Documented Abuses and Uncertain Benefits of Civil Asset Forfeiture

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12356
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Author: David W. Rasmussen
• Date: 01 February 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS

Documented Abuses and Uncertain Benefits

of Civil Asset Forfeiture

David W.Rasmussen

Florida State University

Police seizing assets before a person is convicted of a crime is widely condemned

according to a survey conducted by the Cato Institute. Eighty four percent of

Americans oppose the practice of police taking a “person’s money or property that

is suspected to have been involved in a drug crime before the person is convicted of a crime”

(Elkins, 2016: 8).

Libertarians and conservatives alike take a dim view of the state having the power

to confiscate assets from citizens without due cause. The American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU) says that “police abuse of civil asset forfeiture has shaken our nation’s conscience”

(ACLU, n.d.: para. 1). U.S. Supreme Court JusticeClarence Thomas in a minority opinion

in Leonard v. Texas (2017) wrote that, “This system—where police can seize property with

limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well

chronicled abuses.” There is a nearly universal condemnation of “policing for profit” when

assets can be seized without proof that a crime had been committed.

At a Koch Institute–sponsored event, Darpana Steth, an attorney at the Institute of

Justice, opined that the strength of the law enforcement lobby is so strong in state and local

politics that “the best way to combat these things, to outmuscle the law enforcement lobby,

is to educate the public” (Charles Koch Institute Staff, 2016: para. 11). In his policy essay,

David Pimentel (2018, this issue) expresses a similar sentiment when he concludes that “the

public outcry will need to be particularly strong to counter” the police agencies’ interest in

preserving their opportunity to police for profit.

Jefferson Holcomb, Marian Williams, William Hicks, Tomislav Kovandzic, and

Michele Bisaccia Meitl (2018, this issue) and Pimentel (2018) indicate that it is the policing

for profit that generates most of the scholarly, legal, and media criticism of civil asset for-

feiture. They point out that the federal government’s practice of “equitable sharing” allows

Direct correspondence to David W. Rasmussen, Pepper Institute on Aging & Public Policy, Florida State

University, 636 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1121 (e-mail: dwrasmussen@admin.fsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12356 C2018 American Society of Criminology 97

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 1