Despite some positive numbers, Rhode Island couldn’t shake its 47th place ranking on the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) in April 2018

Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI), April 2018: The Bottom of the Rising Tide

Despite some positive numbers, Rhode Island couldn’t shake its 47th place ranking on the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) in April 2018, and even slipped on one of the three subfactors of the index. On the Job Outlook Factor, which gauges Rhode Islanders’ optimism about job opportunities, the Ocean State fell five spots, to 22nd in the country. Overall, eight of the 12 data points of the index changed for this iteration.

Employment was up from the first-reported number for March, by 975, while labor force was up 842. RI-based jobs increased, as well, by 1,000. Medicaid enrollment improved from the previously reported number, with a decrease of 907, while SNAP (food stamps) showed no change. (Reporting problems related to the Unified Health Infrastructure Project may be an issue, here.)

Alternative measures of unemployment were also updated. Long-term unemployment (15 weeks or more) fell a little, by 200 people, while significantly fewer people (1,300) say they are involuntarily working only part time. Another 800 Rhode Islanders say they are “marginally attached,” meaning that they would potentially like to work, although the data does not indicate whether this change of attitude represents a move toward or away from job searches.

The first chart at shows RI still in the last position in New England, 47th in the country. Regional leader New Hampshire is still in 2nd place, nationally, behind Wyoming. Maine and Vermont remained in place, at 17th and 21st, respectively. Again, Massachusetts fell one, to 35th, while Connecticut held on to 37th.

The second chart shows the gap between RI and New England and the United States on JOI. In both cases, the Ocean State lost a little ground. The same was true of the official unemployment rate, shown in the third chart.

Results for the three underlying JOI factors were:

  • Job Outlook Factor (optimism that adequate work is available): RI fell five slots to 23rd.
  • Freedom Factor (the level of work against reliance on welfare programs): RI remained 42nd.
  • Prosperity Factor (the financial motivation of income versus taxes): RI remained 47th.
This week’s “Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week” are the so-called Fair Employment Practices legislation; House bill 7427 and Senate bill 2475. The legislation that could impose the most extreme employment burdens on Rhode Island businesses than in any other state in the nation.

Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week: The So-Called Fair Employment Practices Legislation H7427 & S2475.

Once again, legislation is being advanced in the General Assembly based on a progressive-contrived myth; legislation that could impose the most extreme employment burdens on Rhode Island businesses than in any other state in the nation.

This week’s “Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bills of the Week” are the so-called Fair Employment Practices legislation; House bill 7427 and Senate bill 2475.

The Rhode Island business community is comprised not just of good business people, but also generous and fair employers. However, in the progressive land of make believe, Ocean State employers regularly practice discriminatory and bigoted compensatory practices against women and other politically-protected groups.

Progressive lawmakers and activists pretend that a multitude of state and federal protections against wage discrimination, enforced by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), do not already exist.

Currently, Rhode Island law clearly prohibits wage discrimination for “equal work” on “the same operations”. Who can disagree with this? However, the proposed legislation would blur this clear language and change the standard to “comparable work” under “similar working conditions”.

These fuzzy and divisive new regulations would be harmful to businesses, leading to frivolous complaint after frivolous complaint filed by employees against employers. Already with one of the most hostile business climates in America, Rhode Island should not impose more burdens on its valued job-producers.

Without documenting any evidence of systematic discrimination, not covered by existing law, this #Unfair2Employers legislation would set new, highly subjective wage-discrimination standards that are wholly unfair to job-producers. With ridiculous new definitions of acceptable wage determination practices, severe employer penalties will be devised and meted out by unelected government bureaucrats at the Department of Labor and Training.

Supporters of the legislation also pretends this is a “women’s rights” issue, when in fact a whole litany of politically-correct groups, favored by progressive politicians, are included in the new definitions. Existing laws cover these groups as well.

In the real world Rhode Island does not need more job-killing regulation … we simply need more education and better enforcement of existing laws.

 

Seeking to lead the way for civil rights and responsible government, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity published a new report today ahead of a hearing this afternoon on its legislation that would protect citizens against unjust governmental seizure of their private property.

Asset Forfeiture Reform: New Report, Broad Coalition Expected at Hearing today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 15, 2018

Asset Forfeiture Reform: Leading the Way for Civil Rights and Responsible Government

Continuation of Successful 2017 Justice Reinvestment Reforms

Providence, RI — Seeking to lead the way for civil rights and responsible government, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity published a new report today ahead of a hearing this afternoon on its legislation that would protect citizens against unjust governmental seizure of their private property.

The House bill, H7640, will be heard today in Room 101 in the Judiciary Committee. The Senate bill, S2681, was heard last month.

Building off the successful “Justice Reinvestment” reforms that were enacted in by Rhode Island lawmakers in 2017, the state’s asset forfeiture laws should next come under scrutiny, as they can often lead to the unfettered government seizure of cars, cash, and other private property.

“Last year, our Center was proud to join the coalition that saw passage into law of a package of Justice Reinvestment reforms,” commented Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center. “This year, this asset forfeiture legislation is a continuation of that bi-partisan initiative.”

