# How is civil forfeiture a thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 21, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804 "2017-07-21T15:17:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/121 "2017-07-23T23:47:13Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I find Bricker’s faith in the purity of the justice system touching, myself. Then again, given his occupation, he sort of has to have it; if he didn’t naively believe that all charges ever brought against anyone has legally weighty evidence behind it, and nobody is ever corrupt or railroaded, he’d not be a lawyer to begin with. That’s not quite what I believe. It certainly happens that cops can be corrupt, and lie under oath, or plant evidence. But that’s not a hazard limited to civil forfeiture. That’s a hazard that arises any time humans are put in charge of doing stuff. I’m talking about the need to accurately describe the system as it is. To my (perhaps naive) way of thinking, more headway is made by a commentator who says,“The idea that mere preponderance of the evidence is enough to seize property is dangerous!” gets far more persuasive traction than “They’re taking our property with literally zero evidence at all!!!” > [@](#): > > Now, onto the facts: was the recent Supreme Court case regarding, IIRC, Colorado relevant to this discussion or not? Are you thinking of the case where Colorado refused to refund a fine after the conviction was overturned? ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/122 "2017-07-24T00:52:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m talking about the need to accurately describe the system as it is. To my (perhaps naive) way of thinking, more headway is made by a commentator who says,“The idea that mere preponderance of the evidence is enough to seize property is dangerous!” gets far more persuasive traction than “They’re taking our property with literally zero evidence at all!!!” Of course you’re right, but this is IMHO not GQ. And in MY humble opinion, they _ **are** _ sometimes taking property with literally zero evidence. In IL all that is needed is the say so of the officer involved for the assets to be seized - NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS NEEDED. Only that point (after the assets are already seized) does the court get involved to make a determination if the seizure was justified under probable cause. If they decide no probable cause occurred, it’s still up to the citizen to petition the court in a timely manner for the return of their assets. If they fail to do so, THEY LOSE THEIR ASSETS. This is all perfectly legal according to the proscribed statutes, but how this can be seen as anything other than legalized theft is beyond my comprehension. And as for the notion that the citizen doesn’t have the burden of proof on their shoulders. . .If the court decides that there was probable cause in the seizure, then the issue may proceed to trial (once again, assuming the citizen acts in a timely manner). You say the citizen has no obligation to prove anything, but the threshold of preponderance of evidence makes that not true. Preponderance means that there is more evidence for one side than for the other, so if the defendant sits quietly and offers\*\* no \*\*evidence, all the plaintiff needs is one piece of evidence, and in IL the ruling of probable cause is seen by the court as evidence, so the trial starts out with the preponderance of evidence against the citizen. Which is tantamount to placing the burden of proof on the defendant. And how this can be seen as anything other is beyond me. So, IMHO the civil asset forfeiture laws allow the police, state and federal courts, to _ **steal** _ the assets of innocent citizens and _ **places the burden of proof on them** _. This is contrary to everything the American justice system stands for and should no longer be allowed to continue. mc ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/123 "2017-07-24T01:05:26Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Of course you’re right, but this is IMHO not GQ. And in MY humble opinion, they _ **are** _ sometimes taking property with literally zero evidence. In IL all that is needed is the say so of the officer involved for the assets to be seized - NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS NEEDED. Only that point (after the assets are already seized) does the court get involved to make a determination if the seizure was justified under probable cause. If they decide no probable cause occurred, it’s still up to the citizen to petition the court in a timely manner for the return of their assets. If they fail to do so, THEY LOSE THEIR ASSETS. This is all perfectly legal according to the proscribed statutes, but how this can be seen as anything other than legalized theft is beyond my comprehension. > > And as for the notion that the citizen doesn’t have the burden of proof on their shoulders. . .If the court decides that there was probable cause in the seizure, then the issue may proceed to trial (once again, assuming the citizen acts in a timely manner). You say the citizen has no obligation to prove anything, but the threshold of preponderance of evidence makes that not true. Preponderance means that there is more evidence for one side than for the other, so if the defendant sits quietly and offers\*\* no \*\*evidence, all the plaintiff needs is one piece of evidence, and in IL the ruling of probable cause is seen by the court as evidence, so the trial starts out with the preponderance of evidence against the citizen. Which is tantamount to placing the burden of proof on the defendant. And how this can be seen as anything other is beyond me. > > So, IMHO the civil asset forfeiture laws allow the police, state and federal courts, to _ **steal** _ the assets of innocent citizens and _ **places the burden of proof on them** _. This is contrary to everything the American justice system stands for and should no longer be allowed to continue. > > mc Come on now. Similar to Detroit cops stealing cars of people that look at hookers, there is no way the State of Illinois would allow a law enforcement officer to steal things without probable cause. It just doesn’t happen that way. