Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Holy Civil Asset Forfeiture, Batman!
Recently, I attended a blogger summit held by FreedomWorks. It was called #JusticeForAll, and focused on criminal justice reform. The assembled bloggers heard from speakers with all kinds of ideas for reforming the American criminal justice system. I went into the summit skeptical, as California’s massive Prop 47 failures have soured me on the prospect of actual reforms. I also disagreed with a few of the speakers who were a little too liberal and lenient for my taste. I tend to be a “lock ’em up and throw away the key” type.
Keeping an open mind, I did learn a lot, especially that (shocker) conservative states — most notably Texas — have had real, measurable successes with criminal justice reform. Jason Pye of FreedomWorks details this in his white paper, Federalism in Action: How Conservative States Got Smart on Crime. There was one topic, however, that alone, made the whole summit worthwhile for me: Civil asset forfeiture.
I have heard of civil asset forfeiture before, and I understand the basic concepts behind it, but I was blown away by the horror stories told during the summit. It is chilling to hear stories about fortunes being taken away and due process being thrown aside. In another of his white papers, Jason Pye details some of the sheer madness:
Civil asset forfeiture is a process by which governments seize property suspected of having a connection to a crime – such as being used in the commission of an illicit act, or acquired with the profits of criminal activity. Unlike criminal proceedings, where charges are brought against an individual, governments bring their case against property in civil asset forfeiture cases (e.g. United States v. $127,700 in U.S. Currency and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins).
Bringing a case against property creates a legal fiction. Inanimate objects cannot commit crimes, but civil asset forfeiture provides a means for governments to target property suspected of having a connection with criminal activity, without bringing actual criminal asset forfeiture proceedings. In most states and the federal government, the presumption of innocence does not exist in civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Property subject to these proceeding is guilty until proven innocent by the property owner, who often is never even charged with a crime
You read that correctly: The United States brought cases against cash and shark fins. And that’s barely scratching the surface.
We’re having a national dialogue on due process and terror watch lists after the horrific mass murder in Orlando. We should have been having a national dialogue on the loss of due process and incredible incidents of fraud and abuse surrounding civil asset forfeiture. My eyes were opened to a topic that I need to learn a lot more about, and that you probably should as well.
Below, is the Pye’s entire white paper:
If, after reading this, you would like Washington to make changes to civil asset forfeiture laws, I suggest that you read Support the Due Process Act, H.R. 5283.
Published in Law, Policing
Civil asset forfeiture and in rem jurisdiction are overlapping issues.
In rem jurisdiction (entitling a case as “State vs. [inanimate object]”), is not merely used in abusive civil asset forfeiture cases.
And civil forfeiture abuse does not merely occur in in rem cases.
The comical nature of the in rem case naming is too juicy for sensationalists to ignore. This distracts from the real problem which is civil asset forfeiture abuse.
What burns me about this so much is how it undermines citizen trust in law enforcement.
(And yes, I see the relevance between that and some of the stuff that’s been going on here on Ricochet.)
I am curious what the rank and file police think about this. Is Jack Dunphy out there for a comment?
Rep Henry Hyde was fighting this in the 90’s. I remember reading a book by him in which he vowed to remedy this situation before leaving the US House. It has taken this long for most people to begin to notice what is a growing threat to our Liberties.
https://www.aclu.org/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never
This is one of the most critical violations of individual liberty we are subject to today.
Some states are starting to address it, but there is much work to be done.
Did they discuss the killing of Donald Scot?
http://www.fear.org/scott15.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJk9tdY-bvs
The rumor I heard, which seems corroborated by circumstantial evidence, was that the wife was known to travel in a fast crowd. The LA Sheriff deputy figured that she probably possessed drugs and he frauded up an affidavit of growing pot (in a wooded area of the property) to get a search warrant. Rather than use the warrant to confirm the pot in the wooded area, they went to search the house for drugs. Threat of criminal prosecution for the drugs they hoped to find would then be used to leverage forfeiture of the property.
In our state, if a property is involved with illegal drug trade,storage , or use, it can be forfeit. ( This may even be the Fed rather than state statute). So if you are a landlord, you can lose your property if Tensnts found using or possessing illegal substances.
Sure, there’s an “innocent owner” defense–but the key word there is ‘defense”. You have to go to court to prove innocence. That means even if you win, you lose.
In 2014, civil asset forfeiture cost US citizens more than burglary.
$4.5 billion vs. $3.9 billion in property losses.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/police-civil-asset-forfeitures-exceed-all-burglaries-in-2014/
And it’s growing.
Thank you for this post and for shining the light of day on a very dark practice in America.
I have yet to understand how civil asset forfeiture is in accordance with the 5th amendment.