The report features research indicating that low-income and minority communities suffer a disparate impacts from poorly written state forfeiture laws. One such victim in Rhode Island, as fully described in the written testimony by Michael DiLauro, Assistant Public Defender, was Domingo Grullon, who had over $2,000 seized by the government and, despite charges being dropped, was never able to successfully reclaim his cash because of the overly-complex burden placed on innocent property owners. The reform legislation requires a conviction before the government can maintain permanent possession of seized assets. In many cases, “hardships are visited upon those who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law,” wrote DiLauro.

Long-time defenders of private property rights, the Center cited Rhode Island’s D- grade in a recent Institute for Justice report for its weak civil forfeiture laws as a basis for completely re-writing this section of state law.

At the Senate hearing, as has been the case in the many other state where similar legislation has been passed, a broad and bi-partisan coalition came together in support of the recommended reforms. The RI ACLU, the RI Public Defender’s Office, and Occupy Providence, all center or left leaning organizations, joined with the center-right Center and the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights. Additionally, the bi-partisan RI Families Coalition supports the reforms.

Last month, the Center published a one-page overview of the legislation, which includes a statement of need. Building off the successful “Justice Reinvestment” reforms that were enacted in by Rhode Island lawmakers in 2017, the state’s asset forfeiture laws should next come under scrutiny, as they can often lead to the unfettered government seizure of cars, cash, and other private property.

The legislation, co-written by the Center and the Hopkins Center, would reform Rhode Island’s asset forfeiture statutes and would:

  • Raise the bar for when government may seize property in the first place
  • Lower the bar by which innocent citizens can reclaim their property
  • Increase transparency so that public officials and citizens can provide appropriate oversight
  • Enhance administration to increase the credibility of law enforcement
  • Increase budget accountability to remove perverse incentives for seizure
Asset forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property by government today. While many might assume that these laws are directed at criminals, in reality simply being suspected or accused of a crime is sufficient for a state to take your property. Rhode Island is no different.

Asset Forfeiture Reform in Rhode Island

An Opportunity for Rhode Island to Lead the Way for Civil Rights, Responsible Government, and Conscientious Budgeting

by Giovanni D. Cicione, Esq., Chair, Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights

  
OVERVIEW

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on cars, cash, and other private property by government today.  While many policymakers and citizens might assume that these laws are directed at criminals, in reality simply being suspected or accused of a crime is sufficient for a state to take your property.  Rhode Island is no different.

The Attorney General’s description of our state laws provides some sense of perspective and context:

The Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit (NOCU) is “responsible for processing all narcotics, gambling, and racketeering-related asset forfeitures.  Proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets represent an important source of ongoing drug and crime suppression efforts of state and local police.  In 2016, the Unit opened 284 new forfeiture cases and disposed of 277 cases.  In total, the Unit seized $1,682,426 in cash and property and processed $979,700 in total cash and property forfeited.  Under Rhode Island General Law, assets obtained through illegal drug operations are forfeited and distributed among state and local police, the Office of Attorney General, and the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities & Hospitals (BHDDH). As prescribed by statute, 20 percent of seized proceeds shall be provided to the Office of Attorney General to be used for further drug-related investigations and prosecutions, 70 percent is divided among the state and local police departments proportionately based upon their contribution to the investigation, and 10 percent provided to BHDDH to support substance abuse treatment programs.  Last year [2016], $449,206 in “cash” was distributed to the Rhode Island State Police and local police departments, $64,172 to BHDDH, and $128,344 to the Office of Attorney General. Another $283,380 worth of forfeited property was distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies for use or auction.” [i]

While the original good intent of such forfeiture laws cannot be disputed — removing the ill-gotten gains, resources, and instruments of those committing crimes from their reach — the experience of many years has drawn attention to needed reform in the authorizing statutes.  Since 2014, 25 states and the District of Columbia have passed forfeiture reforms. [ii]  Reform for Rhode Island is long overdue.

General Recommendations
  • Improve administration of forfeiture programs in order to increase the credibility of law enforcement as they conduct permitted seizures.
  • Build in transparency around asset forfeiture actions so that elected officials and citizens have the data necessary to provide oversight and improve the processes. This includes keeping track of how much the state seizes, whether the citizens are ever convicted of a crime, and how much money comes in from those seizures.
  • Local governments should not profit from asset forfeiture and should be held accountable if they abuse the process.
  • We should avoid seizures from innocent property owners and co-owners and build in legal protections before the state takes final title to property.
  • Most importantly, we must raise the bar and provide prompt and streamlined legal procedures to protect the property rights of innocent owners.
INTRODUCTION

This paper is intended to provide a detailed analysis of legislation proposed in the 2018 session of the Rhode Island General Assembly that would significantly reform those provisions of Rhode Island law which allow law enforcement agencies to seize money and property from criminal suspects and retain those monies for their own purposes.

Current Rhode Island law lets the state take your property on the basis of no more than suspicion.  If you don’t hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against your own property, you soon lose it.  Worst of all, Rhode Island allows the law enforcement agency that seized your property to keep the majority of it to supplement their own budgets, creating a perverse incentive to violate your due process rights.

