New Jersey Law Allows Satisfaction of Forfeiture Judgments After Other Fines and Penalties

New Jersey has some pretty strict laws when it comes to drug offenses. The state allows prosecutors to seize assets connected to alleged drug crimes through civil forfeiture. This lets them take cars, cash, jewelry and other property from people before they are convicted.

But what happens when there’s not enough money from the seized assets to fully pay off the forfeiture judgment? Can prosecutors still go after a defendant’s other assets? Or do they have to wait until after any fines and penalties are paid in the criminal case?

A new law passed in New Jersey aims to provide some protections for defendants in this situation. Let’s take a look at how it works.

Overview of New Jersey Section 2C:35B-16

New Jersey Section 2C:35B-16 is part of the state’s civil forfeiture laws under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act. This section deals specifically with the “Satisfaction of Judgment After Other Fines, etc.”

In a nutshell, it says that prosecutors can’t satisfy a civil judgment from the forfeiture case until after any fines, penalties, restitution or other payments required in the criminal case are paid in full.

Here are some key points about the law:

• It applies when assets are seized and forfeited in connection with alleged violations of New Jersey’s laws against manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances.
• The criminal case can result in fines, penalties, restitution or other payments owed by the defendant.
• If the forfeited assets don’t fully satisfy the civil judgment, prosecutors must wait to collect the balance.
• They have to wait until the defendant has paid all required amounts in the criminal case.

On its face, this seems like a fair and reasonable protection. But as always, the devil is in the details.

How New Jersey Section 2C:35B-16 Works

Let’s look at some examples to understand how this law works in practice.

Imagine the police seize a car worth $20,000 that they say was used to transport illegal drugs. The prosecutors file a civil forfeiture case against the car.

At the same time, the driver is facing criminal charges like possession with intent to distribute. If convicted, he could face fines, penalties and restitution in the criminal case.

Scenario 1 – No criminal fines

If the driver is acquitted on the criminal charges or not required to pay any fines or penalties, the prosecutors can satisfy the $20,000 forfeiture judgment with the seized car.

Scenario 2 – Criminal fines less than forfeiture amount

Say the driver is convicted on the criminal charges. He’s ordered to pay $15,000 in fines and penalties, plus $5,000 in restitution to crime victims.

The prosecutors must wait until the driver has paid the required $20,000 in the criminal case. Then they can seize the car to satisfy the remaining $5,000 still owed on the forfeiture judgment.

Scenario 3 – Criminal fines more than forfeiture amount

If the criminal case results in $25,000 in fines, penalties and restitution, the prosecutors can’t touch the seized car yet. They have to wait until the driver pays the $25,000 owed for the criminal conviction.

Only then could the prosecutors seize the car to put toward the still unsatisfied $5,000 balance left on the forfeiture judgment.

This prevents prosecutors from taking assets needed to pay criminal penalties first. It channels payments towards the criminal case before satisfying civil judgments.

Behind the Reasoning of Section 2C:35B-16

The rationale behind Section 2C:35B-16 involves some core principles of justice.

First, it recognizes that criminal punishments should take priority over civil judgments. Fines, penalties and restitution in a criminal case serve important purposes. They:

• Punish guilty behavior
• Deter future crimes
• Rehabilitate offenders
• Compensate victims

These public policy goals are undermined if prosecutors can seize assets needed to pay criminal penalties.

Second, the law aims to protect due process rights. Prosecutors have powerful tools at their disposal in asset forfeiture cases. People stand to lose their property based on alleged links to criminal activity.

Requiring payment of criminal punishments first helps safeguard defendants’ rights. It makes sure they aren’t left destitute after fighting criminal charges and losing property in an unrelated civil proceeding.

Finally, the law prioritizes victim restitution over forfeiture judgments. This aligns with the overall purpose behind forfeiture laws. Seizing criminal assets aims to undermine financial incentives for illegal activity. Forfeiture helps eliminate profits from crime.

But profits from crime should first go towards restitution for injured parties before paying prosecutors or police budgets. Section 2C:35B-16 codifies this priority.

Potential Issues with New Jersey’s Approach

While Section 2C:35B-16 provides some helpful protections on paper, critics have identified some potential drawbacks and loopholes.

For one, the law only applies to forfeiture judgments related to violations of New Jersey’s drug laws. It doesn’t cover forfeitures connected to other crimes like money laundering or racketeering.

This raises concerns about inconsistent treatment. Why should protections hinge on which particular statutes are alleged in the forfeiture complaint?

Further, the law doesn’t seem to account for joint or federal-state forfeiture proceedings. What happens when local prosecutors team up with federal agencies in a case? It’s unclear if Section 2C:35B-16 overrides federal forfeiture rules.

Opponents also argue the law has limited practical effect. Prosecutors typically pursue forfeiture cases in tandem with criminal charges. They can often delay or avoid entry of judgment in the civil case until after the criminal trial concludes.

This timing circumvents the intent of Section 2C:35B-16. It allows prosecutors first dibs on seized assets before criminal penalties come due.

Defense Strategies Can Leverage Procedural Protections

While Section 2C:35B-16 may not be a panacea, skilled defense lawyers can still leverage its procedural benefits.

Several strategies could strengthen a client’s position in forfeiture litigation:

• File motions to stay the civil case pending resolution of criminal charges. This prevents premature entry of judgment.
• Petition the court to waive or reduce any bond required to contest the forfeiture complaint. Bonds create undue hardships.
• Request an exemption to use seized assets for living expenses and legal fees. This falls under the “substantial hardship” exception in Section 2C:35B-8.
• Argue against seizure of assets essential to pay criminal fines and restitution down the road. Those funds should be protected under Section 2C:35B-16.
• Object to any proposed consent judgment that doesn’t acknowledge the priority of criminal penalties. Refuse to sign off on agreed entries that ignore the statute’s requirements.
• Ask the court to stay collection efforts if prosecutors try enforcing the forfeiture judgment prematurely. Point out this would violate legislative intent.

With thoughtful advocacy, Section 2C:35B-16 can still act as an important safeguard for defendants facing twin civil and criminal cases.

Balancing Government and Individual Interests

Asset forfeiture laws always present a balancing act between law enforcement objectives and individual rights.

On one hand, allowing seizure of property connected to illegal activity serves the public interest. It impairs the financial infrastructure supporting criminal enterprises.

But on the other hand, far-reaching forfeiture powers create risks of overreach and abuse. There are few legal doctrines more susceptible to compromising civil liberties.

New Jersey’s Section 2C:35B-16 attempts to strike a fairer balance. It makes individuals pay their debts to society in the criminal system before satisfying the government’s financial judgments.

This upholds justice while still preserving law enforcement’s ability to dismantle drug trafficking operations. How well it works will depend on vigilant oversight of implementation in the courts.

The legislature’s intent is clear. Now it remains to be seen whether this added protection can curb abuses in practice. The law’s success will hinge on whether prosecutors adapt methods to align with its spirit, not just its letter.