Civil asset forfeiture is a tool used by law enforcement in the legal world. This tool allows them to seize assets they suspect as being connected to criminal activity. What concerns so many critics of it is that law enforcement can exercise this power without formally charging the owner of the assets with any crime. 

Civil asset forfeiture was initially intended to disrupt organized crime and drug trafficking, but its application has unfortunately expanded such that it is now used against parties uninvolved in either. With rampant violations of people’s civil rights in some ways, many have legitimate concerns surrounding this tool. Civil asset forfeiture attorney Jacek Lentz of Asset Forfeiture Attorney in Los Angeles, CA, will explore this, namely the legal and ethical implications of civil asset forfeiture abuse, in this article. He’ll highlight the impact it has had on individuals and the broader justice system.

Understanding Civil Asset Forfeiture 

Civil asset forfeiture is a fairly unique part of the law. If you’re familiar with criminal forfeiture, it’s relatively similar to that but differs in one primary way. How? It is an action against the property in question itself, not the owner of the property. As such, civil asset forfeiture allows for the seizure of property merely if law enforcement suspects it has been used or has any connection with criminal activity. The legal standard used in these situations is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, the well-known standard used in criminal cases.

Legal Challenges And Constitutional Concerns 

One of the main challenges critics of civil asset forfeiture raise pertains to concerns surrounding violations of due process in instances of exercising civil asset forfeiture. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet, despite this, the burden of proof is on the property owner to prove the innocence of their property in a majority of civil asset forfeiture cases, not the government to prove guilt. Ironic, isn’t it?

This reversal of the burden of proof in practice oftentimes leads to situations where people are, in essence, punished without a trial. Many rightfully argue this is un-American. In addition, because these cases are civil rather than criminal, property owners do not have the same legal protections at their disposal, including the right to a public defender. This makes things incredibly more challenging, especially if you have little to no experience with the law, which is very likely for most people facing the civil asset forfeiture process. Successfully contesting seizures becomes far more difficult under these circumstances.

Several high-profile cases have highlighted this reality. Timbs v. Indiana is one such case. In it, although the Supreme Court ruled that the eighth amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines could apply to states, it otherwise left much to be desired. It limited the scope of asset forfeiture, but in some ways, not in any truly meaningful way. The entire civil asset forfeiture area of the law remains complicated and borderline unclear as a result.

Ethical Implications For Law Enforcement And The Justice System 

The ethical implications of civil asset forfeiture are substantial, especially when considering the potential for conflicts of interest, which are glaring to many. This happens, namely, via the fact that proceeds from the sale of assets that are seized are used to fund law enforcement agencies. This financial incentive for the very institutions in power that can exercise civil asset forfeiture is all the more reason for them to aggressively pursue it. Policing for profit, as it is commonly called, raises legitimate concerns about the motivation underlying civil asset forfeiture and seizure, as well as the probability of abuse.

On top of this, there isn’t exactly the most robust mechanism in place to provide necessary oversight and accountability to these law enforcement agencies. This dramatically exacerbates concerns critics have. As a result, many argue that civil asset forfeiture has and continues to be used disproportionately against especially vulnerable segments of the population, particularly people from low-income and minority communities who lack the resources to contest seizures.

These ethical questions extend to the broader justice system, though. In some ways, civil asset forfeiture contributes to the erosion of the public’s trust in law enforcement and the legal system. The perception of it being used unfairly or unjustly against the poor and minority groups for the enrichment of those in power is the main driver at work here.

Reform 

As difficult as it may be, we can turn things around, however. It will require us as a society to address the legal and ethical issues that have been outlined in this article, among other things. Some key ways to reform could include the following:

Raising The Burden Of Proof 

Raising the burden of proof would go far to alleviating the concerns critics have of civil asset forfeiture and make our justice system more fair and transparent. This wouldn’t even require going all out and changing the standard to beyond a reasonable doubt. Even shifting it from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence will immensely help.

Providing Legal Representation 

Providing property owners with access to legal representation, as they would have in a criminal conviction, would help level the playing field when it comes to contesting seizures.

Banning Policing For Profit 

Removal of the financial incentives law enforcement has to carry out seizure would reduce the conflict of interest that contributes to the abuses of civil asset forfeiture we see.

And More 

Civil asset forfeiture remains a controversial and incredibly complex area of the law with significant legal and ethical implications that affect individuals and society at large. Originally intended to combat crime, it has, in some ways, morphed into a mechanism of abuse and misuse against innocent people. We can band together and reform the system to level the playing field and create a more just legal system for all.