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/124 "2017-07-24T01:14:55Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > Of course you’re right, but this is IMHO not GQ. And in MY humble opinion, they _ **are** _ sometimes taking property with literally zero evidence. In IL all that is needed is the say so of the officer involved for the assets to be seized - NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS NEEDED. Why isn’t the officer’s testimony “evidence,” again? Is it because this is IMHO? Or did he look at a hooker? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/125 "2017-07-24T01:28:14Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > How is civil forfeiture NOT a violation of the [Due Process Clause?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) (5th & 14th constitutional Amendments) For what it’s worth, your reaction is shared by Justice Thomas. In a rare comment on the denial of cert in Leonard v. Texas, a forfeiture case challenged on due process grounds, he wrote: > [@](#): > > This petition asks an important question: whether modern civil-forfeiture statutes can be squared with the Due Process Clause and our Nation’s history. > . > . > . > I am skeptical that this historical practice is capable of sustaining, as a constitutional matter, the contours of modern practice, for two reasons. First, historical forfeiture laws were narrower in most respects than modern ones. . . . Second, it is unclear whether courts historically permitted forfeiture actions to proceed civilly in all respects. Some of this Court’s early cases suggested that forfeiture actions were in the nature of criminal proceedings. . . Indeed, as relevant in this case, there is some evidence that the government was historically required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Brig Burdett, 9 Pet. 682, 690 (1835) (“The object of the prosecution against the Burdett is to enforce a forfeiture of the vessel, and all that pertains to it, for a violation of a revenue law. This prosecution then is a highly penal one, and the penalty should not be inflicted, unless the infractions of the law shall be established beyond reasonable doubt”). > . > . > . > Unfortunately, petitioner raises her due process arguments for the first time in this Court. As a result, the Texas Court of Appeals lacked the opportunity to address them in the first instance. I therefore concur in the denial of certiorari. Whether this Court’s treatment of the broad modern forfeiture practice can be justified by the narrow historical one is certainly worthy of consideration in greater detail. This is persuasive to me. And perhaps other readers here as well, if they can overcome their aversion to agreeing with Justice Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/126 "2017-07-24T03:04:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The only thing that’s missing from my posts, the thing you crave, is this: > > POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop! > > BRICKER: The police aren’t committing arson. But let me be totally clear: in my opinion, I totally hate hate hate the police violence and stand four square against it. > > POSTER 1: _(whew, he’s on the right side)_ What did you mean about the arson, then? > > BRICKER: The crime is described as ‘brutality,’ and not arson. > > POSTER 1: Got it thanks! I disagree. People may argue with you over your opposing viewpoint but nobody is going to dispute you are entitled to have one. That’s not the issue here. If all you want to do is add some legal information, people would welcome it. POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop! BRICKER: Regardless of what your opinion is on the subject, the relevant crime is not arson. If the police are being too violent, the crime would be brutality not arson. Arson is the crime of setting property on fire and brutality is the crime of using unnecessary violence against a person. You would have corrected the error and expanded the legal knowledge of readers. And we could all move on with the central topic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/127 "2017-07-24T04:03:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. People may argue with you over your opposing viewpoint but nobody is going to dispute you are entitled to have one. That’s not the issue here. > > If all you want to do is add some legal information, people would welcome it. > > POSTER 1: Police are too violent when they make arrests. This arson must stop! > > BRICKER: Regardless of what your opinion is on the subject, the relevant crime is not arson. If the police are being too violent, the crime would be brutality not arson. Arson is the crime of setting