County Prosecutor Offices and the New Jersey Attorney General understand that Civil Forfeiture proceedings are a tool at their disposal. Typically, these forfeiture hearings are filed or threatened as a means of inducting guilty pleas out of defendants. However, some Prosecutors have been caught using these Civil Forfeiture laws, under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 et seq., in an unfair manner. Specifically, in State v. Melendez, the Appellate Division in New Jersey ruled that the use of an Answer in a civil forfeiture case against a defendant in their criminal case was fundamentally unfair. While the defendant’s conviction was upheld on appeal, this ruling is a push-back by the judiciary against County Prosecutor’s and the New Jersey Attorney General’s use of Civil Forfeiture against citizens.
In State v. Melendez, the Defendant was charged with multiple criminal offenses stemming from a search warrant executed at the Defendant’s residence. Shortly after the Defendant’s first court appearance, and while the defendant was represented by the Public Defender, the Prosecutor’s Office served the Defendant with a Civil Forfeiture Complaint for $2,900 that was found during the search. The trial court noted that “[t]he State did not serve the defendant’s counsel (his public defender representing him for the criminal matter) a copy of the civil forfeiture complaint. Nor did the complaint or summons advise defendant that any statement he made in connection with the forfeiture action could be used against him in a criminal prosecution, or that if a criminal prosecution was ongoing, he should make his criminal defense attorney aware of the forfeiture complaint before responding to it. Nor did the complaint or summons place defendant on notice of his right to request a stay of the forfeiture complaint pending the outcome of his criminal trial. See N.J.S.A. 2C:64–3(f). Instead, the summons contained the standard language advising defendant that he had to file an answer within thirty-five days or face default.
Shortly after the receipt of the Civil Forfeiture Complaint, the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury. The Defendant then filed an answer to the Civil Forfeiture complaint whereby he claimed ownership of the $2,900 and indicated that this money was the proceeds of a federal government program. The Prosecutor, with the defendant’s “admission” in-hand, then filed for a stay of the civil proceedings, pending the criminal trial. The State then used the admission to the ownership of the $2,900 as proof that the defendant owned the other property in the bedroom that was confiscated in the search warrant as illegal contraband. At trial, the Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that admission of this Civil Forfeiture Answer was a violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
On appeal, the Court analyzed the arguments as to whether or not the State’s actions violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights and if that created. Unfortunately, the Court did not believe that the Civil Forfeiture proceedings created any violation of the Defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights. However, the Court did conclude that the entire chain of events in connection with the forfeiture case violated principles of fundamental fairness and required that the State be precluded from introducing defendant’s forfeiture pleading as evidence against him in the criminal case
The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is commonly interwoven with what most people know as “Miranda Rights” or “Miranda Warnings”. Essentially, the question of whether Miranda applies turns on the potentially inquisitorial nature of police questioning and the inherent psychological pressure on a suspect in custody. In State v. Melendez, although defendant was in custody, he was not subjected to the kind of inherently coercive police interrogation, requiring defendant’s immediate response to questions, that Miranda was intended to address. Additionally, the Defendant had the option to request a Stay of his matter, pending the outcome of his criminal case. Therefore, the Court ruled that this did not amount to a violation of the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.
The Sixth Amendment deal with an individual’s right to counsel in criminal proceedings. Here, the Defendant raised the argument that the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent. Additionally, the New Jersey Supreme Court made clear in Sanchez, that “prosecutors or their representatives should not initiate a conversation with defendants without the consent of defense counsel.” However, here in Melendez, the Court could not conclude that the State intentionally circumvented defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because the State was required to promptly file the forfeiture complaint, and there is no evidence that what occurred here was an intentional attempt to circumvent defendant’s right to counsel, the Court held that there was no violation of the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.
First and foremost, you should advise your attorney about any Civil Forfeiture Complaints you may receive while incarcerated or on Pretrial Release. As you can see, Civil Forfeiture cases can have a direct and negative impact on your pending criminal charges. Depending on the circumstances, you may be well-advised to seek a Stay of your civil forfeiture case while the criminal matter proceeds, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-3(f). For more information, please contact our office.
Proetta & Oliver is a New Jersey Criminal Defense and Civil Forfeiture law firm that defends the accused throughout the State. If you or a loved one where involved in a police investigation and had your property seized including cash, guns, weapons, cars or real estate, please contact our office today. We have experienced handling criminal and civil forfeiture matters throughout the State of New Jersey and we can assist you and your family in any pending matters before the courts. For an immediate consultation with an attorney today, please call 732-339-3897.