Essay Sample about Civil Forfeiture

According to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, citizens are promised certain protections, but this comes into question with the repeated use of civil forfeiture by police forces across the United States to deprive citizens of their property. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from government overreach, which is often ineffective. All uses of civil forfeiture by police departments violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures, and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of property.

Law enforcement agencies use civil forfeiture to seize property from suspects when there is probable cause that those assets are being used for criminal activity, but this seizure does not require the individual to be convicted. In the district court case United States v. $8,000, like all civil forfeiture cases, it is the property of Ryan Barns on trial, not the individual himself. “After the police had seized [the $8000], they let Barnes go. He was never connected to a drug deal. They did not give him so much as a warning - no citation, arrest, charge…They were content with his money.” This case is no exception. Civil forfeiture cases often end with deprivation of property without any charges pressed for their supposed causes.

In the Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana, Tyrone Timbs was arrested for the selling of heroin and consequently, the State of Indiana seized his $42,000 Land Rover, claiming it aided him in criminal activity. In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of his vehicle would be an excessive fine, although there was no decision on what constitutes the excessive aspect. Through the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines, Timbs was able to keep his car and through the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court applied civil forfeiture to state courts. Nevertheless, this would only be for individual cases, not overarching decisions. There needs to be more regulations set by federal and state legislatures to ensure citizens' liberties are being protected.

In the United States Supreme Court case, Austin v. United States, the Fourth Amendment was connected to the Eighth Amendment, saying that historically, “the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in [criminal] forfeiture proceedings,” but this has not been applied to cases of civil forfeiture. The Official Department of Justice states, “In creating the Fourth Amendment, the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to protect citizens from officials who would use forfeiture laws to indiscriminately seize property." This historical intention is important because this issue has been relevant since the colonists' time as British subjects. According to the ACLU, “Based on experience, they knew that equipping government officers with unfettered discretion to search and seize would be a formidable means of oppressing ‘the people.’” This fear has become a reality for many under the current civil forfeiture laws across the United States.

The Institute for Justice, an American advocacy group, claims that close to 80 percent of people who experience civil forfeiture have never been charged with a crime. This problem is evident in Massachusetts which has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country. According to Metrowest Daily News, “The practice contradicts the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and breaks the Fifth Amendment promise that no citizen shall be deprived of property without due process.” There are many problems involving civil forfeiture and the Fifth Amendment. According to lawyers at Evan Kingsbury, “Civil forfeitures can result in violations of the basic rights guaranteed in the 5th Amendment—the right against forced self-incrimination, the guarantee that all criminal defendants receive a fair trial with an impartial tribunal, and prohibiting the government from seizing private property based on an error in facts or law and without paying fair market value compensation.” While unconstitutional, the way civil asset forfeiture works in the United States makes this possible.

The idea of preventing individuals from continuing in crimes sounds good, but it has historically allowed many innocent citizens to be targeted. As stated in the Journal of Property Law, “the government should be required to prove that the owner of forfeited property had actual knowledge that the property was connected to an underlying crime…Property owners should never be forced to prove their innocence without the constitutional protections guaranteed in criminal courts.” With the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth amendments, civil forfeiture should be impossible in the United States, and should be stopped in future cases.