Memories of the 28th Century

I don't often think about civil forfeiture, but when it comes to mind I am bothered by it. A similar system was used by the British before the American Revolution, and it was one of the many things that led to the revolution. A couple of decades ago some clown pointed out that civil forfeiture had been used by the legal system that the U.S. adopted, so the U.S. should take up civil forfeiture. Apparently no one bothered to mention that the wording if the Forth and Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution are as they are specifically to keep civil forfeiture from being used.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This was written in broad and open terms to ensure that there would be no "unreasonable searches or seizures", but civil forfeiture laws simply ignore these rights.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The requirement of due process of law and that private property may not be taken for public purposes without just compensation apply directly to civil forfeiture, because most of those laws allow things to be taken without due process or with a reduced process, and the actions are against the property, rather than respecting the property rights of the owner. And the big problem is that things are taken and used without the owner being compensated at all.

There are different laws that related to taking property that was illegally gotten, but those require that the owner be found guilty of a crime with respect to the property. That an automobile have been used in the commission of a crime, or something along those lines, and the property is seized as part of the punishment of a crime. In civil forfeiture the owner need not have committed a crime; the forfeiture is not punishment for crime; it is simply taken because police go through the paperwork. If the owner were accused of a crime, then there would have to be a trial before the property was taken, but in civil forfeiture there is no such requirement.

Many people may think civil forfeiture is just something that is done to drug dealers. That would be bad enough, but there have been forfeitures of property of people who were not involved in criminal activity at all. We have all encountered the phrase "abuse of power"; well, that's what this is.

If you ever contact you people in Congress on in you state legislature, then you should suggest that they eliminate this loathsome program. It does not belong in a country that even pretends to be free. Read the linked article; it goes into the details of some cases.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken