convince a court, by the preponderance of the evidence, that thegrounds for forfeiture have been established.
In sum, New Jersey is, without question, at the forefront of
national reforms to make certain that the forfeiture remedy is reserved for
appropriate cases, cases where property was actually involved in seriouscriminal activity.
My office, in consultation with the county prosecutors, has
established directives and guidelines to make certain that prosecutors and
other law enforcement agencies are held accountable for the way we distribute
and use property which has been successfully forfeited pursuant to the court
Director Farley will explain these directives and guidelines in
detail, particularly what we have recently done. He will answer any questionswhich you may have about the manner in which forfeited property is used in
this State. Suffice it to say that we have taken strong, affirmative steps tomake certain that forfeited property is used properly for law enforcement
purposes under the direction of the Attorney General.
I want to emphasize, however, that with a few exceptions which
have gotten a lot of attention recently, forfeiture moneys have been properlyused to support law enforcement activities. I know that recently questions
have been asked about whether and to what extent law enforcement forfeitureaccounts have been used to supplant -- is the word that’s used -- the regular
operating budgets of law enforcement agencies. As you know, a regulationpreviously promulgated by the Attorney General prohibits the use of forfeited
property and proceeds, generally, to pay for items or services which moreproperly belong in the regular budget of a law enforcement agency.
This regulation is based on the sound principle that it is
inappropriate for government agencies to anticipate future forfeiture revenues,
that is, to encumber forfeiture accounts beyond the current fiscal year. By itsvery nature, forfeiture is an unstable and unpredictable source of revenue. To
a large extent, the amount of forfeiture revenues available to a law enforcementagency will depend upon events beyond the control of government. Indeed,
the amount of property or revenue subject to seizure and eventual forfeiturewill depend more upon the choices and activities of criminals than on
budgetary decisions made by law enforcement executives or local or State
For this reason, by way of example of this limitation, the Attorney
General’s regulations prohibit the use of forfeiture revenues to pay for regularsalaries, for example, which are part of the regular budget and can be
I think the confusion about this limitation is due to the incorrect
notion that any item that could appear in a prosecutor’s or State budgetcannot then be supported through forfeiture moneys. No one has ever made
that claim. In fact, any law enforcement purpose could, of course, be alegitimate budget expense, no matter how unusual the expenditure.
However, the State Legislature, or county governing body, for that
matter, is responsible for assessing competing needs among many different
departments and agencies, indeed, among the branches of government. TheLegislature, in other words, must look at the overall spending picture in
developing a State budget, whether the need is for transportation or toxicwaste cleanups or law enforcement projects. Law enforcement agencies focus
on budgetary priorities within a considerably narrower context. Our forfeiturelaw allows important law enforcement programs to be funded, which might not
be a first priority in the broader context of the State budget.
It is surely appropriate for us to use the proceeds of criminal
activities to enhance our ability to catch and prosecute criminals and to setpriorities for those expenditures within that narrower law enforcement context.
Certainly, all law enforcement managers have a responsibility at all times,especially in lean fiscal years, to make certain that public moneys, from
whatever source, are wisely spent. We need, in other words, to set our
priorities carefully and to decide how our limited revenues can best be used topromote the public welfare and, in the law enforcement context, to protect
I would note that we report regularly to the Legislature and to the
Treasurer on our expenditures of this type.
In the same vein, it has been alleged that government cannot use
forfeiture revenues to restore items or services which previously had been paidfor as part of the so-called regular budget. Using forfeiture moneys in this way,
however, is not inappropriate except in certain limited instances, such as theexample I gave before -- regular salaries. Under Federal forfeiture laws and
grant rules and regulations, upon which our own forfeiture statute andregulations are based, I repeat, it is not inappropriate to use forfeiture moneys
in this way. The actual test is straightforward. At the end of a fiscal year orother given time period, did the agency spend more money than it otherwise
would have spent but for the availability of forfeiture revenues? If the answerto that question is yes, then the agency is not using forfeiture moneys
improperly, but rather, is supplementing the budget, which it would otherwisehave to work with.
In other words, if a proposed expenditure of forfeiture revenues is
for a law enforcement purpose and is not used, for example, to defray the cost
of regular salaries, it would not matter that general revenues had been used inthe past to pay for similar goods and services. Were we to hold otherwise in
construing our forfeiture statute and regulatory scheme, the effect would be tocripple essential programs and activities. Ironically, forfeiture revenues would
remain available to pay for less essential programs, purchases, or services but
would not be available to pay for more important needs. This would make nosense from a legal, policy, or fiscal management perspective.
A number of prosecutors are here this morning to describe the type
of programs, which, but for the availability of forfeiture revenues, might not
have been adequately funded or even funded at all. Vital programs funded inthis manner include the Automated Fingerprint Identification System -- AFIS
-- equipping police vehicles with mobile display terminals -- MDTs -- providingpolice officers with state-of-the-art body armor, DNA testing, bomb disposal
equipment, firearms training simulators -- FATS, and supporting innovativeand enlightened law enforcement programs such as D.A.R.E. -- Drug Abuse
Resistance Education. Indeed, we have used forfeiture moneys for a variety oftraining programs, including State Police classes.
In developing and enforcing this regulatory scheme, we recognize
that law enforcement agencies must, at all times, remain accountable for each
and every expenditure of public moneys, from whatever source. It is critical,nonetheless, that law enforcement managers have the flexibility to make
certain that these moneys are used for the most essential programs, for theprograms most likely to benefit the public, and to further the mission of law
enforcement to promote public safety.
I am proud of the programs that we have supported with forfeiture
moneys, and I commend to you the long list of programs that show what wehave done to support law enforcement programs and activities.
If this is okay with you, Senator Kosco, I’d like to turn now to
Director Farley to talk more specifically about some of the things that we have
done and within this general framework. But if you have any questions about
what I have said already, I would be delighted to take them. However youwish to proceed.
SENATOR KOSCO: Senators, does anyone have any questions?Senator Girgenti?
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Well, I think the Attorney General-- Do
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I have to leave at about 11:00,
SENATOR GIRGENTI: All right. Just a couple of questions.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Sure.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Number one, I appreciate the fact that
you are here today, and I think it’s important that you are. You developed
new guidelines. As you know, at our last hearing we discussed it.
Would every expenditure, that is to say that every expenditure
would be approved by the county government, is that being done now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Since early December, we have
been reviewing all proposed forfeiture expenditures from the countyprosecutors that are for community-based programs, in particular, under the
new guidelines. Terry will speak to this in some detail, but not all of theprograms that have been proposed have been approved.
I think it will take a while, as this system is put in place, for
everyone to get used to it and to get a sense of what the guidelines really mean.
I will give you just a general example, and that is -- I think this is one of the--I will say this is a very, very strict approach to using moneys for community-
based programs, and that is, we have imposed a new requirement that law
enforcement participate in the community-based programs. Again, Terry willaddress that in some detail, but that is a new and very important requirement.
It’s not that we don’t support community-based programs, I do.
I think they are very important, and I would really like to see them continue.
What we are saying, however, is we want to be certain that those community-based programs are really operated in conjunction with law enforcement.
That’s helpful in a lot of ways. It keeps the law enforcement purpose in focus.
It makes sure, in that participation, that we see what’s being done. In
participating, we can really assess, as we participate, the importance of theprogram. There are a lot of good things that can come out of that, as we
So that is a new requirement, and I think it is a very important
SENATOR GIRGENTI: General, how does the new process work,
as opposed to the old process? Do you see an improvement now, or do you seechanges?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Oh, yes. I see substantial
changes. I think Terry will be talking about that, so I would say let’s defer to
Terry on that, but yes, there has been a big change.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Does your office have any plans to
institute additional guidelines governing the funds on meals and specialevents?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Again, Terry will address some
of that, so I won’t go into detail. But the Prosecutors’ Association formed a
subcommittee and met to talk about some of these issues. The determination
has been made by the prosecutors and my office. We participated in that, thedeliberations of the joint subcommittee, and yes, the answer is there are very
tight controls in place that go to a variety of those kinds of issues -- hotelrooms, the use of forfeiture moneys for a variety of expenses at meetings and
conventions, and so forth. Terry will go into detail on that.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: There are a couple of parts to this. I
know you touched on it when you spoke earlier, and, again, maybe Terry couldgive more information, but could you explain the language, the language in the
Fiscal Year !97 budget that we’ve heard and read about, that calls for use of$1.5 million in forfeiture funds for offsetting the cost of State Police services.
