New Jersey Forfeiture Law: An Overview of Section 2C:64-2

New Jersey’s forfeiture laws allow law enforcement to seize property connected to criminal activity. Section 2C:64-2 specifically covers “forfeiture procedures” and defines “prima facie contraband.” This article provides an overview of this law, including key definitions, procedures, and implications.

Key Definitions in 2C:64-2

Section 2C:64-2 establishes procedures for forfeiture cases. It also defines “prima facie contraband,” an important legal concept:

“Prima facie contraband” means property which, as a matter of law, is contraband irrespective of any proof that the property was used in violation of law. Prima facie contraband shall include but not be limited to all property declared to be contraband under N.J.S.2C:36-2 and all property used or intended for use in furtherance of an unlawful activity, including, but not limited to, conveyances intended to facilitate the perpetration of illegal acts, or buildings or premises when resorted to for the purpose of illegally keeping, selling or using controlled dangerous substances or firearms.

This dense paragraph contains several key points:

• Prima facie contraband refers to property that is considered illegal “as a matter of law,” regardless of other proof. This is contrasted with “derivative contraband” that becomes illegal based on how it gets used.
• Examples of prima facie contraband include property connected to drug crimes under N.J.S.2C:36-2 or firearms offenses.
• Prima facie contraband also covers vehicles, buildings, cash, etc. “intended for use in furtherance of an unlawful activity.” Prosecutors don’t need to prove this connection beyond the property itself.

So in short, prima facie contraband covers property intrinsically illegal or closely tied to illegal acts. The next section describes what happens after seizure.

Forfeiture Procedures Under 2C:64-2

After seizing prima facie contraband, law enforcement follows these steps:

• The seizing agency reports the seizure to the prosecutor within 10 days.
• An assistant prosecutor determines if the seizure complies with state/federal law. If not, the property gets released.
• Otherwise, the prosecutor brings a civil lawsuit (called an “in rem” action) seeking forfeiture of the seized assets.
• The lawsuit must describe the seized property and explain why it qualifies as contraband.
• Anyone with an ownership interest in the property receives legal notice of the lawsuit.
• The property remains held by the state until the case finishes or related criminal case concludes.
• If forfeiture succeeds, the property transfers to the agency funding the prosecutor, minus some costs.

So in essence, prosecutors file a civil suit arguing why seized assets qualify as illegal contraband. They must notify owners, who can challenge forfeiture during the lawsuit.

Implications and Controversies

New Jersey’s asset forfeiture laws raise several concerns. Critics argue the financial incentives and low legal standards encourage questionable seizures.

Police and prosecutors directly profit from forfeitures, creating a conflict of interest. Agencies keep up to 100% of seized assets, funding equipment, salaries, etc. This gives law enforcement a budgetary motive to pursue marginal cases.

The legal bar for seizures is also very low compared to criminal law. Prosecutors only need to show a “preponderance of evidence” linking assets to crime, a much lower standard than “beyond reasonable doubt.” Owners bear the costs and effort of fighting back.

Finally, forfeiture disproportionately harms poor and minority communities. A 2015 ACLU report found black New Jerseyans made up over 15% of forfeiture cases but only 13.5% of the population. The average seizure amount was $1,150, showing financial harm against those who can least afford it.

Reform Efforts

In recent years, New Jersey legislators from both parties have sought to amend asset forfeiture laws:

• A proposed bill in 2020 would have raised the legal standard to “clear and convincing evidence” and restricted how agencies can use seized assets. It did not pass.
• A bill in 2021 tried to shift forfeiture revenue to the state’s general fund instead of law enforcement budgets. It also failed.
• Most recently, a 2022 bill sought to require a criminal conviction before most forfeitures. It remains stuck in committee review.

So far reform attempts have stalled due to lobbying efforts and lack of consensus. But many lawmakers remain committed to amending New Jersey’s forfeiture statutes.

Conclusion

Section 2C:64-2 establishes key procedures for seizing contraband and assets associated with illegal activity. But civil forfeiture remains controversial given profit motives and disproportionate effects on minorities and the poor.

Amending New Jersey’s statutes could help curb abuses while still letting law enforcement disrupt major criminal groups. Additional reform efforts seem likely in coming legislative sessions.

I hope this overview helps explain the context, processes, and controversies around Section 2C:64-2 and forfeitures in general. Let me know if you have any other questions!