Civil forfeiture in the United States

In the United States, civil forfeiture (also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture)^[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity. Sometimes it can mean a threat to seize property as well as the act of seizure itself.^[2] Civil forfeiture is not considered to be an example of a criminal justice financial obligation.

Proponents see civil forfeiture as a powerful tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade, with $12 billion annual profits,^[3] since it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets from suspected narcotics traffickers. They also argue that it is an efficient method since it allows law enforcement agencies to use these seized proceeds to further battle illegal activity, that is, directly converting value obtained for law enforcement purposes by harming suspected criminals economically while helping law enforcement financially.

Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process to the extent that their 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are violated, in situations where they are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent. It has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina.^[4]^[5] Further, critics argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior. There is consensus that abuses have happened but disagreement about their extent as well as whether the overall benefits to society are worth the cost of the instances of abuse.^{[citation needed]}

Civil forfeitures are subject to the "excessive fines" clause of the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment, both at a federal level and, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court case, Timbs v. Indiana, at the state and local level.^[6] A 2020 study found that the median cash forfeiture in 21 states which track such data was $1,300.^[7]

^ Cite error: The named reference twsDeptOfJustice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference twsBostonGlobe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference twsNPR3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Sibilla, Nick (October 22, 2019). "South Carolina Judge Declares Civil Forfeiture Unconstitutional". Forbes. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Slade, David (October 21, 2019). "Civil asset forfeitures violate SC and US constitutions, Horry judge rules". The Post and Courier. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^ Liptak, Adam; Dewan, Shaila (February 20, 2018). "Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property". The New York Times. Retrieved February 21, 2019. The Supreme Court ruled ... the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.
^ MacDougall, Ian (December 14, 2020). "Police Say Seizing Property Without Trial Helps Keep Crime Down. A New Study Shows They're Wrong". ProPublica. The median forfeiture averaged $1,276 across the 21 states where usable data was obtainable. In most of those states, half of cash seizures fell below $1,000. In Michigan, for example, half of all civil forfeitures of currency were worth less than $423, and in Pennsylvania, that median value was $369. (The analysis was limited to currency seizures because valuations of other kinds of property, such as cars, depend on subjective appraisals, which may not be reliable.)

[twsDeptOfJustice-1] Cite error: The named reference twsDeptOfJustice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[twsBostonGlobe-2] Cite error: The named reference twsBostonGlobe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[twsNPR3-3] Cite error: The named reference twsNPR3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] Sibilla, Nick (October 22, 2019). "South Carolina Judge Declares Civil Forfeiture Unconstitutional". Forbes. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[5] Slade, David (October 21, 2019). "Civil asset forfeitures violate SC and US constitutions, Horry judge rules". The Post and Courier. Retrieved May 18, 2023.

[twsNYT44432-6] Liptak, Adam; Dewan, Shaila (February 20, 2018). "Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property". The New York Times. Retrieved February 21, 2019. The Supreme Court ruled ... the Constitution places limits on the ability of states and localities to take and keep cash, cars, houses and other private property used to commit crimes.

[PP_1-7] MacDougall, Ian (December 14, 2020). "Police Say Seizing Property Without Trial Helps Keep Crime Down. A New Study Shows They're Wrong". ProPublica. The median forfeiture averaged $1,276 across the 21 states where usable data was obtainable. In most of those states, half of cash seizures fell below $1,000. In Michigan, for example, half of all civil forfeitures of currency were worth less than $423, and in Pennsylvania, that median value was $369. (The analysis was limited to currency seizures because valuations of other kinds of property, such as cars, depend on subjective appraisals, which may not be reliable.)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]