You touched on it. Is it not correct that your own guidelines prohibit the useof forfeiture funds to offset normal budget items?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: That is a correct statement,
and I tried to explain in my remarks, and it is a complex subject. But I tried
to explain the way we view the interpretation of that.
Any forfeiture expenditure, because it’s for a law enforcement
purpose, would be appropriate to be included in the budget and may beincluded in any budget. That doesn’t mean that anything that is normally
included in operating budgets, such as salaries except in unusual circumstances,forfeiture moneys could be used for it.
But I have to emphasize that what that budget language is saying,
in shorthand form -- I mean, we all know that the language in the budget is
often in very shorthand form and that you need to understand what it’sreferring to. What that language refers to, what it is talking about, is that we,
over the course of any one year, and our forfeiture-- The moneys we’ve gotten
in forfeitures at the State level have ranged over the past few years fromapproximately $2.5 million up to, I think it’s $4 million or $5 million. What
we do, through a very careful procedure is, we get together with all of the lawenforcement divisions in my department: Terry Farley, Colonel Williams, the
Director of ABC is a participant. We talk about appropriate uses of forfeituremoneys and our priorities. But we know, from year to year, that there are
certain expenditures that go up and down and fluctuate a great deal, becausethey are just uncertain expenditures. One example of that is a professional
services account we have that I think was mentioned in newspapers. Theneeds in that account fluctuate from year to year. They include witness
expenses in cases, a wide variety of expenses that occur in prosecuting cases forlaw enforcement. And in some years, they are higher and in other years they
are lower. I’ve looked over a span of years, and in the regular State budget,sometimes there has been several hundred thousand in the account; sometimes
there has been a lot less, sometimes there has been a little bit more. That hasfluctuated, too.
We have always supplemented those moneys with forfeiture
moneys -- and I use the word “supplemented.” That was the word I used in
my remarks. That’s a perfect example of where forfeiture moneys areappropriate to be used, because we can’t foresee -- you can’t foresee when you
do the budget July 30 -- or June 30, or sometime in June -- what we are goingto need in that account. And it’s changed from year to year. So we do
What that $1.5 million refers to is the anticipated
supplementation that we’ve seen in a variety of accounts that we use for -- thatare appropriate uses for forfeiture moneys. That’s a shorthand for that. It
didn’t need to be in there. It’s really just a statement about what we normallydo.
You could take that language out, and the budget wouldn’t change.
What we do wouldn’t change, and the appropriate use of forfeiture moneys
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Well, I know I’m not telling you
something that you don’t know, obviously, but the concern is that to make abudget or to have-- Just as the problem we’ve had with the DEP in terms of
fines, if a program is consisting upon how much we go out and receive to helpbuild up on our budget, it’s not really the right approach. You’d rather see it
done through the General Fund, so that it can be discussed and allocated,where it almost gives the impression that we want to go out and almost harass
to get this money. That’s a concern.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: You’re right, and that is why
I spent a lot of time, in the earlier part of my remarks, telling you how carefulwe are in this State, that we have the best standards of any state. Now, I won’t
say that they are not ever violated, because your standards are only as good asthe people who enforce them, and occasionally you are going to have improper
enforcement. I recognize that, and we’ve had instances of that that have beenreported in the newspapers.
But we have the best standards of any state in terms of due
process, the way we go about getting forfeiture orders, and so forth. So I thinkwe are just thoroughly covered on that side of it.
In terms of the budget, I can’t say to you-- You know, I said to
you, “forfeiture moneys fluctuate, generally, at the State level from $2.5
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: In a year when we get $2.5
million, and we’re looking at our needs, and we say, “Well, approximately $1.5
million is probably going to go to State Police, because that is what we havelooked at over the past years. We can anticipate that.” Or we have certain
needs. I wouldn’t say to you that after discussing it with the Governor andsaying that we didn’t get $5 million this year in forfeiture, because we have
certain rules we adhere to, and there are additional law enforcement needs, weneed to go to the Legislature to get money from the supplemental
appropriation process, that that wouldn’t be appropriate; that would beappropriate.
What we can do is say all of the moneys that we are using, at the
time that we use them, we believe, are being used for these kinds of
nonrecurring expenses, that is, witness expenses for example, in theprofessional services account, or a nonrecurring laboratory study to see
whether we’re using our State Police laboratory facility most efficiently. Wecan use forfeiture moneys for that. That’s clearly a law enforcement purpose.
It’s not something that was anticipated in the regular budget. That’s not to sayit couldn’t be, but it’s an appropriate use of law enforcement funds.
Or the Juvenile Justice Commission: One of the most important
things we did in studying the new system, in setting up the new system -- andI know many of you who are involved in the juvenile justice legislation were
aware of this and knew about this. We needed to look at juvenile justicesystems in other states, to pick and choose what really would be appropriate
for our use, and we, after a bidding process, chose an outside consultant tohelp us with that because we’re not experts on everything that is going on, all
of the changes that are occurring around the country. That was a good use offorfeiture funds and helped produce the new juvenile justice system that you
SENATOR GIRGENTI: And the one thing that was mentioned
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Yes. As you all know, the
State Police have physical fitness requirements. Those are very strict, comingfrom -- driving out of a lawsuit over the 55 retirement age for State Police.
The equipment that was purchased for the gym in West Trenton
was purchased in order to enable Troopers, near where they work, to work outand to continue to maintain their physical fitness. Could that have been a
regular budget appropriation? Yes, all of these could have been. Is that aregular occurring expense? No. Is it a good expense to incur? I believe
absolutely. I think it’s very important that our law enforcement personnelgenerally be physically fit, but it is particularly important in the State
Troopers, because of the requirement that they maintain physical fitness aspart of the case that developed when the age 55 retirement was challenged.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Just one final thing: According to your
guidelines, you’re saying the counties cannot use the money for ongoingoperations, but the State can?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: No, I’m not. You’ll find the
same kinds of things in the county. You will find the counties appropriately
using forfeiture moneys -- I’m putting aside now community-based programs.
And by the way, community-based programs can be and are funded by the
Legislature. You fund grant programs for superb community-based programs.
So I go back to my point that any of these programs -- they are
legitimate governmental law enforcement purposes -- could be funded by acounty board of freeholders or by the State Legislature. However, if you look
at what the prosecutors are using these moneys for, you will find many of thesame kind of expenses that we’re using them for: witness expenses,
investigative expenses of a certain type that you might not have been able toanticipate that fluctuate from year to year.
You know, we, in a special exception which I believe was an
entirely appropriate exception and which I announced publicly at a committee
hearing, said that the prosecutors could use moneys for salaries, in oneinstance, Megan’s law, where we had an unusual number of cases to start up
Megan’s law that eventually, over time, would even out and reduce the needfor lawyers to handle these cases. We said, just for that initial large number --
we now have over 3000 registered sex offenders -- for that initial large number,that is an appropriate use, even though it’s salaries, because after we get
through that, then in the future there would be a regular number of people
coming through the system, and you can handle it in the normal course under
So I am not saying that the prosecutors handle their forfeiture
moneys any differently under our guidelines. I am saying that these areentirely appropriate uses for prosecutors and for the State.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you very much.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions, General. Do you believe that
there would be any advantage to having one account, rather than having
accounts throughout the State and have each agency have their own account?Would there be more of an advantage to it and less expense in auditing if there
were one account that the moneys came in and went into a State account, andthen the same procedure would be followed to take moneys out of that account
for each county and each municipality or locality as the requests were there?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I think the prosecutors should
speak to that, but I would say that I don’t think it’s going to make any realdifference in the way the moneys are handled, because even if you had one
account, you would still have the same audit needs. You would still have todeal with prosecutor requests for community-based programs. You would still
have the same need to review, to audit the way those moneys are being used.
