Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Nov 24, 2025 3:14 AM

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Justice Department would be reinstating the Equitable Sharing Program, a controversial policy related to civil asset forfeiture. Several states have been making it more difficult to apply such forfeitures so this allows state and local law enforcement to explicitly circumvent state forfeiture restrictions.

Here’s what you should know aboutcivil asset forfeiture.

What is civil asset forfeiture?

Civil asset forfeiture (hereafter CAF) is a controversial legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property they claim has been involved in specific criminal activity.

Typically, civil law involves disputes between private citizens while criminal law involves disputes between private citizens and the state (i.e., the “people” represent the interest of victims). CAF is a hybrid of the two, a dispute between the state and a private citizen’s property. Because CAF proceedings charge the property itself with involvement in a crime, the property owner must prove the property was not involved in criminal activity. Such property can include land, vehicles, cash, personal possessions, etc.

As the Department of Justice notes, it is “because civil forfeiture actions are brought against the property directly that federal civil forfeiture cases have what appear to be very peculiar names, such as United States v. Ninety Three(93) Firearms, 330 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003), United States v. One 1992 Ford Mustang GT, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (C.D. Cal. 1999), or United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2002).

How can mit a crime?

It can’t, as even the Justice Department admits:

At one time, it was said that civil forfeiture was based on the legal fiction that the property itself was guilty of the offense. That is no longer true. Although the property is named as the defendant in the civil forfeiture case, it is not because the property did anything wrong. Things do mit crimes. mit crimes using or obtaining things that consequently e forfeitable to the state. The in rem structure of civil forfeiture is simply procedural convenience. It is a way for the government to identify the thing that is subject to forfeiture and the grounds therefor, and to give everyone with an interest in the property the opportunity e into court at one time and contest the forfeiture action.

Is civil asset forfeiture state or federal law?

Both. Only seven states and D.C. block law enforcement access to forfeiture proceeds. But because of a recent change by the Justice Department, all local law enforcement agencies have access to CAF through participation in “equitable sharing” (see below) with the federal government.

What is “equitable sharing”?

Equitable sharing allows state and local law enforcement to team with the federal government to forfeit property under federal law instead of state law. Participating agencies allow the federal government to keep some of the proceeds from the sell of the seized property, though they may receive up to 80 percent for themselves.

In 2015, President Obama ended the Equitable Sharing Program, but it was reinstated this month by the Trump administration.

In fiscal year 2016, the states received $314,983,323 in cash and sale proceeds from the federal equitable sharing program.

How long has civil asset forfeiture been used?

Although some form of civil forfeiture has existed since the founding of the United States, the modern form dates back to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This federal law authorized federal officials to implement a national asset forfeiture program.

What is the purpose of the federal civil asset forfeiture program?

According to the Department of Justice, the Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is an initiative that “removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used pensate victims, and deters crime. The most important objective of the Program is law enforcement. Equitable sharing further enhances this law enforcement objective by fostering cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.”

How is property federally forfeited?

At the federal level, forfeiture can be administrative, judicial, criminal, and civil.

Administrative forfeiture is the process by which federal seizing agencies may declare property forfeited to the U.S. government without judicial involvement. Seizures must be based on probable cause. Among DOJ civil forfeitures from 1997 to 2013, 88 percent took place administratively.

Judicial forfeiture, both civil and criminal, is the process by which property is declared forfeited to the United States by a court.

Criminal forfeiture is an action brought as part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant that includes the forfeiture of property used or derived from the crime. If the defendant is convicted, the judge or the jury may find that the property is forfeitable.

Civil forfeiture is a proceeding brought against the property rather than against the person mitted the offense. Civil forfeiture does not require either criminal charges against the owner of the property or a criminal conviction. To obtain a federal forfeiture, the Government must prove the forfeiture and the connection between the property and the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

What is the burden of proof for seizing property?

In federal law and 35 states, the burden of proof is placed on the owners of the property to prove they had nothing to do with the alleged crime. As the Institute for Justice explains,

In essence, most civil forfeiture laws presume that people are connected to any criminal activity involving their property and force them to prove otherwise to recover it. This is precisely the opposite of what happens in criminal trials, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government. It also often involves a practical impossibility, as it requires people to prove a negative—that they did not know about or consent to the illegal use of their property.

What if property is taken from an innocent person?

A person must prove they are innocent of the crime to get back their seized property. According to the Justice Department:

To protect the interests of truly innocent property owners who were unaware that their property was being used for an illegal purpose, or who took all reasonable steps under the circumstances to stop it, Congress has enacted a “uniform innocent owner defense.” See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d). Under that statute, a person contesting the forfeiture must establish ownership interests and innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.

