Justice Thomas Defends Victims of Policing for Profit

Civil asset forfeiture is arbitrary and unfair, and it gives law enforcement the wrong incentives.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is well known for staying silent during oral arguments, but his written statement in response to Monday’s denial of certiorari in Leonard v. Texas posed a question that was heard loud and clear throughout the legal community. That question asked “whether modern civil-forfeiture statutes can be squared with the Due Process Clause and our Nation’s history.” In other words, why are police still allowed to seize property from people without ever charging them with a crime?

According to the facts of the petition, a Texas police officer stopped James Leonard and Nicosa Kane on April 1, 2013, for a traffic infraction. A search of the vehicle yielded the discovery of a safe in the trunk, which contained $201,100 and a bill of sale for a Pennsylvania home. The money was seized because law-enforcement officials believed that it was “substantially connected to criminal activity,” including the sale of narcotics. James Leonard’s mother, Lisa Olivia Leonard, claimed to be the rightful owner of the money from the house sale and sued the government to regain it. But because she didn’t raise her due-process claims at the trial level, the Supreme Court declined to hear her case, leaving her with little recourse.

The whole procedure seemed wrong to Thomas, and not just because neither Leonard nor Kane had been charged with a crime. Thomas cites multiple examples of other individuals who had their property seized by the police with dubious justification, noting that “forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.”

Americans have a right to presumed innocence, making the idea of the government’s seizing property without due process incompatible with the Constitution and our founding principles. However, this has not stopped law enforcement from commonly using the practice — known as civil asset forfeiture — to seize property they have “probable cause” to believe was involved in criminal activity.

TOP STORIES
Nikki Haley’s Sin Isn’t Racism
The Hard Realities Facing Ron DeSantis
Maine Secretary of State Rules Trump Is Disqualified from 2024 Ballot
Francis Collins’s Covid Confession
A Reckoning for the Rising-Inequality Narrative
The Peace Processors Return
Because this is a civil procedure, the government doesn’t have to establish guilt before seizing the property in question. If the owner wants to reclaim it, he or she must prove to the government that it has no connection to criminal activity. This turns the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head.

Supporters argue that civil forfeiture swiftly cuts off the proceeds (cash, vehicles, and other property) of crime, which can then be used to fund law-enforcement activity. But many scholars, such as the late Leonard Levy, note that the practice might have the opposite effect — rather than increasing a department’s ability to fight crime, it “subordinate[s]” police to the role of “making money for one’s department.” A bad incentive scheme ensures that, while cash and property are seized, “the criminal isn’t prosecuted.”

Americans have a right to presumed innocence, making the idea of the government’s seizing property without due process incompatible with the Constitution and our founding principles.

But if public safety is the goal, shouldn’t law-enforcement officers focus on preventing crime rather than chasing profit after a crime has been committed?

While law-enforcement figures, including state and federal attorneys general, have reiterated that civil forfeiture is, to quote former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch, “an effective tool” against crime, proponents often conveniently overlook the effect it has on victims.

While programs such as civil asset forfeiture were born of good intentions, perverse incentives ultimately draw law enforcement away from pursuing criminals and undermine the public’s trust. The administration and the law-enforcement community are correct to view public safety as a priority, but fighting crime requires appropriate incentives. Among advocates who wish to protect innocent property owners and strengthen due process, they have a willing ally.

Fortunately, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Ohio have taken steps to ensure that the rule of law is preserved, innocent parties are protected, and law enforcement remains equipped to fight crime. New Mexico now requires a criminal conviction before law enforcement can seize property, while police in Florida must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that property is linked to a crime before it’s seized.

Justice Thomas is right to question the modern-day practice of civil asset forfeiture. Let’s hope Congress and the states will pay attention.

You might also like:
PCI DSS in a Colocation Environment: Roles & Responsibilities | U.S. prosecutors seek broader powers to seize Russian oligarchs’ asset | How do you protect your assets from seizures and forfeitures? | Michigan Rolled Back Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform | SLA Best Practices: Negotiations for Uptime, Redundancy, and Tenant Protections | Colocation vs. Hyperscale: Evaluating Pros, Cons, and Market Impact | Police seized $10,000 of a couple’s cash. They couldn’t get it back — until they went public. | Mitigating Cybersecurity Risk: A Legal Perspective for Data Centers | Libertarian Comes Close To Understanding Civil Asset Forfeiture | Can the Trump Administration Use Asset Forfeiture Funds to Build the Border Wall? | Eric Holder BANS Civil Forfeiture…Kind Of. | Cyber Insurance for Data Centers: Risk Transfer and Coverage Essentials | Criminal Justice Reform? We’re Making Progress | Cross-Border Data Transfers: How U.S. Centers Stay Compliant | Civil Asset Forfeiture: Undue Process | Mitigating Legal Risks Through Robust Data Center Contracts | NPR Articles on Dirty Money Asset Seizures and Forfeitures | Rand Paul: How feds can legally steal your money | Government seeks property forfeiture in vape case | Class Action Against FBI For Abusive Seizure and CIVIL FORFEITURE! Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT! | Proposed Changes to Civil Asset Forfeiture Law | Power Crunch: Overcoming Energy Constraints in Data Center Hubs | Feds seize millions in PPP funds from international ministry | Will a tech giant’s huge appetite transform a vibrant slice of Manhattan?

Additional Reading:
Legal Safeguards Every Business Needs | Police Seize Car, Drive 56,000 Miles, Sell It Without Charging Owners With a Crime | Criminal Justice Reform? We’re Making Progress | AYS Civil Forfeiture | A dysfunctional civil-forfeiture system seizes savings, destroys lives | State Officials Squander Millions in Asset Forfeiture Funds | Muskogee DA Drops $53K Civil Forfeiture Case | Seized Asset Defense – Rucci Law | Real Estate Forfeiture: Protecting Your Home & Property from Seizure | Asset Forfeiture Defense Strategies | The U.S. government has a massive, secret stockpile of bitcoin — Here’s what happens to it | Understanding Civil Rights: A Guide | Civil Asset Forfeiture in South Carolina | Life, Liberty, and Property: Civil Forfeiture in New Hampshire with John Stossel | Administrative Forfeiture Defense Strategies | Professional Commercial Real Estate Attorney Legal Services | How to Navigate Asset Forfeiture Cases | Bad Rules Make Bad Cops: Bart Wilson on The Economics of Civil Forfeiture | 21 U.S.C. § 853. CRIMINAL FORFEITURES | Rand Paul: How feds can legally steal your money | Dept of Justice Hoarding 28 Billion in Civil Asset Forfeiture Funds | Equitable Sharing Programs: A Guide for Asset Defense | Civil asset forfeiture reform is sweeping the nation | When Innocence Does Not Help: How to Communicate about Civil Asset Forfeiture