SENATOR KOSCO: Right now there are 21 accounts, correct?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Yes.
SENATOR KOSCO: So there are 21 audits, 21 sets of books.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Twenty-one counties, that’s
correct. But you would still be auditing-- It might be-- It wouldn’t be in
separate books, but it would still be the same audit; that is, it would be the list
of expenditures and what they are spending the moneys on and how they kepttrack of that, and so on. So, except that it wouldn’t be in 21 separate books,
I’m not sure there would be a substantial savings.
SENATOR KOSCO: I would like to look into that and try to get
some ideas of whether all the moneys that are forfeited would possibly go toyour department, to the State, into one account and then be distributed from
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Senator, we will.
SENATOR KOSCO: While talking about audits, in your directive
back in December, you had given April 1, 1996 as a deadline for the 1995
audit report. Now we’re coming up to April 1, 1996, and the second part ofyour directive was that all the other accounts, going back to prior years that
had not been submitted, which I believe would probably take in every singleyear because I don’t -- I think we tried to find some audits on it and we
couldn’t find too many of them -- also had to be no later than April 1, 1996.
Now, we’re not going to change that date, are we?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I’m going to let Terry address
that. My understanding, in the last conversation I had about it, was that the
major portion of the audit was done. But let me refer that to Terry, becausethat comes directly out of the Criminal Division.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay, but your directive doesn’t say a major
portion has to be done by April 1. It says, it has to be completed.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I understand.
SENATOR KOSCO: Now I’m going to play attorney with you
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I understand, Senator.
SENATOR KOSCO: And I’m not going to-- It says that they will
be completed, and all prior audits, so I think that has to be a priority, and it
will be a priority for this Committee.T E R R E N C E P. F A R L E Y:
Senator, just so you understand it
completely, we have granted a couple of extensions. The one thing we did not
think about when we picked April 1 as the date is that we were putting--
MR. FARLEY: --the registered municipal accountants right in the
middle of their normal tax season. We have given a couple of extensions,
because they just could not get that additional work. It was not anticipatedwork, and as you know, under the earlier guidelines, we--
SENATOR KOSCO: Shouldn’t it be easier for them to do the
audit now that they have the stuff on the table?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: When they finish.
MR. FARLEY: Apparently their position was it was not, that the
tax season -- it would kill them. They asked -- a couple of counties asked usfor June 1 extensions, and we have given those.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: But after they finish their tax
season, it will be easier for them to do it?
MR. FARLEY: Yes.
SENATOR KOSCO: Well, this Committee is going to be very
disappointed if that’s not completed by then.
MR. FARLEY: Well, we will have all of the ones that are
completed, and those couple that we gave extensions to we have specificallyindicated June 1 as the outside deadline.
SENATOR KOSCO: Just one other question, General. We were
talking about the gym for the State Police, which I think is an excellent idea.
I just don’t know if it comes under the guidelines for the forfeiture funding.
My question would probably be, if it does come under the guidelines for the
State Police, suppose Bergen County Police Department decided that theywanted to have a gym so that their police officers could be better fit physically,
and they needed “X” number of dollars to build a gym, and they applied to theAttorney General’s Office for that funding to come from the forfeiture fund,
do you think they would have a chance at it?
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: I’m not sure this is on. I can’t
get the red light on, but anyway, I’ll speak loudly. (referring to amplificationmicrophone)
First, let me say that the gym facility already existed at West
Trenton at State Police Headquarters and has existed for many years. I would
venture to guess, although-- There. (referring to amplification microphoneresumes functioning)
Let me repeat: The gym facility at State Police Headquarters has
been there for many years. That facility, I would venture to guess, and I will
double check that for you, but I would venture to guess was paid for by Statebudget moneys in one form or another, whether it was a capital project and
there was a bond issue or whatever, I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessingthat it was. I would imagine that forfeiture moneys were not used to set up --
to build the gym. The gym has been there for many years and has been used
by the Troopers to stay physically fit.
What we’re talking about is some renovations to that gym and
equipment. So that’s a very different order of magnitude than building a newgym. I think we have to evaluate that.
I think it is very important for our law enforcement personnel to
be physically fit. They may find themselves in situations where they really
have to take care of themselves and physically react. We’ve had too manyinstances, just in the past couple of years and since I’ve been Attorney General,
where that has been necessary and, unfortunately, where there has even beenloss of life, but where there have been chases where Troopers have had to run
after people. Being physically fit is very important for law enforcement. Andeven though I referred, in particular in the State Police case, to that
requirement for them as a legal requirement as part of the State Policeoperation, when looking at a local police department, whether or not it’s a legal
requirement I think we would have to take into account how important is it forour police officers to be physically fit? How far will we go, and what’s an
appropriate expenditure to help them to do that?
I submit to you that, depending upon the circumstances and their
request for equipment and whatever, it may well be proper for a local policedepartment, as well as State Police.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
Any other questions?
SENATOR KOSCO: If you don’t mind, maybe what we should
do is have some-- I’d like you to stay right there, Terry. You are going to stayfor the meeting, right?
MR. FARLEY: Yes, sir.
SENATOR KOSCO: Maybe we could let some other people talk,
and then you can help us along when we get to the answers that we don’t have.
Senator, I just wanted to address that last question you had for the
Attorney General. In the past, we have specifically approved forfeiture
expenditures. For example, in Morris County they did an addition on thecounty police academy. In Union County, we partially funded the cost of
construction of their new training facility. So this is not an extraordinaryexpenditure in any sense of the word. When this was looked at, it wasn’t
questioned at all. We felt this was an absolutely appropriate use of the money.
John?SENATOR GIRGENTI: In terms of that, according to your new
guidelines, this would still hold, right? It doesn’t affect--
MR. FARLEY: Absolutely.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: That’s right. That’s right.
When the new guidelines are focused primarily on community-
based programs, and then through the work of the joint subcommittee I
mentioned, deal with expenses like the expenses that have been discussed, theconventions and so forth.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay. Thank you very much.
ATTORNEY GENERAL PORITZ: Thank you.
SENATOR KOSCO: What we’re going to do is call up-- We have
a number of people who wish to speak about this particular issue, and whatwe’re going to do is to try and have this hearing go until somewhere around
11:30, because we have a number of other pieces of legislation to vote on. SoI would ask those people who are speaking to not keep repeating what others
have said and try to control it a little bit.
The first one I’m going to hear is Carl Peters, from the Mercer
County Libertarian Party, who promises me he is only going to speak for twominutes, and it’s in writing.
C A R L F. E. P E T E R S:
Thank you. I’m Carl Peters, founder of the
Mercer County Libertarian Party and a long-time member of the Libertarian
Party. I have submitted a 12-page letter to you folks. I’m going to read just
a couple of the paragraph headings and be gone. These are definitions offorfeiture:
Forfeiture is robbery.
Forfeiture is greed.
Forfeiture breeds disrespect for law.
Forfeiture is arrogance.
Forfeiture encourages theft and crime.
Forfeiture places policemen with Nazis.
Forfeiture is excessive fines.
Forfeiture repudiates our Constitution.
Forfeiture is force; therefore, it is fascism.
Forfeiture is a redistribution; therefore, it is socialism.
Forfeiture is Hitler’s revenge.
Forfeiture repudiates every veteran.
Forfeiture is bad government.
If anybody else wants a copy of this, I have a couple of extras.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
MR. PETERS: Thank you.