property on fire and brutality is the crime of using unnecessary violence against a person. > > You would have corrected the error and expanded the legal knowledge of readers. And we could all move on with the central topic. Is that remarkably different from: > [@drewder](#): > > So let’s say you have a bunch of cash in your wallet and the cop thinks you might be a drug dealer he can take the money and charge the money, not the owner, with a crime. The owner must then prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back. [Quote=Bricker] That’s not an accurate description. The government must prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeit. The property owner does not have to “prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.” [/quote] I’ll bet you that I could take your exact words, wait six months or so, and use them in a similar thread, changing only “arson” and “brutality,” for the subjects then under discussion . . . and draw similar reactions to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/128 "2017-07-24T04:07:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you thinking of the case where Colorado refused to refund a fine after the conviction was overturned? Yes, that’s the one. Any relationship to what’s being talked about here or not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/129 "2017-07-24T04:35:07Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Yes, that’s the one. Any relationship to what’s being talked about here or not? Kinda. The Colorado statute involved wasn’t civil forfeiture, though. It instead involved the fines and costs that can be assessed after a criminal conviction. It did involve requiring people to prove their innocence. Shannon Nelson was convicted by Colorado for various crimes not really relevant here. Let’s just say it was mopery and dopery. Pursuant to those convictions, she was assessed fines and court costs, which she paid. She then appealed her conviction, and the appellate court overturned her conviction, finding it was obtained in error. She was re-tried by the state and acquitted of all charges. Nelson asked for her money back. Colorado refused, citing their “Exoneration Act,” which limits the refund of fines and fees to cases in which the accused proves their actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This IS an example of requiring a person to prove their own innocence – just not related to a civil forfeiture. Anyway, the Court slapped Colorado’s scheme down, sensibly pointing out that once the conviction was erased, the money was not Colorado’s at all to withhold. So the general thinking is good for those opposed to onerous civil forfeiture, but the facts are not directly on point. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/130 "2017-07-24T08:36:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There were organized crime figures, like mafia leaders and druglords, who were hiring extensive legal teams to defend them in court. People were annoyed to see these people using the money they made from crime to prevent them from being found guilty of those crimes. So the argument was _“We’ll just seize all their criminal profits during the trial so they have to defend themselves on a level playing field with non-criminals. And then, if they’re convicted, we’ll keep those criminal profits as part of their punishment and use them for the public good to make up for some of the harm their crimes caused.”_ > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I could get behind that. If they have reason to suspect you of being a drug dealer, I don’t have a problem with them holding your assets as evidence, to be forfeited upon conviction. > > But if you are found innocent, or if no charges are even brought, then you should automatically get your assets back in a timely fashion. I’d be interested in learning why _freezing_ the assets wouldn’t accomplish the same putative goal (preventing their use in defense funding) as seizing them. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/131 "2017-07-24T14:17:36Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’d be interested in learning why _freezing_ the assets wouldn’t accomplish the same putative goal (preventing their use in defense funding) as seizing them. How do you \*freeze \*thousands of dollars in cash that was found in a car? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/132 "2017-07-24T14:20:27Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > How do you \*freeze \*thousands of dollars in cash that was found in a car? Put it in a freezer. Where do you think the phrase “cold, hard cash” came from? 😉 ---
**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:** [July 24, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/133 "2017-07-24T14:31:51Z")
[Sometimes it is arson.](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wisconsin-police-accidentally-set-naked-man-fire-article-1.3335530) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/134 "2017-07-24T14:45:36Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I can’t understand how anyone can support civil forfeiture laws. For those not in the know civil forfeiture is when the cops can grab your property if they suspect it was used in connection with a crime. > > So let’s say you have a bunch of cash in your wallet and the cop thinks you might be a drug dealer he can take the money and charge the money, not the owner, with a crime. The owner must then prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back. > > How is this legal? How can Democrats or Republicans support it since it would seem to offend the sensibilities of either group. In your example, the money should be seized as evidence. If there is no conviction, it should be returned. If there is a conviction, it should be forfeited. Same with anything else seized under civil forfeiture. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/135 "2017-07-24T15:17:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > A lot of us do see these semantic arguments as an attempt to change the topic. We’re trying to have a discussion about police brutality and whether or not the police are too violent. Changing the subject into a discussion of what the proper name of the crime is diverts the discussion away from that original topic. Some people feel you do things like this deliberately in order to undermine discussions of subjects you don’t want discussed. So, in effect, you are defending police brutality by stopping a discussion of the subject - you’re not directly defending police brutality but you are stopping other people from attacking police brutality. Even if opposed to something, maybe even especially when opposed to something, it is critical to understand and correctly describe the underlying fact patterns to effectively attack it. It does no good to set up an inaccurate picture of what CAF actually is. ---
**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:** [July 24, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/136 "2017-07-24T15:18:05Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > In your example, the money should be seized as evidence. If there is no conviction, it should be returned. If there is a conviction, it should be forfeited. > > Same with anything else seized under civil forfeiture. So a police officer can come up to you and take any cash you have on you because you might be a drug dealer? I mean you specifically. That’s what you are saying, a cop can approach **Clothahump** , say “I think you are a drug dealer”, and then take your money. Then you have to count on the police to return your money, eventually, after you’ve had a trial or time has run out for them to bring you to trial. Is that what you are saying? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/137 "2017-07-24T16:08:33Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’d be interested in learning why _freezing_ the assets wouldn’t accomplish the same putative goal (preventing their use in defense funding) as seizing them. > [@Slash1972](#): > > How do you \*freeze \*thousands of dollars in cash that was found in a car? Put it in an evidence locker. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/138 "2017-07-24T16:35:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? > > My very first post in this thread: And I see what the problem is, it’s not just that we arguing about different things, it’s not just that we don’t know what we are arguing about, it’s not even a matter of hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s that you aren’t even aware of what the debate really is here. You are talking about arson vs brutality, forfeiture vs theft, when the real issue is with the word “prove”. To you “prove” means to provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt, and to a layman, “prove” means “provide proof (or evidence, if you prefer) that overcomes the amount of evidence against you (to the satisfaction of a not necessarily neutral arbitrator)” If you take drewder’s claim of “The owner must then prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.”, and substitute the lawyer to layman’s translation of the word, would you then agree with the statement? That would have been a much more useful correction to make. “It’s not that the owner needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t used in a crime, it’s that the owner needs to provide enough proof (or evidence) that is was not the proceeds of, or to be used in future crime, to overcome the evidence of suspicion and presence of the money that the arbiter will consider in preponderance.” or something probably better worded than that, would be very useful, and people “in the know” would then use the term “provide evidence” rather than “prove”, and we could get on with our discussion as to what to do about the practice. If we can agree that it was the word “prove” that upset the legalese, can we get past it? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/139 "2017-07-24T18:33:07Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > If Congress passed a law stating that all forfeited property became Federal property, and would be auctioned off to reduced the National Debt, and local, state or Federal agencies got bupkis, that would get rid of the majority of the seizures. I will bid $2000 for this suitcase full of $100 bills. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/140 "2017-07-24T18:57:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It’s not that the owner needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t used in a crime, it’s that the owner needs to provide enough proof (or evidence) that is was not the proceeds of, or to be used in future crime, to overcome the evidence of suspicion and presence of the money that the arbiter will consider in preponderance. I completely endorse this wording. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804.md?page=8)