By way of example, and as noted in recent Senate Judiciary Committee testimony by Assistant Public Defender Michael A. DeLauro:

A leading Rhode Island Supreme Court decision amply illustrates the need for reform. In State v. Grullon, 783 A.2d 928, 929 (R.I. 2001) the defendant was arrested for and charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of $2183.00 that was to be used in moving his family from New York City to Providence. Immediately after his arrest the state initiated successful forfeiture proceedings. After a jury waived trial in which the defendant was found “not guilty” of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance he sought to undo the forfeiture. In denying the request both the Superior and Supreme Courts relied on technical grounds holding that 1) it was not within the province of the court to do so and 2) the forfeiture did not violate due process and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against the imposition of excessive fines.[iii]

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity is leading a coalition to raise the bar for asset forfeiture and adopt better practices.  As a part of that effort the Hopkins Center has researched model legislation and best practices in the other states that have adopted reforms, including those adopted by our fellow New England State of New Hampshire.

FORFEITURE 101: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

At its most basic level, asset forfeiture is a trade-off between the demands of policing and the civil rights of citizens. [iv]  No one objects to taking weapons from criminals caught in the act, seizing the stolen goods they hold unjustly, or making them pay restitution for the harms inflicted as they absconded with their ill-gotten gains.  At the same time, no one would question the right of innocent owners to be secure in their property.  The idea that the government cannot seize your assets on a whim — that “due process” is required — is a bedrock principle of our constitutional democracy.  Asset forfeiture lives in a grey area between those competing ideals, and from time to time, the pendulum of freedom swings a bit wide.

Pirates, Prohibition, and Scarface: The Birth of a Problem

Chip Mellor gives an excellent summary of the origins of asset forfeiture laws in American law: [v]

American forfeiture law arose from the British Navigation Acts of the mid-17th century. Passed during England’s vast expansion as a maritime power, the Acts required that any ships importing or exporting goods from British ports fly under the British flag. If the Acts were violated, the ships or the cargo could be seized and forfeited to the crown regardless of the guilt or innocence of the owner. The British laws focused on seizing the assets because they could punish violations of the law even when they could not capture the violators. Using the British statutes as a model, the first U.S. Congress passed forfeiture statutes to aid in the collection of customs duties, which provided up to 90 percent of the finances for the federal government during that time.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld early forfeiture statutes. Most important to understanding these early cases is the underlying rationale for permitting civil forfeiture even against innocent property owners. The Court reasoned that civil forfeiture was closely tied to the practical necessities of enforcing admiralty, piracy and customs laws. Such forfeiture permitted courts to obtain jurisdiction over property when it was virtually impossible to obtain jurisdiction over the persons guilty of violating maritime law. Justice Joseph Story wrote that the “vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attachés, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner.” Justice Story justified these forfeitures “from the necessity of the case, as the only adequate means of suppressing the offense or wrong, or insuring an indemnity to the injured party.”

Although asset forfeiture law saw increased use during the Civil War and then again during Prohibition, it wasn’t until the 1980s and the heyday of the war on drugs that forfeiture became such a powerful weapon in the government’s arsenal. The fear of drug lords in mansions with pet tigers and machine guns ran rampant, and as with many erosions of civil rights, fear led to calls for more authority and more discretion to be placed in the hands of law enforcement.  And as with most such erosions, time has tended to demonstrate that, once in hand, the government will take such power and discretion to its limit.

RHODE ISLAND STATUTES: A FAILING GRADE FOR JUSTICE

The data in Rhode Island demonstrates that maxim fairly clearly.  According to the Institute for Justice, which produces a state-by-state report card on the topic, “Rhode Island has awful civil forfeiture laws.” [vi]  That blunt assessment and the D- grade award our state is reflective of at least three important factors in the existing law:

  1. Law enforcement need only show probable cause to seize property, but for property to be returned in Rhode Island, it is up to owners to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their property is not forfeitable. (“Guilty until proven innocent,” as it were.)
  2. Innocent owners making claims also bear the burden of proving that they had no involvement in the illegal use of their property in order to recover it.
  3. Rhode Island law enforcement agencies retain 90% of all forfeiture proceeds, a generous incentive to aggressively wield their forfeiture powers.[vii]

Social Injustice

Another unfortunate feature of asset forfeiture schemes generally is that they have disparate impacts with regard to race and income.  Using data collected by Lucy Parsons Labs, a Chicago non-profit that focuses on police accountability, the Reason Foundation mapped the addresses where asset seizures took place in Cook County, Illinois.  The results were not surprising.

“This data shows what we already know, that the seizures tried by CCSAO overwhelming steal the possessions of poor people,” Lucy Parsons Labs said in a statement to Reason. “The data shows that the seizures are clumped in the South and West side, overwhelmingly African-American neighborhoods.”[viii]  (Emphasis added.)

Law enforcement agencies in Rhode Island are required to report their forfeitures to the state treasurer and attorney general, who then aggregate the data and provide annual reports to the legislature.  Disappointingly, these reports are not available online.  Law enforcement agencies reportedly seized more than $8.3 million through asset forfeiture proceedings between 2009 and 2014, averaging almost $1.4 million per calendar year.

The current asset forfeiture structure in Rhode Island not only demeans the law and our judicial system, it demeans the profession for all of law enforcement.  Our laws are bad for good cops.

A SOLUTION: THE ASSET FORFEITURE PROCESS AND PROPERTY RIGHT PRESERVATION ACT

The reform act now pending before the Rhode island General Assembly was drafted with three key goals in mind:

  1. Add well-defined structure to the administration of forfeiture programs in order to increase the credibility of law enforcement as it undertakes permitted seizures
  2. Avoid seizures from innocent property owners and remove financial incentives that would encourage overreach in this area
  3. Make the seizure process transparent so that elected officials and citizens have the data necessary to provide oversight and improve
    the processes
Key Provisions

Restore Revenue Oversight to the General Assembly

Current Rhode Island law has none of the 10 national best practices for accounting for forfeiture fund spending. [ix]  This means that we have the lowest possible rating for accountability for spending of seized funds.  While many states are adding oversight requirements for local departments, horror stories of uncontrolled spending abound.  The Institute for Justice compiled a list of the six “craziest” expenditures that can be viewed on YouTube[x] but bear summarizing here:

#6  Steak, booze, and CeeLo Green tickets

#5    Tequila, rum, kegs of beer, and a margarita machine

#4  A six-day law conference (junket) in Hawaii

#3  A $90,000 Dodge Viper

#2  A $35,000 inmate-built “party house”

#1  $40,000 for drugs and prostitutes

Revenue from seizures is in part paid directly to the local law enforcement agencies conducting the seizures.  While reasonable as a means of rewarding good policing, this system also carries the risk of creating a financial incentive to abuse the process.  The reform act would direct all funds seized under state law to the general treasury, eliminating one of the last vestiges of what is generally referred to as a “restricted receipt” account system, consistent with broad state reform efforts undertaken on this front in the past.  Essentially, the move away from restricted receipt accounts returns budgeting authority to the General Assembly, rather than creating slush funds with little or no accountability.

These off-budget accounts lead to waste in the worst cases, but even in the best cases, they end-run the authority of the legislature and leave the spending decisions to the whims of local agencies.  A more-conscientious approach not only retains the checks and balances of legislative oversight of budgeting, but also helps avoid the egregious and embarrassing expenditures that so often make the news and demean the reputations of law enforcement agencies everywhere.

Protect Innocent Property Owners

Under the current system, innocent Rhode Islanders must live in fear of losing their cars or their homes because little Johnny was caught selling pot to his friends in the family minivan or his bedroom.  Reforming the financial incentives as noted above reduces the risk of such overreach by law enforcement and leaves the spending discretion that our forfeiture program provides squarely in the hands of the legislature.

This shift in incentives, coupled with procedural protections omitted from early asset forfeiture laws, creates a strong set of defenses for innocent property owners.  The legal process is spelled out clearly, deadlines and timing are addressed in detail, and innocent owners promptly get to make their cases to the court.

The model case for why these rights need to be enshrined in law is that of Anthonia Nwaorie.  As recently reported by the Washington Post, Ms. Nwaorie, a 59-year-old registered nurse, was traveling to Nigeria to open a medical clinic and had $41,000 in cash she had saved for that purpose seized for no reason other the fact that she was carrying a large amount of cash.  Six months later she has yet to get it back, in part because law enforcement demanded that she first sign a legal release protecting them from lawsuits. [xi]

Data Collection and Transparency

The reform act is not intended to weaken this valuable law enforcement tool.  In order to ensure that it is being used properly and judiciously and to further allow the legislature to monitor its effects and reach over the years to come, the act provides detailed data collection and reporting guidelines.

These data points will allow us to compare Rhode Island to other states that are collecting similar data and to assure ourselves that these tools are being used, but not abused.  Transparency, particularly in the realm of law enforcement, is vital toward establishing trust in government and a feeling withing communities that all are being treated fairly.  The law should be blind, but the legislature should not. [xii]

Outline

An outline and brief description of each substantive sections of the model legislation is provided in Appendix A.

CONCLUSION

The criminal justice system today looks little like that of its predecessors in the common law or even the system created at the time of the birth of our country.  It is larger, more expansive, more expensive, and covers more conduct and more citizens than ever before.

But that does not mean that the fundamental aspects of criminal justice that serve to ensure a fair and just system for all citizens should be ignored.  In fact, quite the opposite.  A robust criminal justice system demands robust protections for innocent citizens, to ensure they are not unfairly caught up in the system.

Asset forfeiture reform would prevent unjust seizures from innocent citizens. It would protect citizens from overzealous law enforcement action and provide peace of mind for those taking part in wholly innocent and blameless — even admirable — behavior.  It would empower the legislature by restoring its right and proper budgetary authority over seized funds.  It would also make great strides toward building in protections for law enforcement that ensure their reputations, their professionalism, and their community support remain as solid as possible.

APPENDIX A: SECTION OUTLINE OF MODEL LEGISLATION

This outline is intended to serve as a handy guide to the substantive sections of the legislation and is not comprehensive or a complete list of provisions.

Section I

Chapter 1:  Title.

Chapter 2:  Definitions.