SENATOR KOSCO: Fred Stein and Gregory Fuhs. I understand
you want to come up together. Gregory is from Summit, and Fred is from
Dayton, New Jersey.F R E D S T E I N:
Yes. I will try to represent people--
MR. STEIN: My name is Fred Stein. I will try to represent
people who own property in New Jersey, whether it’s real or personal -- a
I am a real estate appraiser in central New Jersey. I do some work
in urban areas such as Trenton, New Brunswick, Long Branch, and PerthAmboy. There is renewed interest in investments and properties in these cities.
The ownership of many two- to four-family-houses are people from thosecommunities. The forfeiture laws are making these people very nervous about
owning property in urban areas. In conversations I have with these people,they are afraid that a tenant may engage in an unlawful act and then their
multifamily house is taken from them. The owner of the property should notbe liable for the unlawful activity of a tenant.
If a husband and wife have a fight and the husband kills his wife,
is the property owner responsible for her murder? Should his building betaken from him?
I’ve been reading in the paper about the misuse of forfeiture funds
on entertainment, gifts, and expensive hotel rooms. This is getting to be
ridiculous. I believe that forfeiture funds would be better spent on ourindigent care for poor people.
I believe we need serious reform of our forfeiture laws. We need
reform that protects private and personal property. Thank you.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay. I think the Commissioner will agree
with me that some of the issues that you just raised could not happen in the
MR. FARLEY: Absolutely, Senator. We have the innocent owner
defense here. As the Attorney General just pointed out, that situation thatoccurred in Michigan, which is getting all of the publicity now that the U.S.
Supreme Court just decided, would never have made a courtroom in NewJersey. It just could not have happened.
The fact that concern has been expressed about buying property
because you are responsible for the acts of your tenants-- If you have no
knowledge, if you are, in fact, truly an innocent owner, you are not responsiblein New Jersey, and it would never happen.
G R E G O R Y F U H S:
Yes, good morning. My name is Gregory Fuhs.
I am from the infamous Somerset County, and I am a forfeiture victim of
Nicholas Bissell Jr., who was then the prosecutor in Somerset County.
I have suffered for over eight years because of the forfeiture
statutes in this State and the abuses that are allowed by them, which were puton me by Nicholas Bissell. I was arrested for a small marijuana garden in my
backyard. As a consequence of that, my house and property, which was worthabout $200,000, which I proved in court that I had honestly earned and
owned, was forfeited to the State of New Jersey. My bank accounts werelooted by the prosecutor and an attorney that was working with him. I still
have not gotten any of my money back. My life was destroyed, and I havesuffered for over eight years, and I continue to do so. My case is still pending,
and I’m still fighting to get my money, which I proved was my money honestlyand there was no question about it, to get it back.
My case is an example of how these forfeiture laws can be and are
A couple of major issues, the proportionality issue: I went to trial
for the State to seek forfeiture of my property and my house that I lived in,
and there was no proportionality. The fact that the marijuana that I had in myyard was worth about $600, which I use for personal use only -- and that was
proven in court -- meant nothing to these courts.
My life was destroyed for the sake of $600. I find that to be very
wrong. The fact that I was not able to have a jury look at my case and decidemy case I find to be very wrong. If we have juries to decide other important
issues, we certainly should have the right to have a jury decide what happensto our property that we can prove in court is legally ours.
Mrs. Poritz opened up the question that these forfeiture funds are
unstable and undependable. We see the furtherance of these laws as the
government’s way to make those funds more stable and more dependable at
the expense of our constitutional rights. This hurts us.
You are turning a large proportion of the public in this country
against the government because of the greed, and we really see and believe andwe have proven, in our point of view, that a lot of these forfeitures are mere
greed and abuse, and they are not really corrective measures. They’re nothurting the drug traffickers. They’re hurting small users like myself.
I was a first offender. I was never convicted of a crime before. I
had lived in that county, Somerset County, my entire life. I was a business
owner. I was a college student. None of this mattered to the laws in this State.
All that mattered to the laws is that I was convicted of a minor marijuana
offense, and based on that, the laws allowed the government to seize myproperty and all of my assets.
These issues go to the heart of the American people and the people
of New Jersey. And to say that New Jersey has the best actions or due clause
of law is absurd, because we know it’s not, and you must listen to our side andour point of view and not just law enforcement, because they have a vested
Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
SENATOR BUBBA: Yes, question.
MR. FUHS: Yes.
SENATOR BUBBA: Are you married?MR. FUHS: No, I am not married. I am still single.
SENATOR BUBBA: So, at the time, you were the sole owner of
MR. FUHS: I was the sole owner, yes.
SENATOR BUBBA: And how much marijuana is $600 worth?MR. FUHS: What I had was a small garden in my backyard,
which measured 10 feet by 10 feet, in which I had grown some marijuanaplants for my own use.
SENATOR BUBBA: How long had you been growing it?MR. FUHS: Excuse me.
SENATOR BUBBA: How long had you been growing it?MR. FUHS: That had been the second year that I had grown.
SENATOR BUBBA: How much marijuana comes out of a 10 by
MR. FUHS: The total quantity that was seized was approximately
three pounds, which included the actual plants themselves.
Now, we had experts. I had a DEA expert testify on my case, and
the State had an expert. Both experts concluded that the amount that was
actually usable or sellable amounted to about one-and-a-half ounces. The restof it was the stalks, the roots, the dirt. I was basically convicted of intending
to sell something that was not sellable or was not valuable, but under the lawthat was still able to be used against me to further the State’s desire to
confiscate my property. And that was the only reason the State went after mycase -- and Nicholas Bissell.
There was nothing-- There was no reason to make an example of
SENATOR BUBBA: Are you saying that a 10 by 10 piece of
SENATOR BUBBA: --an ounce-and-a-half of marijuana?MR. FUHS: An ounce-and-a-half of usable or sellable that was of
value, because I was charged with intent to distribute, even though there wasno evidence in my case of that.
SENATOR BUBBA: The question I asked is: a 10 by 10 yields an
MR. FUHS: No, no. I told you, the total was three pounds.
SENATOR BUBBA: But you’re saying, “usable was an ounce-and-
MR. FUHS: That is what both experts concluded.
SENATOR BUBBA: Then the yield on the 10 by 10 is an ounce-
MR. FUHS: It can be, depending on how the plants are.
SENATOR BUBBA: I understand now why they took your
MR. FUHS: I’m telling you, Senator, what the two experts
concluded -- not only my expert, but the opposing expert.
SENATOR BUBBA: All right. Thank you.
MR. FUHS: Thank you.
SENATOR KOSCO: Almeda Johnson? Almeda Johnson, from
A L M E D A M. J O H N S O N:
I want to say good morning. My name
is Almeda M. Johnson. I am from Penns Grove, and I do want to discuss the
First of all, I know and you should know, as well, that the Bible
says that thou shall not steal, and I feel as though forfeiture is stealing. It’s the
eighth amendment. The ninth amendment says that thou shall not bare falsewitness against thy neighbor. When they steal, the prosecutors take and then
I have with me, which I do not have copies for you today, but if
you can you may have one. The prosecutors broke into my home in !94 --February 19 of !94 -- which almost gave me a heart attack. They had to call the
They took the moneys that my children’s father owns properties.
They took that money and said it was drug money. When they came to ourhome, they had been drinking, and I have proof of that. They broke into our
home. They made us open up our file cabinet, took out the moneys that hadbeen put aside to take care of the properties that we own.
Now, I have proof, where the prosecutors said they have no proof
of that money being drug money, and they have returned it, two years later.
I have the checks, and I have the prosecutors’ statement. Now, in the meantime, since the return of this money, after two years, no forfeiture was ever put
against this money. They kept it for two years. I feel as though someone hasinterest on it. While they were holding these moneys, we had to pay an excess
amount of tax money on our property taxes, because the money we had putaside for the homes that we own, they had taken it and kept it all this time.
Then, the interest rate on our sewage, as well, went up, because
when they took the moneys, and the discovery pack, the officer even said thatin the file cabinet was a bunch of envelopes with money in it, which was
labeled where the money was to be paid for different expenses.
