oakland county – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Michigan Supreme Court: Selling A 24,000House(AndKeepingTheProceeds)OverAn24,000 House (And Keeping The Proceeds) Over An 24,000House(AndKeepingTheProceeds)OverAn8.41 Debt Is Unlawful

This seems like the sort of thing a court shouldn’t need to sort out, but here we are. More specifically, here are two plaintiffs suing over Oakland County, Michigan’s forfeiture policy. This isn’t civil asset forfeiture — where property is treated as guilty until proven innocent. This isn’t even criminal asset forfeiture — the seizure of property by the government following a conviction.

But this form of forfeiture can be just as abusive as regular civil asset forfeiture. There’s no criminal act involved — real or conjectured. It’s the result of a civil violation: the nonpayment of property taxes. And Oakland County, the plaintiffs argue, is performing unconstitutional takings to unjustly enrich itself.

It’s not that these sorts of things are uncommon. Tax liens are often put on property when tax payments are delinquent. It’s that one of these seizures — and subsequent auction — was triggered by a delinquent amount that would have required the county to make change from a $10 bill. (via Volokh Conspiracy)

This is from the opening of the state Supreme Court’s decision [PDF], which shows just how much the county government can profit from these forfeitures.

Plaintiff Rafaeli, LLC, owed 8.41inunpaidpropertytaxesfrom2011,whichgrewto8.41 in unpaid property taxes from 2011, which grew to 8.41inunpaidpropertytaxesfrom2011,whichgrewto285.81 after interest, penalties, and fees. Oakland County and its treasurer, Andrew Meisner (collectively, defendants), foreclosed on Rafaeli’s property for the delinquency, sold the property at public auction for $24,500, and retained all the sale proceeds in excess of the taxes, interest, penalties, and fees.

That’s right. It only took 8.41toinitiatetheseproceedings.Evenafteraccountingfortheadditionalfees,thecountyturnedlessthan8.41 to initiate these proceedings. Even after accounting for the additional fees, the county turned less than 8.41toinitiatetheseproceedings.Evenafteraccountingfortheadditionalfees,thecountyturnedlessthan300 in delinquencies into a $24,200 profit.

Rafaeli, LLC isn’t the only plaintiff. Another property owner, Andre Ohanessian, saw 6000intaxes,fines,andfeesturnintoa6000 in taxes, fines, and fees turn into a 6000intaxes,fines,andfeesturnintoa76,000 net gain for the county when it auctioned his property for $82,000 and kept everything above what it was owed.

The lower court said there was nothing wrong with the government keeping thousands of dollars property owners didn’t owe it.

The circuit court granted summary disposition to defendants, finding that defendants did not “take” plaintiffs’ properties because plaintiffs forfeited all interests they held in their properties when they failed to pay the taxes due on the properties. The court determined that property properly forfeited under the GPTA [General Property Tax Act] and in accordance with due process is not a “taking” barred by either the United States or Michigan Constitution. Because the GPTA properly divested plaintiffs of all interests they had in their properties, the court concluded that plaintiffs did not have a property interest in the surplus proceeds generated from the tax-foreclosure sale of their properties.

The appeals court felt the same way about the issue, resulting in this final appeal to the state’s top court. The Michigan Supreme Court says this isn’t proper, going all the way back to English common law that had been adopted by the new nation more than two hundred years ago.

At the same time that it was common for any surplus proceeds to be returned to the former property owner, it was also generally understood that the government could only collect those taxes actually owed and nothing more.

[…]

This Court recognized a similar principle in 1867, stating that “[n]o law of the land authorizes the sale of property for any amount in excess of the tax it is legally called upon to bear.” Indeed, any sale of property for unpaid taxes that was in excess of the taxes owed was often rendered voidable at the option of the landowner. Rather than selling all of a person’s land and risk the sale being voided, officers charged with selling land for unpaid taxes often only sold that portion of the land that was needed to satisfy the tax debt. That is, early in Michigan’s statehood, it was commonly understood that the government could not collect more in taxes than what was owed, nor could it sell more land than necessary to collect unpaid taxes.

That all changed with the General Property Tax Act. The current version of the GPTA unilaterally declares all ownership rights “extinguished” the moment the government begins proceedings against the property, well before the foreclosure sale occurs.

This law — as exercised in these forfeitures and auctions — is unlawful, the Supreme Court says.

We conclude that our state’s common law recognizes a former property owner’s property right to collect the surplus proceeds that are realized from the tax-foreclosure sale of property. Having originated as far back as the Magna Carta, having ingratiated itself into English common law, and having been recognized both early in our state’s jurisprudence and as late as our decision in Dean in 1976, a property owner’s right to collect the surplus proceeds from the tax-foreclosure sale of his or her property has deep roots in Michigan common law. We also recognize this right to be “vested” such that the right is to remain free from unlawful governmental interference.

The government argued that without being able to take everything (even when less is owed), it does not have a stick of sufficient size to wield against delinquent taxpayers. Nonsense, says the state’s top court. The state can still collect what is owed. What it can’t do is take more than that.

