The Dennis King government is now considering the development of a civil forfeiture law.
Charlottetown city councillor Mitchell Tweel raised the issue at the December council meeting, saying such a law would put another tool in the hands of law enforcement officers as they combat the growing number of drug dealers in the capital.
P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador are the only jurisdictions in the country where there is no civil forfeiture law on the books. It allows property believed to have been used for, or gained through, criminal activity to be seized. Police in other jurisdictions have been making growing use of the law, mostly related to drug trafficking.
In principle, it is hard to argue against such a measure. The evidence is all around us of the damage that can be done by the abuse – broken homes, rising crime, ruined lives and an increasing rate of death due to overdose. Coun. Tweel claimed there were up to 70 drug houses in the capital – a figure that was disputed by other municipal officials. Whatever the number, nobody denies it is a growing problem.
The capital city will be writing a letter to Attorney General Bloyce Thompson asking for government to begin drafting a law, which Coun. Tweel would like to see presented during the spring session of the legislature. Councillors in Summerside are also endorsing the request.
Thompson has told the media he is prepared to look at the idea but advocates a go-slow approach. That is prudent since a balance must be struck between the collective good and individual property rights. That is because the bar is set much lower in civil court cases when compared to charges laid under the Criminal Code.
That always repeated phrase that guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" only exists in criminal law. For civil matters, the yard stick is what is known as a "balance of probabilities." In other words, if police have reason to believe drugs are being sold at a particular residence but don't have enough evidence to lay a criminal charge, that is good enough for civil action.
That means an apartment could be seized if police suspected a tenant used it to deal drugs. If the police don't have enough evidence to lay a criminal charge, the tenant may be able to walk away while the landlord could lose their property.
Similarly, if a car borrowed from a family member or friend was suspected by police of being used to deal drugs or other criminal activity, it could be seized. Again, the person who police suspect of the criminal activity could walk away if there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction while a third party who may have no knowledge of what the vehicle was used for could pay the price.
These are not hypothetical questions. It doesn't take too much imagination to picture either scenario taking place, and any law placed on the books must ensure those responsible pay the price rather than a third party.
Andy Walker is an Island-based writer and commentator. His column appears regularly in The Guardian and Journal Pioneer.
