Seizing property used for criminal activity can be a useful crime-fighting tool, but it should not disregard basic principles of justice.
The sa国际传媒 Supreme Court says sa国际传媒鈥檚 office of civil forfeiture went too far in seizing a Kelowna woman鈥檚 pickup truck after her partner was charged with impaired driving. The truck was impounded after the man failed a roadside breath-screening test, but the woman, who was a passenger, passed the test.
Supreme Court Justice Douglas Thompson reprimanded the forfeiture office, which was formed to combat serious crime, for using its powers to seize property in minor offences.
The government argued that it had the right to seize the truck because it was used in illegal activity that could cause harm to a person. Thompson said there was no evidence that the truck was likely to cause anyone harm.
In 2012, a man鈥檚 property was seized after a police search discovered marijuana on the property near Nelson. A pensioner who lived in a cabin on the same property had his $9,000 coin collection seized, even though no charges were laid and no connections were made between the pensioner and the marijuana.
In another case, a man鈥檚 home was seized after marijuana was found in it, even though the criminal case was thrown out because the police search was illegal. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the property owner鈥檚 favour.
These and other instances show that the forfeiture office needs to be reined in. It鈥檚 acceptable that property actively used in the commission of a crime be seized 鈥� it helps ensure crime doesn鈥檛 pay 鈥� but the burden of proof should be on the government before property is seized.
Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principles of justice 鈥� it should not be set aside.
