The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncilmember Item - Councilmember Posey - Direct Staff to R APPRO VGb IFS (Pe - N� City of Huntington Beach File #: 19-927 MEETING DATE: 9/3/2019 Submitted by Councilmember Posey - Direct staff to review the City's policies and procedures related to Asset Forfeiture and report back to City Council Direct the City Manager, Police Chief, and City Attorney to review the City's policies and procedures related to Asset Forfeiture and report back to City Council within 90 days on any needed changes to the existing policy; specifically relating to the aforementioned changes that were implemented to the Newport Beach policy. If updates to the policy are required, the City Manager should bring back a Resolution that affirms the revised policy. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/28/2019 powered Leglstar-1 City Council/ /�( 71 C&j AGENDA September 3, 2019 Public Financing Authority Speakers— (11) Supplemental Communications— (30) Approved 7-0 ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING 22. 19-875 Conducted a Public Meeting to allow discussion regarding the adoption of Resolution No. 2019-54 Declaring the City's intention to levy an annual assessment for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 within the Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District Recommended Action: Open the public meeting to allow members of the public to provide comments. Speakers— None Supplemental Communications— (2) Approved 7-0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 23. 19-928 Adopted Resolution No. 2019-62 approving and implementing the Memorandum of Understanding between the Huntington Beach Police Management Association (HBPMA) and the City for January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2020 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2019-62, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving and Implementing the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Huntington Beach Police Management Association (HBPMA) and the City for January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2020." Approved 7-0 COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 24. 19-927 Submitted by Councilmember Posey - Directed staff to review the City's policies and procedures related to Asset Forfeiture and report back to City Council Recommended Action: Request that the Police Chief present information to the City Council at a future Study Session on the City's current policies and procedures related to Asset Forfeiture, and any other relevant information. that weFe implemented to the Newport BeaGh p0liGy. if updates to the PGIiGy are required, the City MaRager should bring baGk a Resolution that affiFmr:, the Fevised PGIiGy. Approved 6-1 (Posey-No) Page 7 of 8 19. "111 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Memb rs From: Mike Posey.. City Council Member Date: August 21. 2019 Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FO HE SEPTEMBER 3, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — ASSET FORFEITURE STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Over the past several years, persons from across the political spectrum have expressed concern about narcotic-related asset forfeiture, whereby cash and/or a person's property can be held and/or taken should that person be charged or convicted with a drug-related crime. One aspect of public concern is whether or not a person was actually convicted of a crime before the seizure takes place. Asset forfeiture in the United States follows (generally) a series of 1990s-era laws that were enacted to combat drug trafficking. Proponents of the law argued that the seizure of assets relating to drug trafficking would reduce trafficking itself, by taking away the rewards (cash, property) associated with profits on drug sales. Law enforcement at multiple levels asserts that vehicles, homes, boats, and other property as well as cash can be directly related to proceeds of a drug sale or used within the sale itself. Others have expressed concern that asset forfeiture can be done overzealously. In some cases, persons not convicted of a crime but found with large amounts of cash can have the cash seized. In other cases, homes, autos, and other property that might relate to a case have been seized even while some persons not associated with a crime are impacted by those seizures — such as a lost house impacting an entire family. Several states have recently reformed asset forfeiture laws. California law has tended to have among the most restrictive laws in the nation, but it did (until January 1, 2017) allow what some considered to be a loophole. In this case, localities or state officials blocked by California law would transfer forfeiture prosecutions to Federal officials (with different Federal standards) and, in return, state and local officials would receive a portion of the forfeiture proceeds from the Federal action (so called `equitable sharing"). The enactment of Senate Bill 443 (Mitchell, 2015) effectively prohibits state or local law enforcement from bypassing State restrictions by referring property seized to a Federal agency. The bill also (generally) now limits equitable sharing money received back from a Federal agency to actions: (a) where a conviction was obtained; (b) that were also consistent with State law; and (c) where the seizure was over $40,000. Under SB 443, any seizure of a home, boat, or vehicle still requires a conviction regardless of value. In 2017, Newport Beach amended its policy related to Civil Asset Forfeiture and Seizure. This policy amendment reaffirmed their commitment to strictly following the law and providing persons with the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment. The Newport Beach Policy clarifies the following: - Defines forfeited assets; - States that takings such as forfeitures must comply with the 51' Amendment; Notes SB 443's passage, and refer to the new law; Deems that Newport Beach cannot accept forfeited assets — without regard to value or type — unless all laws have been followed, - Directs the Newport Beach Police Department to provide persons from whom assets were seized with appropriate documentation to dispute any seizure; and - Clarifies quarterly and annual reporting from the City's narcotics asset forfeiture fund. I would like our City to consider mirroring Newport Beach's policy, as I agree with the concerns that Newport Beach had in enacting it. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the City Manager, Police Chief, and City Attorney to review the City's policies and procedures related to Asset Forfeiture and report back to City Council within 90 days on any needed changes to the existing policy, specifically relating to the aforementioned changes that were implemented to the Newport Beach policy. If updates to the policy are required, the City Manager should bring back a Resolution that affirms the revised policy. xc: Dave Kiff, Interim City Manager Travis Hopkins, Acting Assistant City Manager Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney Rob Handy, Police Chief Switzer, Donna From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:43 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Tuesdays City Council Meeting Sept. 3rd 2019 AGENDA COMMENT From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 10:48 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Tuesdays City Council Meeting Sept. 3rd 2019 I have to say in this time of many problems our community faces and the dire attention that is needed to address these problems. We have the Lunatic Michael Posey introducing Agenda ItemX. 19-910 Asset orfeiture ? Reilly ???? Instructing our staff to spend its time on a issue to take personal prope y ?? Vote NO a direct our resources to address the problems we face as a community . And Michael Poseys Agenda Item 25. 19-932 another push for High Density and using S132 to gain funds for a Homeless Shelter ?. Both of these causes are are greatly opposed by the community, the Shelter and further Development of High Density Development, Please Deny Michael Posey his effort to advance these studies and Vote NO. Please focus on the problems and issues that we as a community face everyday. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. Agenda Item No.: i Switzer, Donna From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 8:58 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Tuesdays City Council Meeting Sept. 3rd 2019 AGENDA COMMENT From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Re: Tuesdays City Council Meeting Sept. 3rd 2019 Correction Agenda item 24. 19-927 Asset Forfeiture that has been ruled unconstitutional, Stop wasting city resources on probles we do not have. On Saturday, August 31, 2019, 10:48:27 AM PDT, larry mcneely <ImwaterCa yahoo.com>wrote: I have to say in this time of many problems our community faces and the dire attention that is needed to address these problems. We have the Lunatic Michael Posey introducing Agenda Item 21. 19-910 Asset Forfeiture ? Reilly ???? Instructing our staff to spend its time on a issue to take personal property?? Vote NO and direct our resources to address the problems we face as a community . And Michael Poseys Agenda Item 25. 19-932 another push for High Density and using SB2 to gain funds for a Homeless Shelter?. Both of these causes are are greatly opposed by the community, the Shelter and further Development of High Density Development. Please Deny Michael Posey his effort to advance these studies and Vote NO. Please focus on the problems and issues that we as a community face everyday. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 2Z..L/2 Agenda Item hie.; v2q l 1 q— 1