If a claimant is successful in proving their innocence in a civil forfeiture case, Congress has mandated they are entitled to have the government pay all attorneys fees and other litigation expenses.

How much property is seized each year?

In fiscal year 2016, a total of $1,921,273,552 was collected in the sale of seized property by the federal government.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Looking to Business for Disaster Relief
I have written quite a bit on the church response to natural disasters here at Acton. “The Church and Disaster Relief: Shelter from the Stormy Blast” was the feature piece in the last issue of Religion & Liberty. John Tozzi over at has written an excellent article highlighting Louisiana’s outreach to the munity during natural disasters. From the article: As Hurricane Gustav bore down on Louisiana in 2008, state officials wanted to avoid the food shortages that had followed Katrina...
On Locke and Aquinas: Reason, Will, and Law
Greg Forster’s latest response to Sam Gregg, Acton’s director of research, on the utility of John Locke’s thought today is up over at Public Discourse. There’s a lot to learn from reading these exchanges, but right now I want to focus just briefly on one of the criticisms that Sam levels against Locke. Comparing Locke’s definition of Law to that of Aquinas, Sam finds Locke to be quite wanting. For Locke, “Law’s formal definition is the declaration of a superior...
In the Octagon: Ron Paul vs. Religious Left
Even though Ron Paul clarified himself at the Tea Party debate, and explained that he doesn’t think those who can’t afford medical care should be laid out on the curb to die, the Left went about painting his answer as morally abominable. Before we deal with their abuse of Christian doctrine, let’s see what Paul said: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital...
Solyndra and the False Hope of Green Jobs
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Solyndra and the False Hope of Green Jobs” I look at the original problem with federally funded Green Jobs. The Solyndra debacle has been called a “microcosm of Obamanomics,” an example of what always happens when the Federal Government starts handing out $500 million checks. That’s true, but it’s a microcosm of something more — of an economy that’s lost it’s understanding of vocation. We stumble around trying to “create jobs” by Congressional action without...
Pope Benedict Greets Acton Institute
Pope Benedict XVI warmly greeted a group of 23 Acton Institute staff and supporters on pilgrimage at his Castel Gandolfo summer palace this past Sunday, September 18. During the traditional Sunday Angelus audience inside the papal summer palace courtyard, Benedict delivered an inspiring talk on Christ’s parable of the workers in the vineyard — a most appropriate Christian teaching upon which the Acton Institute often reflects and articulates during its economics seminars to religious students and business professionals throughout the...
Faith and Work, Politics and Jobs
Reactions from munities to last week’s jobs speech from President Obama are running the political gamut, as one might expect. Over at Think Christian, my piece has garnered some rather vociferous response. And at the Faith in Public Life blog, Jessica Barba piles some responses that focus on “the need for serious job-creation legislation.” The problem here is that while a society with opportunities for employment for all is seen as a moral imperative, the primary agent responsible for creating...
Rev. Sirico: ‘Jobs & deficits — the moral equation’
Writing in today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute: Jobs & deficits — the moral equation By Rev. Robert A. Sirico Thursday, September 15, 2011 The Genesis account of creation tells us that from the beginning, humanity was created to work. God puts Adam in the garden to “work and watch over it.” The Scripture provides an insight into our nature: We are all, man and woman, called into this life to find...
Strange Bedfellows? The Propserity Gospel and Liberation Theology
Preacher of the prosperity gospel and swindler of poor Brazilians Bishop Edir Macedo was charged last week with embezzeling hundreds of millions of dollars from his Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. Until I read about the case (h/t Get Religion), I didn’t realize that the prosperity gospel had much of a foothold outside American Pentecostal traditions. It makes perfect sense though that it should be the heir to liberation theology in Latin America. The Catholic Church fought back...
Webcast: Acton’s Michael Miller in Colson’s ‘Doing the Right Thing’
In the Grand Rapids Press, reporter Ann Byle interviews Acton’s Michael Miller about a live, national webcast on Sept. 24 of the Colson Center’s “Doing the Right Thing: An Exploration of Ethics.” Byle notes that the webcast “features a live panel discussion with [Chuck] Colson, experts Del Tackett, Robert George, John Stone-street and host Eric Metaxas. Grand Rapids-based Acton Institute’s Michael Miller also will participate as a panelist, thanks to his work as a research fellow and expert on the...
Samuel Gregg: Social Security and Subsidiarity
In the National Catholic Register, Kathryn Jean Lopez looks at the current debate on Social Security and asks: “So, is it a Ponzi scheme? Is it time to blow it up? Are these questions freaking people out — and missing the point?” Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg is extensively quoted in the article. Here he is explaining how the principle of subsidiarity plays into the debate. “Integral human development requires us to make free choices and to be assisted in...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved