Assets Returned Upon Dismissal of Arizona Forfeiture Case
N/AOUTCOME:
Shortly after our client’s arrest in 2011, the State of Arizona seized and restrained many of his assets, including hundreds of thousands of dollars and luxury cars. The State then failed to file a For ... feiture Complaint within the proper time period. We filed a Motion for Return of Property and, just before the Court was about to hear this argument, the State dismissed the case and “reseized” the very same assets. The State’s actions denied our client from arguing for—and likely obtaining—the immediate return of his property because they failed to file a timely complaint. The State seized and continued to restrain the client’s assets for almost two years and took actions to deliberately delay his right to a post-deprivation/post-seizure hearing, as required under Arizona law. At risk were our client’s due process right to a prompt post-deprivation/post-seizure hearing and the continued unlawful restraint of his assets. The State had not only seized his property, but took outright actions to preclude the client’s right to a hearing where the State would have to establish that it had probably cause to keep his assets. Kenneth Ravenell and Milin Chun of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy partnered with two Perkins Coie attorneys in Phoenix, Arizona, Jean-Jacques Cabou and D. Andrew Gaona, to present a compelling case to the court. After almost two years of litigation, the Court found that the State of Arizona violated the client’s due process rights by the combination of violating Arizona forfeiture statutes and its efforts to delay resolution of the case for an unreasonable, excessive period of time. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, which means the State can never attempt to reseize the client’s property. The state was ordered to return over $750,000 to our client, as well as his nine luxury vehicles, including four Mercedes and a BMW.
