The corrupting influence of asset forfeiture

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 18, 2002]

Thanks to dedicated efforts to bring about public awareness, it seems that some progress is being made to constrain asset forfeiture. Issues & Views has reported on groups and individuals who are in the forefront (8/6/01), 12/10/01), (6/3/02) of the battle to put reins on government bureaucrats, who are making a field day out of seizing citizens' property.

Last year, journalist Karen Dillon, in a series of articles for the Kansas City Star, exposed the practice by which law enforcement officers can confiscate land, cars, cash, and other assets of citizens, whether or not they are judged guilty of a crime. The seized goods are then sold, and the loot is usually split between the local arresting agency and federal departments.

In many cases, when an individual is arrested and charged with a drug crime, the home and vehicles, on which other family members depend, are taken away. Dillon revealed how such actions were undertaken by law enforcement, even before any court action against the suspect had transpired.

Now comes news of an important challenge to asset forfeiture as presently constituted. Carol Thomas is a former New Jersey Sheriff's deputy, whose son, in 1999, was caught selling marijuana. At the time, he was driving Thomas's 1990 Ford Thunderbird, which was seized by the police. No drugs were found in the car, and Thomas certainly had not given her consent for her vehicle to be used to convey her son to his rendezvous.

What's important about this case is not just that a judge ordered Thomas's car returned to her, but that Thomas has initiated a counter lawsuit to challenge asset forfeiture itself. In New Jersey, any criminal activity, except minor ones like disorderly conduct offenses, can lead to the loss of one's property.

As a former member of law enforcement, Thomas has seen the exercise of asset forfeiture up close, and she claims that the justice system has been corrupted by its officers' ability to profit from taking property. She also makes the chilling observation that agencies sometimes decide whom to prosecute based on the value of a person's property and how much can be seized. She says that, although she has won her case, "I want to make sure the state stops cashing in on the property of other innocent owners."

Thomas has found a legal advocate in the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm based in Washington, DC, that has taken up her cause. IJ's senior attorney Scott Bullock says that the "legal fiction" of asset forfeiture allows the government to seize property and keep the proceeds on the "flimsiest of pretenses."

New Jersey's Attorney General tried to get the court to dismiss Thomas's suit, but Superior Court Judge Thomas Bowen rejected the request for dismissal, and agreed to hear the case. No date has yet been set for the hearing.

For more information about asset forfeiture, visit the websites of Forfeiture Endangers American Families (FEAR), and the Institute for Justice.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views