As a result of this, my son has been incarcerated for two years,
with no time-- (indiscernible) He’s just there in prison. The warden in theprison called me at my job to ask me how did my son get there and why is he
I don’t know why he’s there. They said that he had drugs, and
they took the money and said it was from drug activity. They showed no proofof him having drugs, but yet they took the money. Now it’s been returned to
us, and he is still in prison as of today.
If you desire to have a copy of what I have here, to prove, I’ll be
glad to give it to you. I feel as though it was invasion of my privacy. I have aheart condition. They had to call the ambulance for me. When they busted
into my door, I didn’t know who the man was standing there, hollering, “Don’tnobody move,” with a gun waving. They never identified themselves.
I had a foster son, who is a mental patient. He was laying on the
sofa, and I just told him, before I laid down, to take his Haldol -- because he’s
on Haldol. And you know, Haldol really psyches you out. He didn’t even hearthe door bust in, and they held a gun to his head and kept shaking him and
forcing him to get up off the couch.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the law does say, somewhere, that
an activity has to be going on in order for them to either arrest someone or tobust into someone’s home. When they came into my home, they showed no
warrant. There wasn’t any warrant presented. They kicked in my basement
door and everything until 40 minutes later. And they thought, because I hadto go to a hospital, and I refused to go, because I didn’t know if they were
going to plant something, because in our area in Penns Grove, it’s known forthe prosecutors and the police department to do that. And I have many proofs
I know I heard Mrs. Poritz say things, which I am totally in
dissagreement with. I am a citizen, a United States citizen all my life, and Imust say, I have never seen such kinds of carryings on, and it’s supposed to be
the United States of America, the land of the free, where supposedly we haveconstitutional rights. Then all of a sudden, your privacy is invaded, your child
is drug down the concrete. They drug my son. He was standing outside,waiting for his cousin to go to an Atlantic City show. They came and wrestled
him to the ground. I didn’t know what was going on outside.
They drug him on the concrete and busted in my door and talked
about drug activity and took our money we had for our bills.
Now, I do not call this law whatsoever. I call it theft, and I call it
baring false witness against thy neighbor, because of the trumped up chargesthey put.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
MS. JOHNSON: If you have any questions, or if you would like
to have a copy of this, I would be so very happy to submit it today.
Another thing, when Mrs. Poritz was talking about public safety --
no. That’s not public safety. They came on our property and busted in ourdoor. That’s not public safety. I want to say that.
MS. JOHNSON: It’s an invasion and an intrusion. Thank you
E A R L G. D I C K E Y:
MR. DICKEY: Resolutions to the State of New Jersey.
I would like to take a different approach, if I may, this morning,
concerning this issue. First of all, I would like to say I do not condone the actof any kind of intoxication, because intoxication does indeed make the mind
not vigilant, and vigilance, to my estimation, as Jefferson said, is mostimportant.
Substantially, the hands on the clock of time have come full circle
to whereas the people and our nation as a whole have fallen into that deadly
pit of socialism. The very structure and foundation of our form ofgovernment, a republic, which has now turned into a democracy, which based
its principles upon the laws of nature and nature as God, has been destroyedby this de facto system.
SENATOR KOSCO: Excuse me. MR. DICKEY: Yes.
SENATOR KOSCO: Are we going to talk about the forfeiture
MR. DICKEY: Yes, sir, I sure am, because--SENATOR KOSCO: Get to the point, because I don’t need a
history lesson. I need to talk about forfeiture.
MR. DICKEY: Sir, in order to understand property rights, we
have to understand where property comes from.
SENATOR KOSCO: Let’s just talk about forfeiture laws in the
State of New Jersey. That’s the only purpose that this Committee is here for,nothing else.
MR. DICKEY: Well, I think, sir, that’s the basis of it. If you
destroy property rights-- Property is the extension of man’s faculties.
SENATOR KOSCO: Get to the point, because we just want to
discuss forfeiture. We have a purpose for this meeting.
MR. DICKEY: Yes, I understand that.
Okay, then, in short, let me say this: I think forfeiture laws are
absolutely an outrage to humanity, for it increases the ability of a state tobecome a police state. There is no room for this type of government or this
type of de facto government in our Republic. It should not be taking place.
As this lady has said, this is supposed to be America, the land of
the free. And this is why many of us went into the services -- so-called to fightfor the land of the free. But to come back and to have this horrid, fascist
system prevail is absolutely wrong, in my estimation.
And if you don’t want to find out about the basics of property,
well, then I cannot go on any further, but I do appreciate the time that youhave given me.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay.
MR. DICKEY: I do have one question though. Do we hold our
MR. DICKEY: Do we have complete control of our own property
-- allodium. It’s in Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth edition.
SENATOR KOSCO: I haven’t heard of that word.
MR. DICKEY: Well, it’s in Boviers Law Dictionary, 1792.
SENATOR KOSCO: I wasn’t born then.
MR. DICKEY: Well, words have the same meaning as it did then
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
Harry Boeselager? Did I pronounce it right, Harry? Hands Across
New Jersey?H A R R Y B O E S E L A G E R:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Committee members. I’m Harry Boeselager. I’m a member of Hands Across
New Jersey, United We Stand, Gun Owners of America, NRA. I just wouldlike to come down here and make a brief statement if I could.
Forfeiture laws are very abusive to people who become victims of
an out of control, criminal government. I hear cases of outright abuse often
enough to cause deep alarm of a government rotten to the core. With out ofcontrol politicians, judges, lawyers, and law enforcement, State government in
New Jersey operates on the dark side of justice.
Look at ex-Prosecutor of Somerset County, Nicholas Bissell as an
example of this type of abuse. A 33 count indictment is a good start to cleanup.
Confiscated property, under the forfeiture laws: I have been told
many lies by politicians that use more confiscatory acts against citizens under
the color of law. Law makers have usurped the U.S. Constitution already
against American citizens, used illegal confiscatory taxes against property when
in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed life, liberty, and property, andthe Bill of Rights -- inalienable rights granted by God -- are to protect the
supreme sovereignty of the individual, which is violated today.
Forfeiture laws help promote communism, growing more
tyrannical government to build-- Right now we have about 120 concentrationcamps in America built for patriots of this country. There is such an outrage
in this country about the tyrannical government, it’s unbelievable, and I haveplenty of information to back it up.
I read “Media Bypass Magazine,” and I have a shortwave radio,
which I get a lot of information on. And I think most of us patriots are fed up
with all the abuse of power and tyrannical government. That’s all I would liketo say.
Any questions?SENATOR KOSCO: Does anyone have any questions? (no
I would like to have Carmen Messano, the Hudson County
C A R M E N M E S S A N O, ESQ.:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m also
joined here today by the President of the Prosecutors’ Association, the
Prosecutor of Hunterdon County, Sharon Ransavage. We’re here, really, to
respond to any questions the Committee may have and also to indicate that wehave been, in fact, operating under the directives of the Attorney General,
specifically, since December, when she issued her directive which she alluded
I happen to chair the Ad-Hoc Committee of the Prosecutors’
Association, which was formulated last summer to examine issues regardingboth the process of forfeiture and the use of forfeited funds by the prosecutors.
We conducted our review, and it coincided with the Attorney General’s review.
The Attorney General’s directive, which came out in December, is a directive
which I think all of the prosecutors both felt comfortable with and bothintended as a very valid statement of what we had reached as our own
conclusions regarding the process and the use of the funds.
I’m here today, basically, to try and indicate to you that we believe
that issues-- This has been an evolutionary process, no doubt. The AttorneyGeneral is quite right when she indicates that there have been cases in which
the standards simply have not been enforced appropriately. We admit to that.
