Civil Forfeiture

Police power is greatly regulated in the United States, making sure the average citizen has their rights protected, at least most of the time. 



Jordan Neben

Civil Forfeiture

            Civil Forfeiture is not a household term, many in the US are totally unaware that 1. This is a term that exists and 2. What civil forfeiture even means. While it may sound rather boring, like something that may only matter to a law student, civil forfeiture is something that every person should be keenly aware of. Because civil forfeiture is a law enforcement tool, that has a great deal of power, but with virtually no oversight whatsoever. Even looking at some of the possible upsides of civil forfeiture, everyday citizens should be outraged that this is something that exists and is used so often nationwide. But first this procedure needs to be better understood, what civil forfeiture is, how it is used, and the many problems with it.

            First and foremost it is important to explain what civil forfeiture is before one can start attacking or defending it. Civil forfeiture is a unique and very powerful program that local law enforcement possesses nationwide. Most people at least know a little about their constitutional and legislative rights when it comes to dealing with the police. We know we have the right to a fair and speedy trail being overseen by a jury of our peers, we know when being arrested that the police must read us our rights, we know that we have the right to a lawyer either paid for or a public defender paid by the government, and finally we know that police officers must obtain a search warrant signed by a judge if they want to search a person’s home. But imagine if those restrictions didn't exist for police, if they didn't need probable cause and a warrant to search our homes? What if police had no restrictions when arresting someone regarding their treatment or care? This would terrify the ordinary citizen, and the US would probably become a police state, if law enforcement wielded that much power. Anyone could recognize that that amount of power would simply be too much police to hold, and that’s why regulations against law enforcement exist, to protect rights that even the guilty possess.

But police do have the authority to violate some of our rights, with no oversight regulation, and very few rights for those who are victims of this procedures. This in a nutshell is civil forfeiture. It was mentioned earlier that police need some sort of probable cause to search or seize property, but with civil forfeiture, they don’t need probable cause to seize property. In fact civil forfeiture is basically when police have a suspicion that someone’s property might be used in a crime. That’s how some define civil forfeiture, and anyone can recognize the vagueness of the language, it could be interpreted and used for almost anything. Police could seize nearly anything under civil forfeiture laws, but what is taken most of the time, is money and real estate, cash that can be spent, or homes that can be sold. One might imagine that because this hasn’t been in the news much, that this is something that isn’t used very often, but actually in the past couple of years police departments have seized millions of dollars in cash and other assets from people, with nothing but a suspicion. So unless police officers are now certified fortune tellers who can see into the future and know that something will be used for a crime, it seems insane that they would have any idea what something will be used for. 

            Okay, one can already see that this might be a problem, with police taking your money or property for often times no reason whatsoever, but surely there is a procedure where someone can retrieve their stolen property from the police department that took them. Well there is sort of, some of the time. It varies depending on where you live, but if police seized someone’s home and kicked them out onto the streets, there is a small court where one could go to appeal their case and get their house back. But you may not be speaking to a judge, instead in many cases these civil forfeiture proceedings are overseen by a member of the DA’s office, someone who is part of the law enforcement community, and someone who could potentially benefit by not handing someone’s property back into their custody.

            So if someone lost their assets on at best, flimsy grounds, and then discovered that a member of the same community that took your assets denied giving them back to you, you don’t have many options that don’t involve a very long and very expensive series of court hearings, which many can’t afford. So many people simply give up; there is simply so much red tape to requiring what’s theirs that they simply do not pursue it.

But surely there are regulations on how this money is spent, and someone who lost their money or other property to civil forfeiture can take solace in the knowledge that it will go to a good cause. But they’d be disappointed there as well. This is because there is virtually no regulation on how money obtained from civil forfeiture can be spent. That money could be and has been spent on anything, many things which do not pertain the slightest to law enforcement. 

It seems insane that something like this exists because if you look at the majority of the cases most money or property seized was taken on no grounds whatsoever, and may have been taken simply for some spending money. How were police ever allowed this kind of power? Perhaps on some few occasions civil forfeiture has been able to stop a crime before it even happened, and if it has that’s a good thing.

But the problem is there is simply nothing keeping this kind of power in check. Civil forfeiture shouldn't disappear entirely but like with many things in government it simply shouldn't exist with no oversight and regulation. For example if police seized someone’s money they wouldn't be able to touch it for a certain period of time, possibly only after there was a hearing, being mediated by a judge to decide whether or not a person’s money was taken with reasonable cause, like if the person had a previous criminal record. And perhaps police shouldn't be able to spend any money taken in civil forfeiture, instead it should go to some other government agency, so police couldn't gain directly by using civil forfeiture. 

Civil forfeiture is something people should be aware of, and quite frankly outraged by it. The way it exists now, it gives far too much power to police with no oversight. This kind of power should not exist without regulation, that’s one of the founding principles of our entire governmental system, and that’s why there needs to be change. Change does not mean completely wiping civil forfeiture off the map entirely, even I will admit that a discerning and honest police officer could potentially stop a crime before it even happens with a procedure like civil forfeiture. But the way civil forfeiture exists now gives far too much power to police to do what they want with whatever they feel like taking. Change doesn't mean destroy civil forfeiture, but it does mean a great deal of reform. 

Sources

VAN DEN BERG, MICHAEL. "Proposing A Transactional Approach To Civil Forfeiture Reform." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 163.3 (2015): 867-926. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

"How To Fight Civil Forfeiture." Reason 46.7 (2014): 12. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

"What’s Yours Is Theirs." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 03 Sept. 2014: A12. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.