Asset forfeiture has traditionally allowed law enforcement to bypass most of the Constitution, provided it can insinuate the potentially illegal origin of the items seized from citizens. Fundamental rights, such as those protected by the Fourth Amendment, are rendered redundant in this context, given that no criminal proceedings are involved. This system enables prosecutors to obtain seized properties without introducing them as evidence in court.
Instead, the state prosecutes the property. Legal actions are brought against the inanimate objects, allowing the government to wage a one-sided fight against properties it already owns. Typical challenges of such forfeitures, however, often prove unsuccessful. It comes at no cost to prosecutors to take cases to court, and even less to indefinitely put the proceedings on hold, intending to deter citizens from reclaiming their confiscated belongings.
The gateway for a constitutional challenge rests in the Fourteenth Amendment, which affirms certain due process rights. It also prevents the state from administering overly harsh punishments. For example, when a vehicle’s owner is not charged with any crime, any civil forfeiture should theoretically infringe upon the 14th Amendment. In this context, any amount at all surpasses the financial or punitive liability for the charge as no criminal charges are ever brought forth.
Despite the logic behind this argument, court decisions across the nation have generally assisted in the ineffective war on drugs, through the pretense that seizing belongings from people will somehow limit the import of illegal drugs into the country. This strategy has proven ineffective, similar to the unsuccessful broader war on drugs. With illicit drugs still easily accessible, law enforcement agencies can perpetually secure funding to continue a losing battle.
[…]
For the time being, the status quo persists. Alabama is free to seize property, demand ransoms on it, and proceed to auction it off for its own gain after outlasting the few brave enough to contest the state on its tilted playing field. Supporting these abuses are two consecutive federal court rulings which state there’s essentially nothing wrong with civil asset forfeiture. It doesn’t deter individuals like Halima Culley from partaking in criminal activities they have never been involved with.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t hear this case, the situation in the US will go unchanged. The government will continue using the system to enrich itself through meaningless seizures that neither deter crime nor benefit anyone other than the involved entities. This state-sanctioned theft could continue unabated, to the detriment of innocent victims who become caught in this rigged system.
For the complete analysis on the topic, you can visit the original post by Techdirt here.