More Civil Asset Forfeiture Nonsense
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.