I know cops can and do confiscate vehicles they find drugs in. I always found this to be legalized theft (unless the car was bought with drug money, but I get the impression even recreational users can have their cars taken). what about homes? if a person makes or just uses drugs in a home can law enforcement take possession of the dwelling?
Civil forfeiture laws vary from state to state. If you have a question about a particular state, I’ll try to run it down.
But the feds certainly can. 21 USC § 881(a)(7) provides that among the assets subject to civil forfeiture by the federal government are:
Yes. Anything bought with suspected drug money can be seized by the feds. We once lost a real estate commission because it was paid with suspected drug money.
Looks like they can in Canada. Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Offence-related Property - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
There has to be some connection to the crime for the seizure to be valid. 21USC881 refers to 18USC981 which sets out these conditions.
However in the cases I saw (indirectly, I don’t think I worked on any), that won’t prevent the initial seizure and potentially lengthy detention of all property while a determination is made as to what property can legitimately be considered as “related” and what isn’t.
^^^ these guys have it right.
You won’t lose your home if you are busted holding some weed.
But if you are growing weed and selling it, you sure could lose the home.
Mass. has attempted, possibly succeeded at seizing a motel because of a drug bust in one of the rooms.
If the law allows it, it’s happening somewhere.
Odd little fact I found out in a case I knew someone who was involved with that involved forfeiture of a vehicle. The Feds actually gave the vehicle back.
Why?
Because there was a secured loan on it. I don’t know if it was the law - or their policy - but I saw the letter on it and know it happened. May be a good reason to have a mortgage. Of course I don’t think he had much equity in the car - so maybe if he did - they would have auctioned it off and paid the difference.
ETA: also the person involved wasn’t fighting this (he may have down the line), but the Feds actually towed the car to an impound lot (he wasn’t arrested in his car - the did this separately) - so they were apparently planning on seizing it, but changed their mind. Friend was pretty surprised (and needed his car at the time - so happy too).
yes, normally its a proceeds of crime principle.
Its not the police trying to confiscate stuff to make money for the police.
Its the state confiscating proceeds of crime to *discourage crime *, and reduce the crims ability to pay for a competent defence lawyer.
If its not actually an asset, what is the point of confiscating it ?
The law may not be very clear, so its still possible that the police do a confiscation it for punishment (harrassment ) value… they wouldn’t implement punishment without a guilty verdict would they ? :?
It’s not just proceeds, but also instrumentalities. That’s where it gets especially tricky because of the dual use issue I think (e.g, dealing drugs out of your home), but that’s something you would have to research.
Makes sense, for seizure laws are really nothing more than government endorsed robbery. If they seize something that has money owed on it, they can’t easily make a profit.
Yes - that all makes sense. I guess the thing that struck me as slightly odd is that it appears like this is a semi-loophole. They weren’t going after his vehicle as proceeds of a crime - they were going after it as it was supposedly used during the crime. There wasn’t much in the way of profits from his crime. It appeared to me that they would have taken taken the car - say worth $20k even if only $1,000 was made. It also appeared to me that they would have not gone after any other assets that weren’t involved in committing the crime.
I have no doubt they could have gone after proceeds. I guess it just struck me as a - “make sure you use a rental car if you are going to commit a crime” type advice 
Also good for making the ‘I have no idea how 20 kilos of cocaine got in the trunk - it’s not my car’ type argument. Not that it will actually work, but hey, if your parachute doesn’t open, it’s not you’ll be any worse off if you try flapping your arms. 
Technically a leased car is just leased; the bank or dealership (whoever you lease it from) owns title.
Which brings up the obvious question, what are the limits? If I’m selling drugs in the Walmart parking lot, can the feds seize the Walmart? Same as the motel example, I suppose… which explains why in the movies they’re always dealing and splitting up drugs or making big sells from a sleazy motel.
I suppose it depends on what the owner allowed or tolerated, but if you rent to a sleazebag dealer, how are you supposed to know unless someone tells you?
It’s a lot of bullshit. These are civil forfeitures, which means the state only needs the preponderance of evidence to win their case, which means keeping the property. They know the people whose property they seized don’t have the money to put up a quality defense. That’s why they seize the property immediately, so the suspect can’t use it’s value to hire a lawyer. And it’s why they’ll drop the case if they end up seizing property that belongs to a bank or anyone who can afford to defend themselves.
I know the term ‘legalized theft’ gets thrown around a lot, but that is basically all this sounds like. Confiscating cars or homes you can prove were bought with the proceeds of criminal behavior is one thing, confiscating the property that was bought lawfully of people involved in crime is something else. The drug war will never end because there is too much money in it for everyone.
Going beyond what is technically & legally permissible, how frequently do the authorities take advantage vs laying off if given, say, a vast disproportion between the value of the drugs vs the value of the property?
In other words, to what extent can you count on having your homestead confiscated if the cops find a couple of pot plants growing in the back yard?
I’m guessing here, but I wouldn’t expect something like simple possession to be enough to trigger a forfeiture. Possession with intent to distribute might but IDK. There’s a big difference between say an 8ball (1/8 oz) of something, which could be arguable and a truck load so it might depend on the jurisdiction.
Something like growing though might fall into the category of manufacture which I think tends to be treated more harshly. Although with pot it would probably again, depend on quantity.
Regarding the motel seizure, currently (January 2013) it looks like the state can’t do that. But the owners weren’t involved with the drugs, and they had contacted local police with any suspicious activities. It’s just that the state was being grabby. I think I first read about it here at SDMB.
The simple answer is no.
But as Bricker said forfeiture laws vary from state to state. In general property used to facilitate the crime can be seized if the owner committed the crime. If the bank owns it, or mom, or a neighbor you borrowed it from, then it is returned. We’ve never even attempted to have a forfeiture hearing if it is not owned by the offender. It just won’t get past the court. It has nothing to do with if they can afford a lawyer or not. This is literally the first time I’ve heard that idea. Why would I care if they have a lawyer or not?