Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property, including money, cars, and homes, that they suspect is connected to criminal activity – even if the owner is never charged with or convicted of a crime. This controversial practice is coming under increasing scrutiny.
What is Civil Asset Forfeiture?
Civil asset forfeiture, also called civil judicial forfeiture, allows police to take assets allegedly linked to crime without filing criminal charges against the owner. Law enforcement only needs to suspect the property is somehow tied to criminal activity to seize it under civil law.
Police can then keep the seized assets or cash if the owner does not file a claim to get their property back. Many times the value of the seized assets greatly exceeds the value of the alleged crime. Civil forfeiture cases proceed against the property itself, not the property owner, leading critics to say “the property is guilty until proven innocent.”
Seizing Assets from Innocent Owners
A major criticism of civil forfeiture is that it gives police the power to take property from people never convicted or even charged with wrongdoing. The standard of proof is very low compared to criminal law – law enforcement only needs a “preponderance of evidence” that the assets are linked to crime, a much lower bar than the “beyond reasonable doubt” required for a criminal conviction.
This means people can permanently lose cash, vehicles, homes, and other property without ever being accused of a crime related to the assets. From owners facing minor drug charges to innocent relatives of suspected criminals, civil forfeiture can unfairly impact people caught up in the practice.
Disproportionate Impact on Minorities
Studies find civil forfeiture disproportionately impacts minorities and low-income communities. Higher rates of vehicle stops and searches in minority neighborhoods means higher seizure rates as well. Without the financial means to fight back in court, many low-income individuals simply let the police keep seized property.
Incentivizing “Policing for Profit”
Another major criticism is the perverse profit incentive civil forfeiture creates for law enforcement. In many states, police and prosecutors’ offices keep most or all of the value of seized assets to fund their budgets, sometimes even above their funding needs.
This provides an incentive to over-enforce crimes associated with forfeiture, like minor drug offenses, and heavily patrol minority areas at higher risk for forfeiture. There are concerns police avoid solving more serious crimes not linked to profitable seizures.
Reforming Civil Asset Forfeiture
In response to abuse concerns, some states have passed reforms such as shifting seized assets away from law enforcement budgets, requiring criminal convictions before forfeiture, and increasing burdens of proof. There is also a push for such reforms at the federal level.
Many argue civil asset forfeiture should be abolished entirely, but at minimum better protections are needed to ensure innocent Americans do not lose property without justification. Police and prosecutors must be held accountable when civil forfeiture is used unjustly.
While civil forfeiture is intended to fight organized crime, in practice it can enable questionable searches, unfair targeting of minorities, and policing focused on financial incentives over public safety. Striking the right balance between law enforcement power and individual rights remains an ongoing challenge.
Real-Life Cases of Abuse
There are many real-life examples of civil forfeiture being used to seize significant assets from people never convicted or charged with a crime. Below are some notable cases:
Cristal Starling had $8,040 seized by police when her NYC apartment was raided because officers suspected her boyfriend of dealing drugs. Ms. Starling was never charged with anything and her boyfriend was later acquitted, but her money was never returned.
The owner of a computer repair shop was raided by the police in 2010 and 130 computers seized after police acted on information from an informant that suggested the shop was receiving stolen goods. The charge was later dropped but the confiscated property was never returned.
These cases and many others like them sparked outrage and helped drive efforts to reform civil forfeiture laws. While progress has been made, many innocent citizens still suffer from unjust seizures. It is an issue unlikely to dissipate until civil forfeiture as a funding mechanism for law enforcement is abolished or strictly limited.
Once property has been seized, it can be very difficult to get it back. If this has happened to you, get in touch with us at the following address:
422 Jacksonville Dr. Suite B, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250.
Call us today for a free consultation on (904) 587-4446.
