People Have Few Protections Against Law Enforcement Civil Asset Forfeiture Practices
Imagine a world where police officers regularly confiscate property from civilians, based only on officers’ accusations of criminal conduct. Imagine that these allegations are never examined by a judge and that charges of criminal conduct are often never even filed.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to imagine anything, because that is the world we live in.
This is the topsy-turvy world of civil seizure and forfeiture – where just the suspicion of criminal conduct by a law enforcement officer is enough for the seizure of property. Just an accusation can be sufficient proof to seize, for example, a car, a house, or a purse containing currency – and for the property’s eventual forfeiture to the government.
The scope of this confiscation has become so large that, in recent years, the value of the property seized just by the federal government outweighs the value of property stolen by burglars.
Protections against seizure and forfeiture are so fragile that they encourage law enforcement officers to treat every roadside encounter like an interaction with a career criminal. The law encourages the investigation, detention, and search of motorists for crimes that have nothing to do with automobile travel. The possession of cash, for instance, serves as sufficient evidence that the cash is related to crime and therefore justifies its confiscation.
Why are police are encouraged to pursue seizure and forfeiture of currency and other valuable goods? Because a big portion of that confiscated property gets funneled into law enforcement budgets. Street-level officers are praised by their commanding officers when they execute cash seizures. Predictably, this practice drives a wedge between law enforcement officers and honest, law-abiding citizens. Some motorists will start viewing officers as predators, while some law enforcement officers will start to see those whom they are sworn to protect and serve as prey.
Where are our public officials who are supposed to look out for justice? They must balance budgets and are constantly on the lookout for new sources of revenue. Law enforcement agencies can lighten their budget burdens by increasing the take from seizure and forfeiture. That makes policymakers resistant to good-government types who call for reforms to seizure and forfeiture – reforms that would squeeze the bottom lines of government budgets.
Additional Reading:
Seizures of Currency from FedEx or UPS Packages | Civil Asset Forfeiture in 60 Seconds | Avoid seizures of cash by taking prudent measures | Will DOJ’s Civil Forfeiture Reform Mean More Accountability? | Feds Expand Forfeiture of Cryptocurrency | This Week’s Civil Forfeiture Outrage (Fourth in a Series) | Forfeiture Funds Fancy Food for Officials | What Judges Look for in Civil Forfeiture Hearings | Asset Forfeiture is Theft: An Overview of the State and Federal Programs | Motion to Set Aside a Declaration of Forfeiture | Pima County Sheriff – Talking With Civil Asset Forfeiture Recipient | After FBI seizure of safe deposit boxes in Beverly Hills, legal challenges mount | Clark Neily Discusses Civil Asset Forfeiture Policy | The U.S. government has a massive, secret stockpile of bitcoin — Here’s what happens to it | Civil Asset Forfeiture – An Update on Recent Events in Wyoming | Inside Civil Asset Forfeiture | MI Prosecutor Quits Over Forfeiture Fund Charges | Alabama Shows How Law Enforcement Can Get Behind Asset Forfeiture Reform | $3 Million Federal Court Settlement: Philadelphia Agrees to End Civil Forfeiture | An Indiana man was caught with $260 of heroin. The state took his $42,000 Land Rover. | Drug Asset Forfeiture Defense Strategies | 18 U.S.C. § 982 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE | FASCISTIC Civil Asset Forfeiture MUST STOP | Texas Case May Spur Drug Money Rule Change
