Asset forfeiture
Asset forfeiture is a legal process in the United States that allows law enforcement to seize property believed to be connected to criminal activity, particularly drug-related offenses. This practice has historical roots dating back to colonial times but has evolved significantly, especially during the War on Drugs in the 1980s, when it was formalized through legislation like the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Unlike criminal cases, asset forfeiture typically occurs in civil courts, where the burden of proof is lower, allowing authorities to forfeit property even without criminal charges against the owner.
The process involves law enforcement seizing assets and initiating forfeiture proceedings, which can lead to the property being sold or utilized by the state, with generated revenue often benefiting the agencies involved. However, this practice has sparked considerable debate, as critics argue it can lead to abuses and prioritization of revenue generation over traditional law enforcement goals, such as arresting offenders. Concerns about civil liberties have led to reforms aimed at protecting innocent property owners, notably through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which emphasizes the need for proportionality in seizures. Overall, asset forfeiture remains a complex and contentious element of the U.S. criminal justice system, reflecting broader tensions between law enforcement practices and individual rights.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Asset forfeiture
SIGNIFICANCE: Asset forfeiture serves the goals of U.S. drug law-enforcement strategy as a significant financial resource.
While the practice of asset forfeiture has a long history dating back to the seizure of pirate ships in colonial America and the widespread acquisition of Confederate property during the Civil War, its modern use almost exclusively refers to drug law enforcement. Asset forfeiture was an important feature of the Reagan administration’s War on Drugs that was legitimized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Policymakers hoped that asset forfeiture would help stem the tide of the illicit drug problem in the United States. Theoretically, forfeiture augments the nature of drug enforcement strategy through serving as a fine levied against the proceeds of crime, removing the working capital of drug operations, and bringing partial penalty against drug lords otherwise not susceptible to sanction.
Asset forfeiture is a curious feature within the American criminal justice system in that forfeiture proceedings typically occur in civil, not criminal, courts, as in rem actions. Forfeiture hearings in the civil legal arena greatly advantage the state, which must meet only a preponderance of evidence versus beyond the reasonable-doubt standard of proof. Oddly, it is the property in question, and not the accused, that is at issue in civil forfeiture deliberations. In fact, property associated with crime may be forfeited in the absence of any arrest. Law enforcement, then, seizes questionable property, and forfeiture transpires in the court system. Once property transfers to the state, it may be put to use in law-enforcement operations or auctioned, with proceeds split between the seizing agency and other components of local, state, and federal government according to state law.
Forfeiture practices have become one of the most controversial components of the criminal justice system in the United States, raising civil liberty and law enforcement over-reach issues. The controversy primarily arises from the financial incentive of selecting and prioritizing cases wherein forfeiture-derived revenue is high, but more traditional drug enforcement objectives—such as the apprehension of offenders and the eradication of illicit substances—are low. Through proactive policing strategies like reverse sting operations, drug units can be almost assured of generating income through seizures as suspects arrive at undercover “take-down” meetings with predetermined amounts of cash in hopes of purchasing wholesale quantities of various illicit drugs. Seemingly appropriate, a growing body of research suggests that far too often the recipients of police attention are corruptible but not necessarily culpable if not for encouragement from sworn officers and confidential informants, which adheres to the spirit, if not the legal definition, of entrapment.
Forfeiture victims, academic scrutiny, and social activist organizations such as Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR) have successfully lobbied forfeiture reforms featured in the 2000 Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The Forfeiture Reform Act provides protection for the innocent owners of questionable property and bolsters the applicability of the constitutional principle of proportionality to prevent home, automobile, and bank account seizures associated with only minor offenses. Forfeiture monies enable law enforcement generally, and drug enforcement particularly, to realize greater autonomy and are touted as tax relief from public support of the drug war.
Bibliography
"Asset Forfeiture Abuse." American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 2024, www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse. Accessed 20 June 2024.
Edgeworth, Dee. Asset Forfeiture: Practice and Procedure in State and Federal Courts. 3rd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2014. Print.
Miller, J. M., and L. H. Selva. “Law Enforcement’s Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs.” Justice Quarterly 11 (1994): 313–35. Print.
"Types of Federal Forfeiture." US Department of Justice, 11 Oct. 2023, www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture. Accessed 20 June 2024.
United States Department of Justice. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA: Pub. L. no. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202). Washington: Author, 2000. Print.
Williams, H. E. Asset Forfeiture: A Law Enforcement Perspective. Springfield: Thomas, 2002. Print.