Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Possible Good News on Reform of Civil Forfeiture?

by June 7, 2024
June 7, 2024
Possible Good News on Reform of Civil Forfeiture?

Jeffrey Miron

A recent Supreme Court ruling on civil forfeiture, while seemingly a setback for critics of the practice, nevertheless contains some good news. 

Civil forfeiture occurs when police seize property they suspect was involved in or obtained through crime. The owner must then prove the property’s innocence to reclaim it.

States must ordinarily provide notice and a hearing before seizing property. If the property in question could otherwise be removed, destroyed, or concealed before a hearing, however, police can seize it without these steps. 

Civil forfeiture started during the colonial years under British maritime law. If a ship owner violated custom laws, enforcement could seize ships and cargo even if the owner was difficult to capture.

Forfeiture has expanded dramatically as a weapon in the War on Drugs (similarly to the Prohibition era). One crucial development has been that law enforcement agencies can often keep the proceeds from auctioning seized property, which creates an incentive to seize more property and complicate the retrieval processes. This seems likely to distort balanced enforcement of laws and is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.

In a recent case about civil forfeiture, the Supreme Court ruled against two women in Alabama:

Halima Culley bought a 2015 Nissan Altima for her son to use at college. He was pulled over by the police in 2019 and arrested when they found marijuana. They also seized Ms. Culley’s car. That same year, Lena Sutton lent her 2012 Chevrolet Sonic to a friend. He was stopped for speeding and arrested after the police found methamphetamine. Ms. Sutton’s car was also seized.

Both women eventually convinced the courts to return their cars, but their cases took over a year. Culley and Sutton filed suit in federal court, arguing that, in the interest of “timely resolution,” civil forfeiture should allow property owners to prove “innocent ownership” in a preliminary hearing, before cases moved forwards. 

The court ruled 6–3 that while due process requires timely resolution, it does not always require a separate preliminary hearing. This is disappointing for critics of civil forfeiture, since defining and enforcing “timeliness” is messy (although the same could be true of preliminary hearings). 

The good news is that five justices expressed serious reservations about current practices.

Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, although agreeing that preliminary hearings should not be required, emphasized the abusive practices of today’s civil forfeiture:

[T]his promise [the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments] usually meant that a government seeking to deprive an individual of her property could do so only after a trial before a jury in which it (not the individual) bore the burden of proof. […] So how is it that, in civil forfeiture, the government may confiscate property first and provide process later?

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, criticized the perverse incentives for officers to hold on to seized property.

A crucial step in reducing the negatives of civil forfeiture is repeal of drug prohibition. Then, police would have far fewer occasions to claim that property was involved in a crime.

With or without legalization, civil forfeiture would also be less onerous and more consistent with due process if: 

The government required a criminal conviction before seizing assets.

The government had the burden of proof.

Forfeited property went to the federal treasury rather than the police, to remove corrupt incentives.

Here’s hoping a future case leads to such changes.

Lemoni Matsumoto, an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, contributed to this article.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
David Boaz: Champion of Educational Freedom
next post
S&P 500 Still Bullish: This Is What You Should Watch For

You may also like

Ninth Circuit: Prop 65 Warnings Can Count As...

March 29, 2024

FTC Gets 2/3 of the Infant Formula Crisis...

March 25, 2024

New Trump Administration Proposals Would Increase US Shipping...

February 26, 2025

Tariffs on Imports from China Are Still Too...

May 23, 2025

Friday Feature: Pennsylvania Families for Education Choice

September 27, 2024

A College Endowment Tax Is the Wrong Federal...

May 20, 2025

Powell’s CBDC Puzzle: Deciphering Where the Fed Stands

March 27, 2024

Gender Board Quotas: Still Unhelpful to Working Women

September 7, 2023

Milei’s Key Pending Task: Ending Argentina’s Currency Controls...

January 14, 2025

Medicaid Is Driving Deficits: Republicans Are Scarcely Tapping...

May 13, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • TSA tells Americans their Costco cards won’t fly at airport security despite love for hot dogs

      June 7, 2025
    • Trump announces China will restart rare earth mineral shipments to US after productive call

      June 7, 2025
    • Musk feud presents ‘unprecedented’ dynamic compared to past Trump disputes: expert

      June 7, 2025
    • Snub of Musk’s NASA nominee ally preceded sudden ‘big, beautiful bill’ criticism, Trump feud

      June 6, 2025
    • Supreme Court rules DOGE can access Social Security information

      June 6, 2025
    • US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces nuclear reprimand at IAEA

      June 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,558)
    • Stocks (3,134)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved