Until last year, most Americans probably had never heard of civil asset forfeiture, but it’s a big problem that allows law enforcement to seize hundreds of millions of dollars from citizens a year.
The issue has brought together groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Heritage Foundation (full disclosure: my former employer). Media outlets on the left like Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post scorn the process as much as media outlets on the right like the Daily Caller and the Federalist.
Civil forfeiture is a legal tool used by law enforcement to seize property they claim has been used in criminal activity. Essentially, the property is accused of the crime, because the owner doesn’t even have to be guilty of (or even charged with) a crime. “This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime,” writes Heritage.
The ACLU adds that civil forfeiture was “originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources.” But today, thanks to flawed laws and dwindling police budgets, the practice is used for profit.
The Atlantic wrote of Joseph Rivers, a 22-year-old Michigan man who had been saving for years to move to Los Angeles to become a music video producer. While on a train with the money he had saved up — $16,000 in cash — agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration boarded and started asking passengers where they were going. Rivers told them about going to L.A., and they asked to search his bags. He was the only black man on the train and the only one singled out for searching.
The agents found the cash in a bank envelope and took his money, claiming they believed it was being used for narcotics. Rivers tried to get them to call his mother to corroborate his story, but it was no use.
A DEA agent told the Albuquerque Journal that DEA agents look for “indicators” like if a person bought a one-way ticket (Rivers had), was traveling to a city known for drug activity (conventiently that includes every major city), if the person’s story is inconsistent (Rivers’ wasn’t) or if the person is traveling with large amounts of money (which Rivers was).
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” the DEA agent, Sean Waite, said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”
If you think it couldn’t happen to you (maybe you never carry that much cash), think again. Elizabeth James (a fake name) is a retiree who had raised two kids and cared for a developmentally disabled sister. Her son was arrested for selling drugs. He had been living with James, and so the government seized her house. They never charged James with a crime, yet still they took her property. Heritage has an extensive list of more than 60 other examples of property seized in this way.
If this sounds absurd to you, you’re not alone. But now, Congress is working on a bill that could alleviate some of the problems with civil asset forfeiture. Members of the House Judiciary Committee passed the Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures (DUE PROCESS) Act, which had been introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
The bill is aimed at increased transparency and protections for those involved in the process. Members of the U.S. Justice Action Network, an organization dedicated to criminal justice reform, praised the passage of the bill through the committee.
“We are particularly encouraged to see that this legislation increases the burden of proof in federal forfeiture cases to ‘clear and convincing’; codifies policies already implemented by the Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Services related to abuses with enforcement of financial structuring violations; requires legal counsel for indigent property owners; facilitates the recovery of legal fees in some instances and establishes new transparency measures to better inform the public and Congress on the details of federal forfeitures,” the group wrote.
Still, there is more work to be done on correcting the problem. USJAN requested members of the committee to continue working on the “equitable sharing program,” which allows states to circumvent some state civil forfeiture laws by seizing property under federal law.
But the Sensenbrenner bill is a good first step, and has received bipartisan support from organizations like FreedomWorks, the ACLU, and the Center for American Progress.
It’s good to see some people in this country getting their due process rights enhanced. Now if only we could do this for college students accused of sexual assault.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
