# Civil Asset Forfeitures **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263 "2017-09-13T18:51:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/1 "2017-09-13T18:51:46Z")
[House votes to curb asset forfeiture](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/13/house-votes-to-curb-asset-forfeiture/?utm_term=.b7a8261abf83&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1) According to this article (an opinion piece, actually) despite the House passing it by overwhelming majority, it’s not clear that the Senate will go along. Also, for unspecified reasons, the House chose to do it as a defunding measure instead of outlawing it, so there might be a way around this vote even if it makes it into law. Regardless, it’s at least a step in the right direction. Asset forfeiture is one of those things that sound great when you conjure up images of the Good Guys seizing assets of crime kingpins whose obvious guilt is hard to pin down legally (e.g. drug lords, mobsters), but end up being consistently used against small-time people whose guilt is highly dubious at best. Any asset forfeiture supporters want to defend it (as actually practiced, not in theory)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/2 "2017-09-13T18:55:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Also, for unspecified reasons, the House chose to do it as a defunding measure instead of outlawing it, so there might be a way around this vote even if it makes it into law. What federal power would allow Congress to outlaw it? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/3 "2017-09-13T18:57:52Z")
Apparently the law only applies to the actions of the federal DOJ. State asset forfeiture laws are unaffected. I would have thought that Congress could control what powers the DOJ has. (If not, then who does?) It’s hard to imagine that the DOJ has the power to seize people’s property not based on any laws passed and subject to amendment and repeal by congress. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/4 "2017-09-13T19:00:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Apparently the law only applies to the actions of the federal DOJ. State asset forfeiture laws are unaffected. I would have thought that Congress could control what powers the DOJ has. (If not, then who does?) > > It’s hard to imagine that the DOJ has the power to seize people’s property not based on any laws passed and subject to amendment and repeal by congress. Right you are. Sorry - I asked without having read the law. Yes, Congress has every power to end federal asset forfeiture. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/5 "2017-09-13T19:10:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What federal power would allow Congress to outlaw it? _As civil asset forfeiture laws (are widely reported to be) actually practiced_, I would say Congress has the power to curtail such abuses under the Fourteenth Amendment: > [@](#): > > … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. People who have not been found guilty of any crime (and reportedly in many cases, people who have not even been tried for, or formally accused of, any crime) having their property seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner by local or state law enforcement authorities is not “due process of law”. Civil asset forfeiture abuses are also reportedly being done in a racially discriminatory manner (and also in a way which discriminates on the basis of class or economic status–poor people are way more likely to be subject to these abuses than are well-off or middle-class people). Those factors would also raise “equal protection of the laws” issues. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/6 "2017-09-13T19:19:22Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > _As civil asset forfeiture laws (are widely reported to be) actually practiced_, I would say Congress has the power to curtail such abuses under the Fourteenth Amendment: > > People who have not been found guilty of any crime (and reportedly in many cases, people who have not even been tried for, or formally accused of, any crime) having their property seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner by local or state law enforcement authorities is not “due process of law”. Sure it is. See _Bennis v. Michigan_, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). > [@](#): > > Civil asset forfeiture abuses are also reportedly being done in a racially discriminatory manner (and also in a way which discriminates on the basis of class or economic status–poor people are way more likely to be subject to these abuses than are well-off or middle-class people). Those factors would also raise “equal protection of the laws” issues. That’s an argument for a court challenge, not a statement of Congressional power. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/7 "2017-09-13T19:26:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure it is. See _Bennis v. Michigan_, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). I don’t really feel like reading that decision, so let me just ask you: Did _Bennis v. Michigan_ actually say “people having their property seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner by local or state law enforcement authorities is ‘due process of law’ and totally A-OK”; or did the decision hold that the procedures in place (over twenty years ago, in Michigan, in that particular case) were not actually “arbitrary and capricious”? > [@](#): > > That’s an argument for a court challenge, not a statement of Congressional power. So, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”) is just an inkblot, then? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/8 "2017-09-13T19:27:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure it is. See _Bennis v. Michigan_, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). What a [great case to cite](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZO.html). Seizing a car jointly owned by a man and wife after the man engaged the services of a prostitute without his wife’s knowledge is exactly like the US seizing a pirate ship commissioned by the King of Spain. If that’s not due process I don’t know what is :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/9 "2017-09-13T19:42:23Z")
> [@the United States Supreme Court](#): > > [John] Bennis was convicted of gross indecency. Which right there is a _major_ difference between that case and these cases that people (on the right, left, center, and off to the side) are upset about. It’s possible that _Bennis_ was also a crappy case, but at least it was a civil action (by the State of Michigan) that took place _after a criminal conviction_, which is totally not what people are talking about with regard to these abuses. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/10 "2017-09-13T19:55:39Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > What a [great case to cite](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-8729.ZO.html). Seizing a car jointly owned by a man and wife after the man engaged the services of a prostitute without his wife’s knowledge is exactly like the US seizing a pirate ship commissioned by the King of Spain. If that’s not due process I don’t know what is :rolleyes: That seems an unusual precedent to me. Pirates and prostitutes? ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/11 "2017-09-13T20:03:31Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > _As civil asset forfeiture laws (are widely reported to be) actually practiced_, I would say Congress has the power to curtail such abuses under the Fourteenth Amendment: > > People who have not been found guilty of any crime (and reportedly in many cases, people who have not even been tried for, or formally accused of, any crime) having their property seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner by > > ̶l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶ ̶e̶n̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶u̶t̶h̶o̶r̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶ **THIEVES, HIGHWAYMAN** > > is not “due process of law”. Civil asset forfeiture abuses are also reportedly being done in a racially discriminatory manner (and also in a way which discriminates on the basis of class or economic status–poor people are way more likely to be subject to these abuses than are well-off or middle-class people). Those factors would also raise “equal protection of the laws” issues. Fixed that for you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/12 "2017-09-13T20:13:29Z")