Chapter 3:  Purpose.

Chapter 4:  Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture.

Chapter 5:  Exemption for cars of modest value.

Chapter 6:  Conviction and proof to a defined legal standard are required for seizure and forfeiture of assets.

Chapter 7:  Substitution of assets of the accused criminal trying to avoid forfeiture is allowed if the assets that would otherwise be subject are out of reach.

Chapter 8:  These laws provide the exclusive process for forfeiture in Rhode Island.

Chapter 9:  There is no joint and several liability in forfeiture that would allow a third party to have property seized.

Chapter 10: Seizure must generally be by court order.

Chapter 11: If the police are concerned about losing access to the property that should be seized, they can do so without a court order so as to avoid removal or destruction of the property by the suspect.

Chapter 12: Seizer of real property (a house) must be done by court order.

Chapter 13: Record keeping requirements are outlined.

Chapter 14: Government can’t force an innocent property owner to give up due process rights in order to get property back.

Chapter 15: The property owner can secure a bond or substitute property of equal value to get seized property back while waiting for trial.  This is particularly important for innocent owners who have business assets seized and would otherwise be prevented from earning a living.

Chapter 16: Provides a pre-trial hearing process in order to determine that a seizure was done legally.

Chapter 17: Details rules for discovery and trial procedure.

Chapter 18: Outlines trial procedure and requires the state to promptly give its reasons and justifications for seizure and forfeiture and provides clear proced-ural steps for the government to follow in order to complete the forfeiture.

Chapter 19: Allows a property owner to argue that the value of a seizure is disproportionate to the crime of which he or she was accused.

Chapter 20: Protects banks and other secured parties to the extent of their interests in seized property (for example, mortgages and car loans.)

Chapter 21: Protects innocent owners.

Chapter 22: Outlines appeal procedures.

Chapter 23: Describes the process for disposition of proceeds from forfeitures,
including restitution of victims, costs of police investigations, and the costs of the prosecution.

Chapter 24: Provides limits on retention or sale of property by law enforcement agencies.

Chapter 25: Places requirements for the prompt and complete return of the property of innocent owners.

Chapter 26: Limits the ability of law enforcement to end-run state due process protections by turning over seized property to the federal government.

Chapter 27: Allows innocent owners the right to recover attorney’s fees spent in fighting to get property back.

Chapter 28: Creates a process for returning the property of otherwise innocent owners who have been deported, and a process for abandonment of that property if no interested party can be identified.

Chapter 29: Creates penalties for violations of these laws.

Chapter 30: Makes clear that these laws preempt and local laws, rules, procedures, or practices.

Chapter 31: Severability of any provision found invalid.

Section II

Strikes the existing laws relating to asset forfeiture in Rhode Island, which have been replaced by the laws in Section I.

Section III

Provides that the legislation would take effect upon passage.


[i] Office of the Attorney General. 2016 Annual Report. Available at: www.riag.ri.gov/documents/2016AnnualReport.pdf (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[ii] Institute for Justice. “Civil Forfeiture Reforms on the State Level.” Available at: ij.org/activism/legislation/civil-forfeiture-legislative-highlights (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[iii] DeLauro, “Michael A. Written Testimony of Michael A DeLauro, Assistant Public Defender, Director of Training and Legislative Liaison, addressed to Senator Erin Lynch Prate, Chairwoman, Senate Judiciary Committee.” April 26, 2018.

[iv] This summary draws heavily from the “Policing for Profit” report published by the Institute for Justice, authored by Dick M. Carpenter II, Ph.D., Lisa Knepper, Angela C. Erickson and Jennifer McDonald, with contributions from Wesley Hottot and Keith Diggs. Available at: http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[v] Mellor, Chip. “Civil Forfeiture Laws and the Continued Assault on Private Property.” Forbes. June 8, 2011. Available at: www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html (Accessed: 5/14/18.)

[vi] Institute for Justice. “Rhode Island earns a D- for its civil forfeiture laws.” Available at: ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-Rhode-Island (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ciaramella, C.J. “Poor Neighborhoods Hit Hardest by Asset Forfeiture in Chicago, Data Shows.” June 13, 2017 Available at: reason.com/blog/2017/06/13/poor-neighborhoods-hit-hardest-by-asset (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[ix] Erickson, Angela C., Jennifer McDonald and Mindy Menjou. “Forfeiture Transparency & Accountability: Rhode Island Report Card.” Available at: ij.org/report/forfeiture-transparency-accountability/?state=US-RI (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[x] Institute for Justice. “The Top 6 Craziest Things Cops Spent Forfeiture Money On.” YouTube. January 31, 2014. Available at: www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=n2iJ7UBODw8 (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[xi] Flynn, Meaghan. “She saved thousands to open a medical clinic in Nigeria. U.S. Customs took all of it at the airport.” Washington Post. May 9, 2018. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/09/she-saved-thousands-to-open-a-medical-clinic-in-nigeria-u-s-customs-took-all-of-it-at-the-airport/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55b319966e78 (Accessed 5/14/18.)

[xii] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896): “In view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.”

Rhode Island lawmakers - female and male - experienced first-hand the safety and fun of natural hair braiding at a cultural exhibition yesterday at the State House.