The problem is that, in the balance of things, the overwhelming
good that has come as a result of the forfeiture law and the use of forfeitedfunds in this State, I believe, so significantly outweighs whatever those
particular cases may have been, that it certainly would not be good publicpolicy to go, at this point, and seek to amend the forfeiture laws in any
I wanted to give you, Mr. Chairman, some indication of what, in
fact, these moneys have been used for. The General alluded to some of thoseuses at the State level. I want to try to indicate to you how we’ve used it,
particularly in Hudson County, and I know Sharon feels that she has used
them in many beneficial ways in Hunterdon County. I’m sure she is going to
We, for example, have been able to equip 82 police cars in Hudson
County -- in all police departments in Hudson County -- with mobile dataterminals. I see the County Executive, Bob Janiszewski, is here, and I feel I
certainly have to give him credit, because he was instrumental in getting us tobe able to both purchase the equipment and, through the utilization of our
forfeiture funds, we were able to tie into the Jersey City Police Department’scomputer switch. So now we have 82 mobile data terminals operating in
Hudson County, which, quite frankly, could never have been accomplishedwithout the use of forfeiture funds and without the single entity, the
prosecutor’s office, acting as the coordinator on a county wide basis, to makesure that every police department got them.
The General referenced the AFIS terminal, which I’m sure you’re
familiar with -- the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. We have
just purchased one in Hudson County, and we are, in fact, going throughtraining now to allow police officers from all of the police departments in
Hudson County to come and use that system to identify latent fingerprints atscenes of crimes in Hudson County. Once again, without a joint effort of both
the county government and the use of forfeiture funds, those kinds of thingscould not be done.
The General referrenced the D.A.R.E. Program. I think you are
all probably familiar with the D.A.R.E. Program. When I took over office in
Hudson County as Prosecutor in 1991, we had four D.A.R.E. officers certifiedin the entire county, amongst all the police departments. The municipal police
departments simply were not able to afford to send officers to training. We
now have 104 in the space of four-and-a-half years. We are at a point, Mr.
Chairman, where every elementary school in Hudson County, public and
parochial, has a D.A.R.E. officer at least once a year in their school.
We were able to do that because I was able to request the use of
forfeiture funds to send those officers to training at the Bergen County PoliceAcademy, in Mahwah.
These are the kinds of things which I believe are both proper and
simply could not be accomplished on any kind of coordinated basis if we didn’t
have the forfeiture funds, and we didn’t have the prosecutors, themselves,coordinating the use of the forfeiture funds.
I wanted to indicate, earlier I think there was some misconception
over who controls these accounts. These accounts are controlled by the county
government. We don’t sit there and write checks indicating that we want todraw money out of the forfeiture fund. We submit a voucher, like we do with
other expenses, to the county government.
SENATOR KOSCO: Who in your county -- I’m not going to--
If I asked Mr. Janiszewski how much money he had in that account, would hebe able to tell me, within a half an hour?
MR. MESSANO: If he called his finance director, yes, he could.
SENATOR KOSCO: Do you really think so?
MR. MESSANO: Oh, I know so.
SENATOR KOSCO: I’m going to test you this afternoon.
MR. MESSANO: I know so. As a matter of fact--
SENATOR KOSCO: I bet you that I could call every single
county, and I bet you I couldn’t get an answer within a half an hour from anyof them.
MR. MESSANO: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, you can call
SENATOR KOSCO: Do you think I’m wrong? I hope I’m wrong.
MR. MESSANO: You can call Hudson County. And I also
wanted to indicate to you -- you raised a question earlier about the audits andthe General’s directive, which called--
SENATOR KOSCO: Then how come the Attorney General’s
Office for a year has been trying to get an audit report and can’t get it, in a
MR. MESSANO: Well, you’re going to have to ask that of the
SENATOR KOSCO: You see, these are the-- I’m concerned. If
there is a problem, then we can’t control it unless we have a handle on it, andwe can’t put a handle on it unless we have these audit reports, and we can’t get
the audit reports unless they come from 21 different counties, who have tohave 21 different auditors doing the report. That’s why I’m thinking in terms
Sharon, you were going to say something.
S H A R O N B. R A N S A V A G E, ESQ.:
Senator, I just wanted to
interject that my county freeholders know exactly how much money is in my
forfeiture account, because they are very interested in knowing that when we
SENATOR KOSCO: Do they have an accounting of what’s in --
if you have strong boxes and stuff such as cash?
MS. RANSAVAGE: The forfeiture funds in all of the counties, by
Attorney General directive, are under the custody and control of the countygovernment. I don’t sign forfeiture checks. The checks that are coming out
of the Law Enforcement Trust Fund in Hunterdon County are signed by oneof the county freeholders, I believe the county administrator, and the county
treasurer. So I don’t even sign those checks.
As Carmen indicated, we submit vouchers. We indicate what it
is the expenditures are for. They are delighted that it is not coming out of thecounty budget and that we are able to do things which in the community of
the county budget does not permit us to do.
And the kinds of things-- I can’t speak to what is happening in
other counties, but I can speak to what’s happening in Hunterdon County.
One of the first things I did as prosecutor was to open a child advocacy center,
a place where children who are victims of sexual assault could be brought, ina warm, homelike environment, to be questioned by detectives. In the past,
they have been brought into really what was like a warehouse, where thedetectives themselves were housed.
We refurbished that building. We put in monitoring equipment
and videotaping equipment, so the children could be videotaped, so the
detectives could monitor those interviews, so that child protective agenciescould be involved, as well. That’s the kind of thing that we’ve done with
We’ve purchased laptop computers for our detectives in the field.
We’ve purchased computer equipment. We’ve done trainings. There are allkinds of worthwhile projects that, unfortunately, the community organizations
that have benefited from them can’t be here to speak about it because they arebusy working on their projects.
But the benefits of forfeiture far outweigh any problems that may
have existed in the past. I just wanted to give a classic example, because a few
individuals have indicated that forfeiture is robbery, that it is somehow anoutrage.
Let’s assume, in Hunterdon County, that we have a 15- year-old
boy selling hits of LSD to other kids in the community. And let’s assume that
he’s in it -- I know of such individuals -- he’s in it just for the money. It makesmoney fast. He doesn’t use drugs; he just sells them to his friends. He makes
a lot of money selling LSD, and we learned about him because one of the kidshe sold a tablet to was admitted to a Hunterdon Medical Center because the
child had a reaction. He had a very bad reaction and he almost died.
When we arrest that kid, we find some LSD, and we find five
thousand bucks, money that he earned selling drugs. I say it’s an outrage if wecan’t forfeit that money. That’s what forfeiture is all about.
SENATOR KOSCO: And I agree with you. The problem that I
have, and I think a lot of the members here of this Committee have, is when
we -- and, of course, we don’t know all the facts -- but we hear a story thatGreg told us. That bothers me. If someone has a 10-foot garden in the
backyard and looses their home and their bank accounts and their whole life,and it’s taken eight years to try to solve a problem, if there is one--
That’s the kind of stuff that we are concerned about, and those are
the things that we hear about. That’s what we’re trying to see if we can stopthat type of thing from happening, if it’s wrong. And again, we don’t know all
the facts about the case, because this is not a court of law. This is just ahearing, so we’re hearing one side of the story. But if that side of the story is
everything, then, you know, we have to be concerned about that.
MS. RANSAVAGE: I would just like to say to that, first of all,
that arose out of Somerset County. It’s a tragic event when a law enforcementofficer is indicted. The prosecutor in that county was indicted. I don’t know
the details of that case, but I did glean from some of the colloquy that thisindividual was charged with possession with intent to distribute, and I wonder
if, in fact, that’s what he was convicted of.
I would agree with you that it would be inappropriate to seize the
home of an individual who has a few marijuana plants in his backyard. I’venever seized anyone’s home. But I would agree that it would be appropriate
to seize the home of an individual who is a major distributor who is packagingmarijuana, packaging other drugs, and distributing them from within his home.
I don’t know the facts in that case, and we don’t have all the
prosecutors here to respond to that. I also noted that there was a court
proceeding, so that a court made some kind of a determination in this matter.
This was not unilateral on the part of a prosecutor, and, again, the procedures
that we have require court oversight and a court order for forfeiture.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any
SENATOR BUBBA: Had this young fellow who had the $5000
and the drugs, had he had a diamond ring, would you have taken that?
MS. RANSAVAGE: That would depend on whether he had stolen
the diamond ring, whether it was proceeds. If we couldn’t establish that it wasrelated to the criminal activity, we would not.
SENATOR BUBBA: And if you related it to the criminal activity,
MS. RANSAVAGE: If he bought the diamond ring with drug
SENATOR BUBBA: Yes.
MS. RANSAVAGE: Yes.
SENATOR BUBBA: Okay. To the Chairman’s question of how
much money is in these forfeiture accounts, I presume there is property in
there, whether it be automobiles, jewelry, whether it be real property, whathave you. When that sits there, who values it?
MR. MESSANO: It’s all included, all property. All property is
SENATOR BUBBA: In the what?MR. MESSANO: Is included in the audit of the account. The
automobiles, whether there is one automobile or a dozen seized during thecourse of the audit year, they are included in the account. The auditors
actually go and look and count the cars.
SENATOR BUBBA: And do they place a value on them?
MR. MESSANO: They don’t place a value on them. I will tell
you that whenever any of that property is utilized outside -- is not going to beutilized by the agency itself, it’s sold at auction.
I can only tell you my personal position on it has been to evaluate
the property, actually get someone in to evaluate the property, and then place
a minimum bid at the sheriff’s sale.
MR. MESSANO: You’re welcome.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay. Thank you very much.
We have two more people, and hopefully we can get through this,
because we have a lot of other business to take care of.
John Paff?John has given us testimony in the past. We have copies of your
last time’s testimony, so I would appreciate it if you can make this brief.J O H N T. P A F F:
Oh, I’ll make it brief. What I have to say won’t take
Good morning. Thanks for having this additional hearing. My
name is John Paff. I’m the Secretary of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights,
a grass-roots, forfeiture organization that was founded in 1992.
Citizens who have been following The Bergen Record stories by
Michael Moore are aware that prosecutors have been spending the public’sforfeiture money on such extravagances as golf outings and lavish Atlantic City
conventions complete with appearances by Marilyn Monroe look-alikes and areception by Mr. Peanut.
More recently, Record readers learned that the Attorney General
herself has been disbursing large sums of forfeited cash in violation of her ownoffice’s guidelines. This is the same Attorney General who, on December 11,
1995, sent representatives before this Committee to testify that her mostrecent set of guidelines would really put a stop to the “perceived” abuses of
It is not reasonable, in my view, for this Committee to expect the
very law enforcement agencies that benefit from forfeiture funds to establishthe rules and guidelines under which the money is spent and accounted for,
nor should the Committee by surprised that there is so much abuse of themoney.
The Legislature has created a statutory scheme that permits
prosecutors to forfeit money and property without requiring them to convict
the property owners of any crime. The statute is quite clear and direct on thispoint. The statute states:
“The fact that a prosecution involving seized property terminates
without a conviction does not preclude forfeiture proceedings against the
In other words, the statute lets prosecutors confiscate the property
of parties who have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Then, the same set of statutes directs the forfeited money and
property into the operating accounts of the prosecuting agencies who pursuedthe forfeiture and provides for the money to be split with local law
enforcement agencies that assisted in the forfeiture effort.
So the way it is set up police and prosecutors are allowed, in effect,
to keep what they confiscate. Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t find it all thatsurprising that this system is being abused. Nor do I find it surprising that law
enforcement representatives are lined up three deep today trying to convincethis Committee today to preserve the status quo. In short, the Legislature
would be hard pressed to create a system more prone to abuse.
So now we’re wondering what can be done. In my view, the
solution is to repeal Title 2C, Chapter 64, the civil in rem forfeiture law, andreplace it with a criminal forfeiture law. Such would do away with the
ridiculous legal fiction that the property itself, as opposed to its owner, is thewrongdoer. Under a criminal forfeiture law, defendants would receive the full
bundle of protections afforded under the State and Federal Constitutions.
These include indictment, trial by jury, the State’s burden of proving guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. None of these are available under the currentsystem.
Also, the proceeds under a criminal forfeiture statute would go to
the general treasury instead of the prosecutor’s operating account. Such would
abate the bounty hunter mentality that currently infects our law enforcementcommunity. If the funds were to go into the general treasury, law
enforcement, just like every other government agency, would need to justifyits appropriation. This would allow elected officials, rather than law
enforcement itself, to decide how much money police and prosecuting agenciesget.
Also, it would tend to reduce, or hopefully eliminate, the truly
shameful practice of prosecutors conditioning lighter criminal sentences upon
a defendant’s willingness to forfeit his assets. Under this practice, those
defendants with assets to sacrifice are able to buy themselves a better plea dealthan those who don’t.
This particular horror was first exposed in an October 1992 New
Jersey Law Journal article by Burlington County Assignment Judge, Martin
Haines, and was raised as an issue by Chairman Kosco at the December 11hearing. Lest anyone think that the examples Judge Haines pointed out are an
anomaly, I have located two more examples of this abuse. One occurred inMiddlesex County and the other in Somerset County. I have attached
documentation of both of them to my written testimony.
Finally, I ask the Committee and everyone else in this room not
to mistake law enforcement’s enthusiasm and zeal for the forfeiture law ashaving anything to do with a desire on their part to promote the public
interest. Forfeiture to them is nothing more than a lucrative revenuegenerating vehicle in which they have a vested interest. Given their financial
interest, I would ask this Committee today to be very suspicious of theirmotives and deeply discount the claims they make.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you, John. Does anyone have any
The last one is Edward Wiessmann, New Jersey Libertarian Party,
E D W A R D W I E S S M A N N:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I
did not come here intending to speak. I just have a couple of brief points that
I would like to add to those already made.
First, I hope you will indulge some of my colleagues who oppose
the practice of forfeiture. I hope you will indulge their, perhaps, excessive
language in some areas, because this particular practice excites a profounddisgust among some people because of the principles that founded this country
and the degree to which many of us cherish them.
However, I’d like to make just a couple of brief points now. In my
township -- in Sparta Township, Sussex County -- I was motivated to enquirewith my local police chief about how the forfeiture funds were being spent in
Sparta Township. He directed me to the county prosecutor and told me thatonly the county prosecutor was to keep the records for forfeiture practices.
The law states that every police chief must submit quarterly
reports to the State detailing what was forfeited and how it was disposed of.
The fact is, the police chief in my town is not even aware that this is the law.
I’m sure he’s not the only one in the State of New Jersey who is unaware that
he is supposed to be filling out these reports on a quarterly basis.
I hope that you will follow my inference that there are many other
people in the State who are supposed to be accounting for these things who arenot doing so or are, at best, shunting this responsibility off on other public
The other point I wanted to make is that, as John Paff just pointed
out, when people are spending the very money that they are confiscating, iterodes the public’s confidence in their integrity. This is, I feel, very damaging
to the entire law enforcement community, and not just to those people, to
those few who -- I concede, it might only be a few of them who are abusingthis. But the practice must be uniform if the public is going to have any
confidence in it. I don’t think the public could possibly have any confidencein this procedure as it stands now.
Thank you all for your time.
SENATOR KOSCO: Thank you.
Okay, that was the last person that we had signed up for the
hearing. We’re going to continue to review this, what’s going on and what’s
taking place, and we’re going to continue to be providing as much oversight aswe can to what is going on with it and talking with you about it, because there
are certain things that we want to see happen. We want to continue to see themovement in the direction that I believe it is moving into right now.
I want to make sure that we don’t get lax. I don’t know if the
police chiefs are supposed to make reports. I don’t read that in anything. I
read that it is the county prosecutors’ offices, from the best that I can recallfrom everything that I have looked at, and I have the statute here. But I think
we should -- if that’s supposed to be, I think we have to notify these peopleand tell them what they are supposed to be doing if they don’t know, because
I hope out of this hearing that this Committee has gotten some
more insight into it. We have all the literature, and if there is anything thatyou just quickly want to add, we have other bills--
MR. FARLEY: Well, Senator, I know you have three other
matters, at least, to discuss, so what I am going to suggest to you, if you don’t
mind-- There are 100 allegations here, totally one-sided, all of which I could
address to you. I don’t think that makes any sense. Would the Senator besatisfied if I submitted a written response here today to all of these allegations
that were made, because I can address each one of these cases, and I think it’salso important that we address publicly the rules and regulations that have
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay. I just received a card from a Bob
Figueroa, who hadn’t signed up to speak.
