Commentary

Headaches of Road Funding and Courser-Gamrat Scandal Now Blowing In the Wind

GOP House has monkeys off its back

The two stories that most dominated Michigan politics in 2015 were, to a large extent, simultaneously resolved last week. Gov. Rick Snyder and the Republican-controlled Legislature reached agreement on a $1.2 billion road funding package. On the same day the package passed, Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, the lawmakers forced out of the House over allegations they abused their power to cover up a sex scandal, lost their bids to return to office via special elections.

Politically speaking, last week’s events pulled two monkeys off the backs of House Republicans, who unlike Snyder and Senate members will be facing elections in 2016. Whether or not one likes the road funding deal, getting the issue off the agenda is a big win for the House GOP.

Yes, Republican legislators will experience plenty of headaches as they face voters, given the plan’s phased-in gas tax tax increase (from 19 cents to 26.3 cents per gallon) and its roughly 20 percent increase in registration fees. But other aspects of the plan, including the fact that it doesn’t rely solely on the tax and fee increases but also taps existing government revenues, may supply just enough rhetorical aspirin to mitigate the pain.

For House Republicans, the perception that Michigan roads have been deteriorating with next to nothing being done about it was a serious liability. The fact that Michigan’s road funding budget for this year was the third highest in state history — and was achieved with no new taxes or fees — is information of the type that most of the state’s news media remains blissfully ignorant of or prefers to ignore. Unfortunately, that leaves most of the public in the dark as well.

Considering that 2016 is a presidential election year, which usually means Democrats will turnout in high numbers, it is likely House Republicans saw the final road plan as the best deal they could get. Mark these words carefully — “the best deal we could get.” It is probable we’ll hear those words repeated often during next summer’s GOP primary races.

As for Courser and Gamrat, House Republican leaders were most assuredly relieved when neither won their special primary elections. To House Republicans, the specter of either or both being in a position to return to the Legislature would have presented at the very least a distraction, at worst an awkward and uncomfortable conundrum.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

Michigan Gets D-Minus Grade for Forfeited Property Profit Mongering

Report ranks state 44th, despite recent law changes

Even though Michigan took steps this year to restrict civil asset forfeiture and require more disclosure of the practice, an authority in the field says the state has not gone nearly far enough. The just-released second edition of the "Policing for Profit" report by the Institute for Justice gives Michigan a grade of D- and ranks it 44th in the nation for practices it uses under a state-federal forfeiture program.

In Michigan, civil forfeiture laws allow police agencies and sheriffs to keep 100 percent of the proceeds from items their officers seize, one item that contributed to the state's poor grade. According to Michigan State Police records, forfeitures here total $18.8 million worth of property a year on average.

Civil asset forfeiture is getting attention because it does not require a conviction for law enforcement to keep property seized on the suspicion of a crime. The legal obstacles to challenging a forfeiture action are so high that many people just walk away from their property, judging that the cost in fees and time doesn't justify the effort.

Moreover, when a seizure involves a suspected drug crime, the burden of proof is on the property owner to demonstrate that his property was not connected to the crime, making it even more likely that the law enforcement agency will keep what was forfeited.

In October, Michigan passed a law that significantly increases the amount of information on forfeitures that law enforcement agencies must report, and directs the State Police to assemble the data into a statewide report. A second bill raises the burden of proof for civil forfeitures from a preponderance of evidence that property was associated with a crime to clear and convincing evidence that it was.

This last change is far short of what the Institute for Justice considers the gold standard, which is to require an actual conviction before the government can keep the proceeds of property seizures. Short of that, IJ recommends that lawmakers tighten the standard of evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, Michigan still allows local police agencies to pocket forfeiture proceeds under Federal Equitable Sharing, which involves the U.S. Department of Justice in raids. Between 2000 and 2013, Michigan law enforcement agencies collected $127.6 million from such activities. Michigan law enforcement agencies have forfeited at least $270 million since 2001.

Recently, a federal audit of the program found that one Michigan township improperly used some its forfeiture proceeds. Plymouth Township spent the money on activities other than law enforcement, something not allowed under the federal program’s rules.

The federal government tightened the rules of its sharing program, but joint task forces like multicounty drug enforcement teams can still operate under the older standards. The IJ report finds that 97 percent of the equitable sharing proceeds in Michigan involve joint task forces and concludes that the latest federal rules will have little effect in Michigan.

IJ says the federal government’s program also deserves a D-, along with Michigan law. Federal forfeitures have exploded in the past 14 years, soaring from less than $500 million in 2001 to $5 billion in 2014.

“Research has shown that the financial incentives baked into civil forfeiture laws influence law enforcement behavior,” said Dick M. Carpenter II, an IJ research director and one of the authors of the report. “When laws make taking property relatively easy and lucrative for law enforcement, it should be no surprise to see agencies take advantage.”

The Institute of Justice is a public interest law firm that litigates forfeiture cases and promotes reforms nationwide. Only six states received grades of B or better in its report. New Mexico ranked at the top with an A-. Massachusetts and North Dakota were at the bottom of the list. Both received an F.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.