Center Commends Senators Who Enjoyed a Safe State House Hair Braid

Lawmakers Experience the Safe Practice of Natural Hair Braiding

RI Freedom Braiders Hold Successful Art Exhibit and Braiding Demonstration at Statehouse

Support Hair Braider Freedom

Click here to email your state Rep & Senator that you support “hair braider freedom.”

Providence, RI — Rhode Island lawmakers – female and male – experienced first-hand the safety and fun of natural hair braiding at a cultural exhibition yesterday at the State House.

Senators Jabour, Morgan, Felag, Euer, and Conley, among other lawmakers, had stylish braids safely woven with their own hair.

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity believes women who practice this art form should have the #RightToEarn a living without permission from the government to work.

After many states have acted in recent years to remove licensing burdens for natural hair braiding, Rhode Island remains among a minority of states that still maintain such onerous laws.

House bill H7565 and Senate Bill S2323, which were heard earlier this year in the House Corporations and Senate Commerce committees, respectively, would exempt natural hair braiders from the requirement to be licensed as hairdressers or cosmeticians, while also defining the safe practice of natural hair braiding.

In 2017, similar legislation unanimously passed the House, but was not taken up in the Senate.

“There are no chemicals or sharp tools involved in this twisting of hair art form,” commented Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center, who had an extension twisted into his own hair. “Without any evidence of actual consumer harm, this licensing burden is prohibitive to many people who would prefer to start new careers and earn paychecks instead of receiving welfare checks.”

In a major report by the Center – The RIght to Earn a Living – issued in January, Rhode Island was cited as ranking as one of the 10 most onerously burdened states when it comes to occupational licensing. Additionally our state already suffers from bottom 10 rankings on the Family Prosperity Index (FPI), overall business climate, and on Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI).

We are pleased to join with dozens of our fellow think tank partners in support of keeping automobile prices low. California adopted statewide motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission rules in September 2004 to impose very strict limits on the emissions. We are calling on the EPA to revoke their special privileges.

Center Co-Signs National Coalition Letter to the EPA to Revoke the “California Waiver”

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity is pleased to join with dozens of our fellow think tank partners in support of keeping automobile prices low. California adopted statewide motor vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rules in September 2004 to impose very strict limits on the emission of CO2 from automobile tailpipes.  While the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) generally preempts states from adopting their own motor vehicle emission regulations, CAA Section 209(b) allows the state to petition for a California waiver from that prohibition.  If EPA grants such a waiver to California, other states may then adopt (without amendment, by legislation or executive order) the California regulatory regime.

In December 2005, California requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption for its GHG regulations for automobiles.  In April, 2007, the United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, empowered EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.  As a result, the California waiver request came under active consideration at EPA.  The request was denied in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration.  However, in January 2009, the California Air Resources Board requested that EPA reconsider its denial.  In July 2009, the Obama administration granted California’s waiver request, clearing the way for California to implement its motor vehicle GHG regulations – and for other states to follow suit.

Currently, 13 States – Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s stricter automobile emissions standards.  In addition, nine – CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, and VT – have adopted California’s “zero emission vehicle” (ZEV) mandate.

Just because it conforms with politically-correct hysteria, does not make it good public policy. Case in point, the poorly-thought-out proposed cigarette tax.

Politically-Correct Cigarette Tax Named “Bad Bill of the Week”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 8, 2018

Politically-Correct Cigarette Tax Denies Reality of Unintended Consequences

Would impose further financial burdens on low-income families, while harming retailers and fueling an under-ground economy

Providence, RI– Just because it conforms with politically-correct hysteria, does not make it good public policy. Case in point, the poorly-thought-out proposed cigarette tax.

The legislation, which would again raise state taxes on cigarettes (to $4.50/pack), as proposed in Article-4 of the Governor’s proposed 2019 budget, has been named the Progressive Land of Make Believe Bad Bill of the Week by the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, which has long advocated for lower overall sales and excise taxes.

The Center’s full post, which includes a video commentary, points-out many real-life drawbacks to the tax-hike, including:

  • the “regressive” nature of the tax, which will disproportionately harm low-income families
  • the loss of retail and convenience store sales to other states and to the underground economy, costing jobs and tax revenues to our state
  • the history of uncertain state revenue receipts from the higher tax

“Understandably, many people have strong beliefs about tobacco related products. But pretending that there are no unintended consequences to this anti-personal-choice and anti-commerce legislation, the progressive-left is committed to limiting or denying the right for consumers to buy ‘legal’ products, despite negative economic impacts and potential harm-reduction benefits,” said Mike Stenhouse, the Center’s CEO, who recently penned a Providence Journal oped on the topic. “General Assembly lawmakers still have time to put some real thought into this.”

The post also points-out that other proposed taxes on vaping products would provide a disincentive for a 95% less-harmful lifestyle for smokers seeking to quit the habit.

Other Bad Bills: An interactive table of other progressive bad bill candidates, as well as posts and video commentary on previously tabbed “progressive bad bills of the week” can be found at RIFreedom.org/Bills.

