DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Asset Forfeitures Civil forfeiture laws allow the government to seize any property that is implicated in drug-related activities and then use the revenue to support law enforcement. (Usually the forfeited property gets appropriated by the same law enforcement agency that seized it.) Generally, the government can seize property and detain it pending trial on a mere "probable cause" standard, with the exception of real estate. The owner of the property needs not be found guilty before the property is seized. It's not even necessary that anyone be charged with a crime to forfeit property. This section of the site contains excerpts from various opinions that discuss asset forfeitures. Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6›
The statutory puzzle the plurality and concurrence find so engaging is created because of a false premise, the premise that the possessor of an asset subject to forfeiture does not stand in the position of the transferor but must be charged with some guilty knowledge of her own. Forfeiture proceedings, though, are directed at an asset, and a donee in general has no more than the ownership rights of the donor. By denying this simple principle, the plurality rips out the most effective enforcement provisions in all of the drug forfeiture laws.
[...]
Although Congress designed the drug forfeiture statute to be a powerful instrument in enforcement of the drug laws, it did not intend to deprive innocent owners of their property. The affirmative defense of innocent ownership is allowed by statute. See 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(7) ("No property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner").
[...]
The constitutional limitations we enforce in this case apply to real property in general, not simply to residences. That said, the case before us well illustrates an essential principle: Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights. At stake in this and many other forfeiture cases are the security and privacy of the home and those who take shelter within it.
[...]
The seizure of respondent Good's real property serves important governmental purposes in combating illegal drugs; a preseizure notice might frustrate this statutory purpose by permitting respondent Good to destroy or otherwise damage the buildings on the property; and Government officials made the seizure rather than self-interested private parties seeking to gain from the seizure.
[...]
This is not to say that the Government's use of civil forfeiture statutes to seize real property in drug cases may not cause hardship to innocent individuals...
[...]
|
|