![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/th-1936964765.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Although its history dates much further back, civil asset forfeiture (CAF,\u00a0 ‘cuz I am too lazy to keep writing it out) has really been in popular use since the ’70s.\u00a0 Basically, it assumes an object can be criminal in certain cases. We tend to think of objects as more or less innocent or agnostic, right? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right?\u00a0 Not in CAF.<\/p>\n
In 1978, Congress passed the Psychotropic Substances Act, which permitted the seizure and forfeiture of money and securities that were thought to be the proceeds of the drug trade, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. Civil forfeiture was expanded again in 1984, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and gave law enforcement the power to seize real property, such as buildings and land.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This was pitched at the time as a grand weapon in the War on Drugs – if someone was making kazillions off selling crack and smack, the law could render him profitless and seize all those\u00a0 proceeds of illicit trade. Cars, boats, cash, whatever – fork it over.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, in the years since CAF has turned into a monster. There are too many stories to cite of people driving through strange towns, getting pulled over, their cars searched on a pretext, and when cash was found – Uh-oh, if they have cash they must be drug-thug related! I remember reading of one guy trying to expand his trucking business getting pulled over and the cops confiscated the $10,000 he had to put a down on a new truck.<\/p>\n
Too often there are no hearings,\u00a0 no due process, and recovery is an agonizingly slow process. In essence whoever lost their stuff has to PROVE their innocence. Sounds kind of Napoleonic, eh? Guilty till proven innocent?<\/p>\n
State law enforcement was eligible to receive funds through the equitable sharing program in two ways. One way was to turn over seized assets to federal law enforcement in what is known as an \u201cadoptive forfeiture.\u201d If the item became forfeited, state law enforcement received a portion of the forfeiture funds.<\/p>\n
The other way was to participate in joint operations with federal authorities and share the return of property seized during the operation if it became forfeited.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And this ain’t penny-ante – by 2014 local police were reaping their share of BILLIONS seized from CAF.<\/p>\n
Still, forfeiture laws were expanded yet again in 1986 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. This law gave law enforcement the right to seize property equal in value to forfeitable property no longer within reach of the law, such as cash, bank accounts, jewelry, motor vehicles, boats, airplanes, businesses, buildings, and real estate. \u00a0 forthepeople.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hopefully there is some light in sight:<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear Culley v. Attorney General of Alabama<\/i> and decide if those who find themselves in that situation are entitled to a probable cause hearing after the seizure and, if so, how speedily it must happen.<\/p>\n
Detroit is a fitting case study of how byzantine the process of contesting a forfeiture has become. Before any victim is allowed to state their case, and only after they have successfully filed that claim of interest on their property, they must attend four in-person “pre-trial” conferences where prosecutors put a “deal” on the table: The owner may have their property back if they pay the government a fixed fee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
How nice, they get to buy their own cars back.<\/p>\n
Law enforcement agencies typically pocket the majority of the proceeds from civil forfeiture seizures. As of 2020, Wilson’s home state, Michigan, along with 24 others\u2014Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming\u2014direct 95 percent to 100 percent<\/i> of the funds extracted from seizures toward law enforcement, according to the I.J. report Policing for Profit<\/em>.\u00a0 reason.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Me, I can see how We the People thought CAF might be a good idea. But like almost any extension on governmental powers, it has morphed into something bad. And needs to be appropriately changed.<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"