Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Jan 20, 2026 10:57 PM

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
Radosh Responds to Berlinski
I mended a Claire Berlinski article last Thursday. Ron Radosh forcefully calls into question several elements of the Berlinski piece, though her central claim seems to me to remain intact: While the Nazis are widely and duly vilified, far too many in the West continue to excuse, minimize or ignore the activities of the munists. At any rate, mentary has sparked a lively discussion in ments section under his post. ...
Bottle Deposits and Behavior
I have taken an unofficial and unplanned hiatus from PowerBlogging over the last few weeks as I worked toward finishing up a book manuscript that you’ll hear much more about in ing days. But in the meantime, I did continue to take note of things that might be of interest to PowerBlog readers, and one of these things was a recent NBER working paper, “Discontinuous Behavioral Responses to Recycling Laws and Plastic Water Bottle Deposits.” I noted it in part...
Acton on Tap: Artists, Storytellers and Conservatives
Join us on Wednesday, May 19, for the next Acton on Tap and a fascinating discussion about conservatives and the arts. The discussion will be led by David Michael Phelps, a writer, producer and story consultant. The event takes place from 6-8 p.m. at the Derby Station in East Grand Rapids, Mich. (Map it here.) No advance registration is required. The only cost is your food and drink. View event details on Facebook. Background: Both Story and Syllogism. (Excerpted from...
Why doesn’t anyone care about the unread Soviet archives?
I want to second Marc’s article mendation from earlier today. The phrase “a must read” is badly overworked, but in this case I can’t help myself: Claire Berlinski’s A Hidden History of Evil in the latest City Journal is a must-read. A few excerpts: Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history. For evidence of this indifference, consider the...
Digging in to the crimes of communism
Having recently finished reading Jean-François Revel’s Last Exit to Utopia – in which he excoriates leftist intellectuals for ignoring the crimes munist totalitarianism and their efforts to resurrect the deadly ideology – and having just read a few more chapters of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago over lunch, it seems providential that I would stumble across this article at City Journal on the failure of researchers to seriously dig into the now-available archives of the Soviet Union: Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile...
Wealth: What is it good for?
On the Economix blog at the New York Times, Uwe E. Reinhardt wrote a post titled “How Businesses Create Wealth.” That elicited attention from menter who wondered where he was “trying to go with this essay.” Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton, answers with “Companies: What Are They Good For?” He also cites an article from Acton’s Journal of Markets & Morality: “A Communitarian Model of Business: A Natural-Law Perspective.” Reinhardt: Actually, I was not trying to go anywhere with...
Debt and Politics
Though the Greek Debt crisis may seem far away, here is a sobering article by Kevin Hassett at Bloomberg. Greece’s Bailout Heroes arrive in Leaking Boats Those countries coordinating the $1Trillion bailout of Greece find themselves in similar trouble. Hassett writes: The fatal flaw in the plan is that the European nations bailing out Greece — even Germany, where government debt has risen to about 80 percent of gross domestic product — have similar budget problems and even less political...
Debt, Credit and the Virtuous Life
This week’s Acton Commentary: Our economic life is concerned with more than just the objective exchange of goods and services. Far from being morally neutral, it is an expression of how we understand our dependence on God and neighbor and is the means by which we fulfill, or not, our obligations toward them. Both for reasons of morality as well as long term economic efficiency, we cannot overlook or minimize the centrality of personal virtue, and of a culture of...
How’s that universal health care working out for you?
From the movie Fight Club (1999): Narrator: Tyler, you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I’ve ever met… see I have this thing: everything on a plane is single-serving… Tyler Durden: Oh I get it, it’s very clever. Narrator: Thank you. Tyler Durden: How’s that working out for you? Narrator: What? Tyler Durden: Being clever. The Hill reports that Dems feel healthcare fatigue. Blue Dog Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), who voted for the health overhaul, said the debate has...
Interview: Economics and the Reality of Things
A while back, Bevan Sabo and Ariel Goldring at Free Market Mojo interviewed me on a wide range of subjects. They’ve kindly granted us permission to post some excerpts: FMM: Capitalism requires a large degree of selfishness. Though there is certainly room for charity in a free-market system, individuals and firms must pursue their own selfish interests in order for an economy to thrive (or even succeed). How does a Christian love his neighbor as himself and still function as...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved