Judge gives class action status to victims of Philly LEO asset forfeiture

quote:

---

A federal judge has granted class certification to plaintiffs alleging that Philadelphia's civil asset forfeiture program creates an unconstitutional conflict of interest for law enforcement agencies.

---

quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphiato grant class certification on claims that the forfeiture program violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Although the ruling certified the class, which plaintiffs have characterized as involving more than 20,000 potential plaintiffs, Robreno also narrowed the definition of the class and the type of recovery the class could pursue.

Darpana Sheth of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling was a "vindication" for Philadelphian residents who have had their assets seized.

"It's another victory because now the court's ruling means the four named plaintiffs can officially represent the tens of thousands of property owners with assets that have been seized in the last five years," Sheth said.

A spokesman for the city declined to comment, and a spokesman for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office said they were still reviewing the opinion.

The lawsuit is on behalf of Philadelphia residents whose property had been seized under the city's asset forfeiture program since August 2012, and plaintiffs have alleged that the program has created an annual revenue stream of about $6 million—representing as much as 20 percent of the budget for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, which is a defendant in the case. The plaintiffs contend that the money goes to pay salaries and other expenses, creating an unconstitutional conflict of interest.

---

quote:

---

Back in March, Chris’s son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside of the home. With no previous arrests or a prior record, a court ordered him to attend rehab. But the very day Sourovelis was driving his son to begin treatment, he got a frantic call from his wife. Without any prior notice, police evicted the Sourovelises and seized the house, using a little-known law known as “civil forfeiture.”

Law enforcement barred the family from living in their own home for over a week. The family could only return home if they banned their son from visiting and relinquished some of their constitutional rights. Adding to the cruel irony, their son has already completed rehab, ending his punishment by the city. “If this can happen to me and my family, it can happen to anybody,” Sourovelis said.

Under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their property. Instead, the government can forfeit a property if it’s found to “facilitate” a crime, no matter how tenuous the connection. So rather than sue the owner, in civil forfeiture proceedings, the government sues the property itself, leading to surreal case names like Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 2544 N. Colorado St.

---