Our state government, always looking for schemes to grab money from our pockets, has recently also become subservient to political correctness. This year, the hysteria to punish everything tobacco-industry related, shows how the progressive world of make believe can wreak havoc on RI’s economy with a new cigarette tax.

Article 4, Cigarette Tax and the Make Believe World of Political Correctness

Our state government, always looking for schemes to grab money from our pockets, has recently also become subservient to political correctness. This year, the hysteria to punish everything tobacco-industry related, shows how the progressive world of make believe can  wreak havoc on Rhode Island’s economy. Article 4 of the Governor’s proposed fiscal-year 2019 budget calls for yet another excise tobacco tax increase on cigarettes, to $4.50 per pack; a 534% increase since 2001, while pretending that there will be no adverse impact on low-income families or our state’s economy.

In the progressive-left fantasy world, all tobacco and vaping products would be abolished. But the reality is that tobacco products are legal, and tobacco users will continue to purchase related products at the lowest prices they can find.

Progressives pretend that poor Rhode Islanders would not disproportionately bear the burden of this regressive tobacco tax. In fact, low-income individuals use tobacco more often and spend more of their incomes on such products. This means less money for more-healthy items such as groceries, home heating, and other household goods.

Anti-tobacco fanatics also pretend that taxes on cigarettes are NOT a driving factor in determining retail store patronage, where smokers will also buy gasoline and other convenience items. It’s true, that to avoid high cigarette taxes, smokers will simply drive a few miles across state-lines and spend their money elsewhere. Many small business retailers, with almost one-third of their revenue derived from tobacco-related products, could be severely harmed.

Further, in their land of make believe, progressives fail to recognize the unintended consequence that high tobacco tax will also fuel an underground market of illegally smuggled and sold products. This real-life underground economy not only reduces state tax receipts, but leads to more illegal activity … with all of the associated costs of increased prosecutions and incarcerations.

Progressives also pretend that proven economic principles will not come into play; that the loss of disposable income, the retail sales losses, and the increased criminal justice costs would NOT further weaken our already fragile state economy.

They also pretend this added tax will give them more money to spend in the state’s budget. However, in the real world, the law of diminishing returns means that higher revenues from higher cigarette taxes are uncertain and unlikely. The total state intake from its 2005 cigarette tax of $2.46 per pack is virtually identical to its 2017 intake at $3.75 per pack, around $137 million per year. In reality, receipts actually decreased when the tax was raised, in many years.

Other related legislation this year is similarly based on make believe assumptions. Plans to increase taxes on vaping products, which are up to 95% less harmful than cigarettes for those who switch will not improve public health. Real-world research shows that high vaping taxes would disincentive use of “harm reduction” products that could dramatically improve societal health and decrease medical costs, including state Medicaid spending.

Dozens of such politically-correct inspired tax and regulatory policies, based on fantasy assumptions, have resulted in bottom 10 national rankings for our state when it comes to overall business climate, family prosperity, and population growth. Rankings that mean real Rhode Islanders are not realizing their potential. But the politically correct left cares to pretend such harms do not exist. Instead, they dismissively and exclusively care only about their own pretend agenda, while looking to punish anyone they don’t approve of.

It is our hope that state lawmakers, who still have time to think about the actual harm that higher tobacco and vaping taxes would cause, will make reality-based decisions later this spring. The real benefits of not increasing these taxes include; no new burdens imposed on the poor; the jobs and economic advantages of keeping RI retailers more competitive; the reduced criminal justice costs; a budget that does not rely on uncertain receipts; a society with fewer health problems; and the increased overall competitiveness of our state.

We do not live in a fantasy world. And the consequences of limiting or taxing free-choice … because some think they think they know better … mean that many others in the real world will be made to suffer.

This year, let’s stop making these same pretend and emotionally driven mistakes. When it comes to pretend thinking that it is a good thing to increase taxes on politically incorrect products, let’s put some reality-based thought into it for once.

Rhode Island’s ranking on the Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) held at 47th for March 2018, but one of the three subfactors of the index worsened. On the Freedom Factor, which measures employment and jobs against welfare enrollment, Rhode Island fell one spot to 42nd in the country.

Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI), March 2018: A Slip in the Freedom Factor

Rhode Island’s ranking on the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Jobs & Opportunity Index (JOI) held at 47th for March 2018, but one of the three subfactors of the index worsened. On the Freedom Factor, which measures employment and jobs against welfare enrollment, Rhode Island fell one spot to 42nd in the country. Six of the 12 datapoints of the index changed for this iteration.

Employment was up from the first-reported number for February, by 737, while labor force was up 677. RI-based jobs, however, decreased by 600. Medicaid enrollment improved a little from the previously reported number, with a decrease of 103, but SNAP (food stamps) more than made up for the difference, jumping about 2%, or 3,300 enrollees, perhaps for reasons having to do with the state’s problematic Unified Health Infrastructure Project (UHIP).

Meanwhile, federal taxation in Rhode Island was up some $310 million, or 2%.

