Previous Story
TO BEEF UP ANTI-DRUG SCHEME:
Lawmakers asked to consider nuisance abatement statute
CNMI Attorney General Edward Manibusan has commented on a bill to impose a minimum fine of $250,000 on people who possess business licenses and engage in drug-related activity, urging a fine be set that is more consistent with the severity of the offense.
In a letter to House committee on judiciary and governmental operations on Jan. 8, Manibusan said lawmakers should consider whether a nuisance abatement act would be more effective in preventing drug use at businesses.
Manibusan said House Bill 19-120 sets a minimum fine of $250,000 but does not set a maximum fine, which means it could violate an excessive fines clause in the U.S. Constitution that prevents fines that are “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense.”
Manibusan said the minimum fine “almost certainly violates” this clause. “This fine applies to any violation of the Commonwealth Controlled Substances Act by an possessor of a business license, so a business owner who possesses on ounce or less of marijuana—normally a $50 fine…would face an additional fine of $250,000 or more.”
Manibusan said this fine would be, by far, the largest fine assessed in Commonwealth law. “It is five times greater than the fine for owning a slave [$50,000]. It is also equal to the maximum fine for committing most federal felonies.”
He added that because the minimum fine proposed would be greater than $2,000—every drug case brought against the owner of a business would be come a felony, and entitle the defendant to trial by jury.
If lawmakers believe that the current statutory scheme to shut down businesses that allow drug activity is insufficient, Manibusan said, they may consider adopting a “nuisance abatement statute.” Under this, if the government demonstrates that a parcel of land is being used repeatedly for illegal purposes, “the court may fine the owner, order the property vacated, or provide other relief.”
“The main advantage of using a nuisance abatement action is that the government would not need to obtain a criminal conviction to abate the nuisance and would only need to prove that nuisance exists by preponderance of the evidence.”
