This is not to debate the fairness or constitutionality of CAF. I have a very specific question.
Civil asset forfeiture is a case against the property itself (because the owner wasn’t known although that it no longer required), which is why there are cases like U.S v 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall on our books. Currently, law enforcement simply takes ownership of the items and force you to try and get it back - often in court.
Now my question, if the rationale of the seizure is that there is a case against the property then why is the state not required to actually take the case to court and prove the charges? They used to have to do that right?
IANAL but it seems to me that court cases are about laws violated, and a case of beer cannot form intent, let alone act to break the law. Laws regulate the actions of people. (and corporations, who are also peoples.)
I assume the process is simply the state (or local police department) lays claim to the asset under the assumption that it is related to a crime, therefore has no legitimate ownership (?), and then the onus is on someone who also claims ownership to go to court and show that (a) it is theirs and (b) it is not the proceeds of a crime.
I think you are incorrect. Let’s say the cops raid a warehouse and everyone scatters leaving 50 lb of cocaine and the cops do not know ho owns it. The cocaine would be arrested and charged with being an illegal drug …
But under CAF there would be an actual case US v 50 lb of Cocaine and an actual trial like this one leading to a verdict like
Upon the District Attorney amending the complaint to an Exchequer case, the jury in this case found in favor of the wines.
Now a day there is no arrest and trial and verdict. Just seizure of the asset, done.
There are some overall caselaw pertaining to this but each state will do things differently according to their laws. As long as those laws are not less restrictive than established case law then the laws can be valid.
In my state civil asset forfeiture is not unheard of but not exactly common. The items seized have to be either directly related to the commission of a crime or purchased with money obtained through the commission of a crime. And the property can’t be encumbered. If a car is leased it can’t be seized from the leasing company. If the property is not in the defendant’s name it is extremely difficult to seize the property. It’s so difficult it’s very rarely attempted.
The seizure isn’t approved without a asset forfeiture hearing and has to be ruled on by a judge. It is like a mini trial with the prosecution and defense and witnesses called.