The first chart shows Rhode Island still in the last position in New England, 47th in the country. Regional leader New Hampshire is still in 2nd place, nationally, behind Wyoming. Maine improved one spot, to 18th, while Vermont slipped one, to 21st. Massachusetts also fell one, to 34th, while Connecticut jumped six places forward, to 37th, leaving RI alone as a New England state in the bottom 10, nationally. (CT’s story may not be a good one; almost every datapoint was negative, except gross federal income taxes, which dropped 8.5%.)

The second chart shows the gap between RI and New England and the United States on JOI. In both cases, the Ocean State lost a little ground. On the official unemployment rate, RI saw the opposite trend, closing the gaps modestly.

Results for the three underlying JOI factors were:

  • Job Outlook Factor (optimism that adequate work is available): RI held on to 18th.
  • Freedom Factor (the level of work against reliance on welfare programs): RI dropped to 42nd.
  • Prosperity Factor (the financial motivation of income versus taxes): RI remained 47th.
\

RhodeMapRI is back! Once again the social equity extremists are trying to prohibit the free-choice and rights of property owners to make business decisions that are in their own best interests. This time with bills H7528 & S2301 the so-called Fair Housing Practices act.

Progressive BAD BILLS of the Week: H7528 / S2301 So-called Fair Housing Practices

RhodeMapRI is Back!

Once again the social equity extremists are back, those who believe that their views of society should prohibit the free-choice and rights of property owners to make business decisions that are in their own best interests. Once again, RhodeMap Rhode Island and HUD (the federal department of Housing and Urban Development), and its local surrogate, the RI Housing authority, are at it again.

Co-sponsored by multiple progressives House bill #7258 and Senate bill #2301, these so-called Fair Housing Practices which mirrors leftist-inspired legislation introduced in other states, have already been heard in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees this year. The legislation claims it seeks to end discriminatory housing practices by certain landlords. In the progressives’ social-equity land of make believe, any Section-8 lessee applicant (those whose rents are subsidized by the federal government) who are not accepted as a tenant, must have been discriminated against.

According to their progressive fantasyland logic, since people receiving Section-8 vouchers are typically low-income; and because many low-income individuals and families are minorities, then saying ‘no’ to a Section-8 applicant must be because of racism, and therefore must be discriminatory. The actual effect of this legislation, which seeks to extend government control into even more aspects of our personal and business lives, would be to subject landlords to lawsuits or other penalties by automatically assuming that discrimination was the motivating factor.

According to federal guidelines, acceptance of Section-8 vouchers are supposed be voluntary. Yet these Fair Housing Practices would impose a defacto state mandate on landlords to accept any Section-8 application they receive. Even if the landlord makes a legitimate and nondiscriminatory business decision otherwise, they would be at legal risk of being prosecuted for discriminatory actions … or, for being a racist.

We can all agree that any such genuine discrimination is wrong, but there already exists multiple state and federal laws that protect against discrimination. Additionally, there are multiple other reasons for making alternative business decisions.

This legislation is a back-door RhodeMap RI type scheme to advance a social equity agenda that will only tear at the fabric of our society … by making innocent private property owners appear to be bigots.

Based on conversations with landlords and with home and facility based child-care business owners I know, there is a major, legitimate, and non-racial reason why some business prefer not to accept clients subsidized by public money and all the red-tape they would have to go through. In this case, once a landlord accepts a federally subsidized Section-8 tenant, that business is now subject to a whole new array of mandates, red tape, and risks that otherwise, it would not have to worry about.

Under this legislative mandate, landlords would be subject to unfair rules by HUD, which we know from the RhodeMap RI debate years ago, does not care about private property rights. HUD has corrupted its mission of putting low-income people into appropriate housing to the point where it routinely tramples on the rights of other private property owners.

Landlords would be forced to endure annual state inspections, they otherwise would not be subject to, and could even be at potential criminal risk if they did not appropriately “police” their own tenants and report to the state any potential violations Section-8 eligibility guidelines.

This legislation, avidly supported by Rhode Island Housing is a clear extension of the HUD and RhodeMap RI anti property-owner agenda.

Consider that this legislation automatically presumes that our neighborhood brothers and sisters are guilty of discrimination. Our Center recently hosted a luncheon where the nationally acclaimed Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, spoke of the “solidarity of brotherhood”, where we should work together to help “start up” the lives of those in our community. But how can it possibly be “solidarity” to automatically and divisively claim that legitimate business decisions by business owners in our community are based on bigotry?

Private business owners should be free to make the business decisions that they feel are best for them. Just because some on the progressive-left see inequities in every aspect of our society, does not mean that government should be stepping-in to tell people how to run their businesses.

Already suffering from one of the most hostile business and legal climates in the country, and with a known affordable housing shortage, Rhode Island would become an even more dangerous place to operate as a landlord. Small ‘rental property’ business owners could be forced to spend money unnecessarily to become lawyered-up like a major corporation if they were to be sued … an expense and time most cannot possibly afford. In other states where similar legislation has already been enacted, property owners are indeed being sued, and they are routinely losing in court battles, even though they may have committed no wrong.

Our state would suffer greatly if this unintended consequences of this legislation might drive some landlords out of business, or out of state, and lead to fewer available housing units.

Once again, we ask lawmakers to consider the real-world impacts of such presumptive and intrusive legislation, and to understand that the left’s land of make believe scenario.