A Look at Civil Asset Forfeiture
There many rights citizens of the United States have that are protected by the U.S constitution with several amendments. There are three amendments in the constitution that a current law enforcement policy could be infringing on. Civil asset forfeiture is a policy that allows law enforcement to seize assets if they suspect someone of a crime. This policy is supposed to target criminals but it is abused and there are innocent people being targeted.
Civil asset forfeiture is a policy that allows law enforcement to seize money or property from people suspected of a crime. According the Justice Department, the program “encompasses the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes”. This is problematic because people suspected of a crime are not always guilty and their property can be seized. The three types of forfeiture are criminal forfeiture, civil judicial forfeiture, and administrative forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture is property that is acquired due to a crime and requires indictment of the defendant (justice.gov). This one does not seem problematic because it requires an individual to be convicted of a crime.
Civil judicial forfeiture is where the property seized is the defendant and does not require criminal charges on the owner (justice.gov). This one is problematic because property can be seized even if a person is not convicted of a crime. It seems odd that property can be a defendant considering property is an inanimate object incapable of commiting a crime. According to Dery (2012), administrative forfeiture are uncontested forfeitures with no judicial involvement that are “processed by the law enforcement agency that seized the assets” and the property must be worth less than $500,000. This form of seizure seems like it could be abused without the judicial system being involved. This could affect people who cannot afford to contest their assets because fighting for their property involves taking the agency to court, which costs money.
The reason there is controversy with civil asset forfeiture is it appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people’s property from the government doing unreasonable searches and seizures (Cornell.edu). Civil judicial forfeiture would appear to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it does not require criminal charges, which would be an unreasonable seizure. Administrative forfeiture would be unreasonable because it does not require judicial involvement, which would mean no warrants are involved. According to Cornell, the Fifth Amendment says the federal government cannot deprive people of "life, liberty or property without due process of law". The Fourteenth Amendment or the Due Process Clause, assures “that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures” (Cornell). This means civil judicial and administrative forfeiture may violate people’s right of due process because both take away personal property without a warrant or criminal charges.
There are several statistics that shows that civil asset forfeitures may be decreasing and there is information indicating it could be challenged. The number of total assets seized went down from 52,997 in 2012 to 38,653 in 2016 per the Justice Department. The number of illegal cash forfeited went down from 7,586 in 2012 to 4,043 (justice.gov). Both numbers indicate that civil asset forfeitures are decreasing, which could be a good sign that less innocent people are being affected. The Supreme Court may eventually affect this policy because too many innocent people are still being affected despite the decreasing numbers. There is a good sign with the court case Leonard v. Texas even though it was declined by the Supreme Court, which involved a man being pulled over and getting $201,100 seized (supremecourt.gov).
Justice Clarence Thomas said “forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups… They are more likely to use cash... And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property” (supremecourt.gov). This shows the Supreme Court is sympathetic to the innocent people being affected by civil asset forfeiture even though they did not take this case. They declined the case because it was not solid enough. Justice Thomas also said, “whether this Court’s treatment of the broad modern forfeiture practice can be justified by the narrow historical one is certainly worthy of consideration in greater detail”. This means the Supreme Court will consider the issue of civil asset forfeiture if there is a more detailed case. It would protect people’s rights if there is a Supreme Court decision in favor of an innocent person affected by this issue.
Civil asset forfeiture is an issue that has affected many innocent people who may not have enough money to fight for their property. The two forms that may affect people the most is civil judicial and administrative forfeiture because both do not require a conviction. A good way for this law enforcement tool to be regulated better would be a Supreme Court case. If a case is brought to the Supreme Court, they may rule in favor of stricter regulations being put in place to protect the rights of innocent people. They may even be in favor of eliminating civil judicial and administrative forfeiture because they both appear to violate people’s rights to due process or protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
References
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Dery, A.W. (2012, Jun. 21). Overview of Asset Forfeiture. Retrieved from http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/content/2012/06/article-02-dery.shtml
https://www.justice.gov/afp
https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-issues-policy-and-guidelines-federal-adoptions-assets-seized-state
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf