SJC restricts judiciary’s forfeiture power

Listen to this article

A Superior Court judge could not order the forfeiture of property seized pursuant to a search warrant without following the procedural requirements set forth in G.L.c. 276, §§4 to 8, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.

“This case raises a question of statutory interpretation: whether a judge may issue a forfeiture decree for property seized pursuant to a search warrant under G.L.c. 276, §3, based solely on the judge’s determination forfeiture would be in the ‘public interest,’ or whether the judge must instead follow the procedural requirements set forth in G.L.c. 276, §§4 to 8, before any forfeiture decree may issue,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the SJC.

“The Commonwealth asks us to construe the phrase ‘as the public interest requires’ in §3 as a stand-alone provision unrelated to the ensuing procedural requirements of §§4 to 8. The defendant counters that the Commonwealth and the courts must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of §§4 to 8 before seized property can be lawfully forfeited pursuant to §3,” Georges wrote.

The SJC agreed with the defense, concluding that the Legislature intended the requirements of §4 to 8 “to apply whenever a decree of forfeiture is issued under §3.”

“When the Commonwealth seizes property pursuant to a search warrant, unless another statute governs forfeiture or the property falls under one of the exceptions enumerated in §3, the procedural requirements of the ensuing sections must be complied with before a forfeiture decree may be entered,” Georges wrote.

The 24-page decision is Commonwealth v. James, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-048-24.