We recognize that municipalities rely heavily on their citizens to timely pay real-property taxes so that local governments have a source of revenue for their operating costs. Nothing in this opinion impedes defendants’ right to hold citizens accountable for failing to pay property taxes by taking citizens’ properties in satisfaction of their tax debts. What defendants may not do under the guise of tax collection is seize property valued far in excess of the amount owed in unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and fees and convert that surplus into a public benefit. The purpose of taxation is to assess and collect taxes owed, not appropriate property in excess of what is owed.

If the county wants its eight dollars, it can take its eight dollars. Everything above that still belongs to the original property owner. This should seem obvious, but it isn’t. It took the state’s top court 49 pages to arrive at this conclusion. What seems obvious to citizens is far too often deliberately unclear to government agencies. Legislation is rarely written in plain language. And it’s crafted by people who have a vested interest in ensuring their employer’s financial stability. The end result — years down the road — is the government turning a 285foreclosureintoa285 foreclosure into a 285foreclosureintoa24,000 surplus. The final insult is taxpayers paid for county officials to argue against the taxpayers’ best interests. But, from now on, the government will have to share its takings with the people it’s taking property from.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, debt, michigan, oakland county, punishment, takings

Michigan State Politicians Looking Into Sheriff Department's Use Of A Cell Tower Spoofer

from the 'we-haven't-discussed-it-because-9/11' dept

More news has surfaced of cell tower spoofers being deployed without the public’s knowledge. This time it’s the Oakland County (Michigan) Sheriff’s Department rolling out an upgraded Stingray device from Harris Manufacturing, known as “Hailstorm.” The sad thing here is that the opportunity for public input presented itself pre-rollout but local politicians slept on the issue.

Oakland County commissioners asked no questions last March before unanimously approving a cellphone tracking device so powerful it was used by the military to fight terrorists.

Now, though, some privacy advocates question why one of the safest counties in Michigan needs the super-secretive Hailstorm device that is believed to be able to collect large amounts of cellphone data, including the locations of users, by masquerading as a cell tower.

“I don’t like not knowing what it’s capable of,” said county Commissioner Jim Runestad, R-White Lake Township, who has met in recent weeks with sheriff’s officials about his concerns.

Harris, as it has been noted, heads off criticism and the impertinent questions of the public by tying up law enforcement officials with restrictive non-disclosure agreements. These NDAs have proven handy for some LEOs — particularly in Florida where officials made the case that the restrictions of the contract prevented them from seeking warrants before using the cell tower spoofer.

State politicians are now attempting to have a belated discussion of the technology’s privacy implications, thanks in part to prompting by local journalists. The Michigan House Oversight Committee brought in Christopher Soghoian, policy analyst from the ACLU and former magistrate judge Brian Owsley. (Recording embedded below.)

Soghoian’s concerns aren’t simply about the privacy implications or the secrecy Harris has shrouded its technology in, but also the fact that there’s no way to track misuse of the equipment.

What’s particularly worrisome is there is no telltale sign they’ve been used, Soghoian said: “It doesn’t leave a trace. No one would ever catch you.” That means no one would know if police misused the device or activated it without a warrant, Soghoian said.

Owsley, in his statement to the committee, noted that the first time discussion of this technology occurred in his courtroom, it was presented by law enforcement as something along the lines of a pen register. As Owsley points, all it takes in most cases to get a pen register granted is a pulse. As long as both the magistrate judge and the law enforcement official are technically alive, the pen register will be signed off on.

That law enforcement portrayed cell tower spoofing in this fashion is no surprise, since it gives them the greatest chance of securing permission to deploy it. (The NSA/FBI did the same thing in order to push through its bulk phone metadata program.) Unlike regular pen registers, however, Stingrays/Hailstorms are deployed in cases where law enforcement may not even have a known phone number. Instead, they may be working off a list of numbers potentially tied to the subject of their investigation, or are just waiting for communications to originate from a certain location.

Now that the technology is finally being questioned, representatives of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department are stepping up to defend their acquisition.

Undersheriff Michael McCabe said, “Hailstorm helps us capture fugitives from the law, people wanted for murder and rape” and can be used only with a search warrant. He said the federal Homeland Security Act bars him from discussing Hailstorm, but he elaborated at length about what it doesn’t do.

Interestingly, McCabe cites the Homeland Security Act as prohibiting discussion, rather than the manufacturer’s restrictive NDA. The county also cited “homeland security” terminology in its refusal to release requested documents about the Hailstorm device.

The county denied The News’ Freedom of Information Act request, saying the information is protected by anti-terror laws and includes “investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law enforcement investigative techniques or procedures.”

Law enforcement officials in one of the safest counties in Michigan are conjuring up terrorism as an excuse for deploying a questionable device, as well as to avoid having to answer any tough questions about its capabilities or usage.

Undersheriff McCabe claims the device is used to go after “people wanted for murder and rape,” while simultaneously claiming the DHS won’t allow the department to talk about its non-terrorist-related use. He also claims it’s not used without a warrant, a statement the county itself isn’t allowing anyone to verify. (Among the documents requested were returned warrants on closed cases.) The Sheriff’s Department refuses to discuss the technology (other than to highlight how great it is at catching bad guys) or back up its statements with documentation and somehow expects the public to be just fine with all of this. With state politicians now looking into its Hailstorm usage, the normal combination of obfuscation and bluster likely won’t keep these details secret for much longer.

Filed Under: hailstorm, michigan, mobile phones, oakland county, privacy, spoofing, stingray
Companies: harris manufacturing