Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance –YES!) has disappointed me at times.
But his latest legislative victory deserves promotion.
Last year, he worked with State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) to shepherd SB 443 through the state legislature.
The state senate near-unanimously supported the legislation.
In the state assembly, it failed.
Only four Republicans voted for it, but the moderate, pro-business Democrats (?) voted against.
Hadley was really crushed about it at the end of the 2015 legislative session.
When I looked over possible reasons why the large majority of California Republican Assemblymembers rejected the measure, I noticed that many of them run on a pro law enforcement platform.
![]("http://www.aclu-wi.org/sites/default/files/GOOD-Cops-Main.jpg")
Many of them covet endorsements from law enforcement agencies too.
Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, police have relied on civil asset forfeiture, in many cases for dubious reasons.
Originally, the idea was to shut down the funding for drug cartels, when proving actual crime proved elusive.
Now, police departments admit openly that they rely on the unconstitutional practice to pad their resource and expense accounts.
As Assemblyman Hadley had announced during a 2015 press conference: "I value our law enforcement too much for them to have to work on commission."
Indeed.
The bill stalled but thankfully did not die.
Fast-forward to today.
SB 443 finally passed out of the state assembly with widespread bipartisan support.
What made it work this time?
Hadley was leading the charge, stressing the limited government and pro-constitutional aspects of the bill. Senator Holly Mitchell actively promotes a "Black Lives Matter" and anti-law enforcement message. That kind of negativity would not encourage Republicans to support SB 443.
A libertarian lean was needed, and Hadley provided for it.
As he had shared with me:
"It is the right thing to do."
The bill that passed was s a modified reform from 2015. With the new bill–soon to become law–the state cannot seize assets up to $40,000 without proving a crime.
Reason Magazine delineated the other added amendments and revisions:
section has been added to allow police to seek seizure without a conviction if
the defendant doesn't show up for court, flees to evade prosecution, or is
deceased.
Some conservatives bellyached, claiming that more wealthy property owners would still get shafted.
I disagree. This reform is monumental.
A freshman Republican Assemblyman smoothed over resistance from colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a compromise which expands individual liberty while limiting the power of the state. He played offense to get this monumental reform through the state legislature, in one of the bluest states in the union.
![]("https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tJHihBKYPjc/Vz_dsVlEMrI/AAAAAAAAC3k/iJ2oO_DhvT0N6UY8RimambVqe-g50WJcgCLcB/s1600/David%2BHadley.jpg")
Hadley reported on the compromise:
reform bill, SB 443, which passed the Assembly 69-7 on Monday. Los Angeles
Senator Holly Mitchell – from across the aisle – is the bill's lead author.
take a suspect's cash and property without obtaining a conviction or even
charging the suspect with a crime.
of serious work. It improves Constitutional protections for Americans while
enabling law enforcement to retain an important tool as they combat drug
trafficking and organized crime.
desk! SB 443 is a good example of how bipartisanship and hard work have yielded
a great result!
approved today by the State Assembly on a 66 to 8 vote. The bill will now
return to the Senate for a concurrence vote.
and Assemblymember David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach), provides individuals with
stronger property rights protections by requiring a conviction in most state
civil asset forfeiture cases. The bill also addresses a problematic financial
incentive that has driven some California law enforcement agencies to bypass
state law in favor of federal law, opening the door to abuses.
Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, criminal justice and drug policy director for the ACLU
of California. “For years, the scales of justice were tipped in favor of
profits and against the fundamental rights of countless Californians who were
unfairly deprived of their life savings and property through civil forfeiture
laws. Today, the Legislature got it right.”