[moderating] > [@Kinthalis](#): > > Fixed that for you. 😉 This is a warning for altering text in the quote box. From the FAQ: [quote=“C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven, post:11, topic:369395”] Text inside [QUOTE] tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may \*\*not \*\* add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the > [@](#): > > tags. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/13 "2017-09-13T20:26:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [moderating] > > This is a warning for altering text in the quote box. From the FAQ: > > [/moderating] ok… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/14 "2017-09-13T22:04:22Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I don’t really feel like reading that decision, so let me just ask you: Did _Bennis v. Michigan_ actually say “people having their property seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner by local or state law enforcement authorities is ‘due process of law’ and totally A-OK”; or did the decision hold that the procedures in place (over twenty years ago, in Michigan, in that particular case) were not actually “arbitrary and capricious”? Ahhhh… Then my response to you was in fact mistaken. I should have said: _No law permits any property to be seized in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It’s likely that what you think of as ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious’ really isn’t._ > [@](#): > > So, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”) is just an inkblot, then? Not at all. The inkblot, to the extent one exists, is the one that obscures your understanding of what that section means. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/15 "2017-09-13T22:46:09Z")
**Bricker** , I understand that you haven’t stated an opinion either way about Civil Asset Forfeiture and how it’s applied, but I am curious about whether you think it has been applied reasonably on the state level. But, more interestingly, do you think there’s a way to improve how it’s handled at the state level by making law at the federal level? Could the feds withhold funds unless the states handle CAF a certain way? That worked for the 21 minimum drinking age but was found too coercive for the ACA and medicare expansion. I personally hope that, if nothing else, seeing this change at the federal level (if it happens) would at least prompt state legislatures to revisit it at their level. I imagine that, sometimes, states follow the Feds’ lead. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/16 "2017-09-13T22:57:08Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **Bricker** , I understand that you haven’t stated an opinion either way about Civil Asset Forfeiture and how it’s applied, but I am curious about whether you think it has been applied reasonably on the state level. There was a recent IMHO thread about this. > [@How is civil forfeiture a thing?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/108): > > I’m not so persuaded by your disparate impact worries, but you’re right that I oppose the [civil forfeiture] laws wholeheartedly. From either prince or pauper, the state should not take property without a better showing than mere preponderance of the evidence. At a minimum, we should require a criminal conviction. The whole idea of forfeiture is to take property because it was used in a crime, and now the state wants to do that even when it can’t prove the crime happened. From the same thread: > [@How is civil forfeiture a thing?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/70): > > Civil forfeiture without and prior to a conviction is an abomination. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/17 "2017-09-13T23:41:04Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **Bricker** , I understand that you haven’t stated an opinion either way about Civil Asset Forfeiture and how it’s applied, but I am curious about whether you think it has been applied reasonably on the state level. I think it’s a poor public policy choice to proceed with asset forfeiture absent a criminal conviction. I don’t go so far as to say it’s unreasonable. But I think the far better alternative is to say, in effect, “We won’t claim that this property was the proceeds or instrument of a crime until we’ve proved that a crime happened.” I strongly reject the tendency that I see on this board to elevate any disagreement over what constitutes wise public policy to a denunciation of the morals and ethics of those on the other side, and the seeming confidence that “unwise” and “unconstitutional” are synonyms. I oppose forfeiture laws that allow a confiscation without a criminal conviction. I don’t claim that my view is the only right one, or that the opopsing practice is unconstitutional, or that it was forged in the depths of Satan’s oven. > [@](#): > > But, more interestingly, do you think there’s a way to improve how it’s handled at the state level by making law at the federal level? Could the feds withhold funds unless the states handle CAF a certain way? That worked for the 21 minimum drinking age but was found too coercive for the ACA and medicare expansion. I’d say that there was some fertile ground there, especially if the funding carrot related to the very things that civil asset forfeiture typically funds, like police equipment or salaries. I’d like to see it tried, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/18 "2017-09-14T00:39:30Z")
Thank you both. For an issue that seems opposed by both the right and the left in Congress and on this board, it’s surprising that it’s still a thing. I guess the money that comes into the local communities is a powerful incentive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/19 "2017-09-14T00:54:45Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Thank you both. For an issue that seems opposed by both the right and the left in Congress and on this board, it’s surprising that it’s still a thing. I guess the money that comes into the local communities is a powerful incentive. That’s it, in a nutshell. No politician wants to be responsible for raising the property tax. Just get the money from drug dealers, they think. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/20 "2017-09-14T15:37:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What federal power would allow Congress to outlaw it? To outlaw it in every state? **As practiced** it is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment. There is no way that the State should be allowed to seize assets on no evidence of a crime (other than being there with cash) and then force the person to jump through hoops, hire an attorney and if there is one little misstep they lose the asset _despite no crime ever being committed_. I know you can pull up legal theory about how CAF is proper but I am talking how it is practiced today which in many cases is improper. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263.md?page=2)