If you have something quickly to say, Bob, we’ll listen to it, but
this hearing is ended. The procedure is, if you want to speak, so that we cangauge what we’re doing, that when you come in you sign up, and that’s what
B O B F I G U E R O A:
I apologize, sir. When I made the phone call to
testify, I wasn’t informed as such. I apologize, again.
SENATOR KOSCO: That’s the procedure, forever and ever.
MR. FIGUEROA: Well, I’m not well versed in this. I apologize.
SENATOR KOSCO: Take off.
MR. FIGUEROA: My name is Bob Figueroa. I’m the Public
Relations Coordinator for the constitutionally ordained and mandated NewJersey Militia.
The New Jersey Militia is adamantly opposed to the civil asset
forfeiture statute, for, in fact, as was repeated numerous times, this is not
forfeiture. That’s a misnomer. This is armed robbery.
All political power is inherent in the people, according to Article
I, Section 2 of the New Jersey Constitution, yet the forfeiture statute places allpower in the hands of the State.
Property is an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and
protected by the government, yet the civil asset forfeiture statute, in one blow,
has destroyed those rights. Property is an extension of man’s faculties. It is thesubstance on which his life depends. If his property is taken from him, his
The forfeiture statute makes a mockery of justice. Even if a person
is never charged with a crime, or if charged is found innocent, the prosecutoris not bound to return the forfeited property. “The fact that a prosecution
involving seized property terminates without a conviction does not precludeforfeiture proceedings against the property,” New Jersey Statutes Annotated,
2C:64-4. As a result, innocent people have lost their cars, their houses, andtheir savings.
The recent Supreme Court decision about the Michigan couple
whose property -- whose wife lost her car as the result of her husband’s
irresponsible behavior opens the door for government to run amuck.
SENATOR KOSCO: That doesn’t apply in the State of New
MR. FIGUEROA: Justice Kennedy used the analogy of a cruise
SENATOR KOSCO: Excuse me. I’d like you to stick to New
Jersey’s forfeiture laws, not Michigan or California or Chicago.
MR. FIGUEROA: Well, nonetheless, it was a Supreme Court
SENATOR KOSCO: This is New Jersey. That’s all we have
MR. FIGUEROA: It was a United States Supreme Court decision,
which does, in fact, apply to New Jersey, as well.
But anyway, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, let me ask you
this: How can a person get to work without a car? How will they live withouta home? How can they retire without a life savings? Protection from
government power has been taken from us by legal tricksters who seize ourproperty by denying us our rights to a grand jury proceeding and trial by jury,
as guaranteed by Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the New Jersey Constitution.
In the fevered brain of the legal profession, the individual is not on trial, his
property is, and of course, property is not entitled to trial by jury.
The forfeiture statute has led to outrageous abuses. In one case
reported by the Asbury Park Press, August 7, 1992, police and prosecutorsseized $60,000 in property from the home of the parents of a doctor accused
of practicing psychiatry without a license, even after officials told him that hecould go ahead while awaiting the results of his State test.
The police drove a Freehold woman’s car for a year, and after she
spent $1000 to get it back, it cost her another $1000 to repair it.
In other instances, police have seized cash allegedly tainted with
cocaine, though numerous studies have shown that more than 80 percent of
our currency has traces of cocaine. That was a Pittsburgh Press article ofAugust 11 through 16, 1991.
According to the June 22, 1992 New Jersey Law Journal, one
county prosecutor also seized 400 cars during a two-month period in 1991.
The cars were then sold back to the owners at about 50 cents on the dollar.
But what becomes of the millions of dollars of cash and property
seized under this statute? The answer sheds light on one of the most
disturbing facets of this twisted law. The proceeds go to the prosecutor andpolice who assisted in the seizure, thereby providing them with a perverse
incentive to seize even more property. The Attorney General has even boastedthat some of the money is used to train State Police recruits. What kind of
message is sent to young Troopers when their training is paid for with fundsunjustly confiscated?
Sheriffs need to start doing their job as the chief elected peace
officer of the county. And I believe, personally, only after a true conviction has
been made, possibly, that the property that is seized, after a conviction, again,of this individual, could possibly be used for the victim compensation fund.
Of course, law enforcement is not entirely to blame. After all, the
Legislature enacted the bill and the Governor signed it into law. Nonetheless,
if the Legislature wishes to restore to New Jersey justice and respect for the law,the outright repeal of the civil asset forfeiture statute would be an excellent
Under things such as this law, this goes after the small time drug
dealers. They are of no threat to me or to my family, for I can adequately dealwith them myself on a local level. No, if you go higher up the drug ladder and
the organized crime ladder -- dare I say some of the names of individuals
involved in our drug import and other related activity. No, I fear the
megalomaniacs and (indiscernible) who pass and enforce such laws as this.
Lastly, we demand to know, today, before the people of this State,
are we still living under the protections provided by the United States and NewJersey Constitutions and the Bill of Rights, the very documents that were paid
for with blood not far from where we assemble today and which you took asolemn oath before God and man to uphold? Or have our Constitutions been
suspended so that we are living under arbitrary power such as is evidenced bythe forfeiture statute?
I’d like to conclude with, it seems interesting that the framers of
this country would not ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights,
specifically the Second Amendment, were instituted. Anyone who has amisunderstanding about what the militia is about, I would refer them to a
SENATOR KOSCO: We’re not concerned about that.
MR. FIGUEROA: --Judiciary study explaining what the militia is.
SENATOR KOSCO: Just the forfeiture laws we’re interested in
MR. FIGUEROA: And any sheriff that don’t understand their
responsibilities should speak to Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack, ofArizona.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. FIGUEROA: Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. FARLEY: Senator, to take less than one minute of your time,
Number one, we’re obviously our own worse enemies, because
we’re not getting the publicity for all the good things that we’re doing.
Number two, a comment as far as Mr. Moore’s article about the
Attorney General violating her own guidelines, that is absolutely, totallyincorrect, and each of those issues has been addressed in the past, sir.
And number three, I’ll give you a written response to each and
every one of the allegations that were made today, as soon as you want it, sir.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay, thank you.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Director, just a couple of things,
Has the Attorney General’s Office received any additional audit
information from the county prosecutors since the new guidelines wereimplemented?
MR. FARLEY: We’ve received some of the audits already, sir, but
we don’t have -- the audits aren’t compiled, totally.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: All right. And were there any
questionable expenditures identified in these reports, from the counties?
MR. FARLEY: As far as questionable expenditures, per se, I
haven’t looked at that part of it yet, because we wanted to look at it all.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: All right.
MR. FARLEY: What I can tell you is, since the new guidelines and
directives have come into place, we have turned down a number of requests forexpenditures.
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Could you provide the Committee with
copies of reports or the information that you do ascertain?
SENATOR GIRGENTI: Thank you.
SENATOR KOSCO: Okay, thank you very much, Director.
MR. FARLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Growth - Summary The last decade has been an extraordinarily good one for developing countries and their mostly poor citizens. Can this recent performance be sustained into the future, decisively reversing the “great divergence” that split the world into rich and poor countries since the 19th century? In answering this question, optimists would
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 525S. Ewig (Bonn), federführend, K. Dalhoff (Lübeck),J. Lorenz (Lüdenscheid), T. Schaberg (Rotenburg),T. Welte (Magdeburg), H. Wilkens (Homburg)Die initiale antimikrobielle Therapie der nosokomialen Pneu-Die wissenschaftliche Grundlage für Empfehlungen zur in-monie erfolgt kalkuliert anhand einer Zuordnung des Pat