Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Explainer: What you should know about civil asset forfeiture
Jan 21, 2026 11:27 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
Envy: A Deadly (Economic) Sin
Victor Claar, Acton University lecturer and professor of economics at Henderson State University, will give a talk tonight in Washington, D.C., hosted by AEI, “Grieving the Good of Others: Envy and Economics.” If you are in the area, you are encouraged to attend and hear Dr. Claar as well as two respondents discuss the topic of envy and its moral and economic consequences. Here’s a description of the event: Critics of capitalism often argue that this economic system is irretrievably...
Journal of Religion and Business Ethics
The latest issue of the newly launched Journal of Religion and Business Ethics is now available (vol. 1, no. 2). Check out the contents at their website. From the journal’s about page: “The Journal of Religion and Business Ethics is a peer-reviewed journal that examines the ethical and religious issues that arise in the modern business setting. While much attention has been given to the philosophical treatment of business ethics, this is the first journal to address the more inclusive...
A Lesson from Michigan: Time to End Crony Unionism
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I take a look at the prospects of “right-to-work” legislation in Michigan, “A Lesson from Michigan: Time to End Crony Unionism.” One of the things that disturbs me the most about what I call “crony unionism” is the hand-in-glove relationship between the labor unions and big government. We have the same kind of special pleading and rent seeking in this system as we do in crony capitalism, but the labor unions enjoy such special protection...
Rev. Sirico: Respect others’ rights, but also their values
A new column by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, was published today in the Detroit News. This column will also be linked in tomorrow’s Acton News & Commentary. Sign up for the free weekly Acton newsletter here. +++++++++ Faith and policy: Respect others’ rights, but also their values FATHER ROBERT SIRICO If such an award were to be given for the Most Contentious Religious Story of 2010, the two main contenders would undoubtedly be...
The Politics of Crony Unionism
Last week’s Acton Commentary and blog post focused on my claims about “crony unionism” and how the intimate relationship between Big Labor and Big Government corrupt both. Here’s another instance of the kinds of gross conflicts of interest produced by this relationship: It’s hard to see this as anything but partisan pandering on the part of the largest public sector union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Meanwhile, the Washington Post asks, “Was politics behind the...
Explaining the New Democratic Logo
“The new Democratic logo is so bad that the intellectual rot in the official announcement went largely unnoticed.” The rest of my piece is here at The American Spectator. ...
The Daily Show Takes on a Union
The Daily Show exposes some union hypocrisy (HT). In the words of the union local head, es down to greed”: ...
Mandating Monolithic Medicine
Among the warnings sounded as the Democratic health care reform bill was being debated was that the federal insurance mandate included in the bill—even though not national health care per se—would essentially give the federal government control of the insurance industry. The reason: If everyone is forced to buy insurance, then the government must deem what sort of insurance qualifies as adequate to meet the mandate. This piece of Obamacare promises to turn every medical procedure into a major political...
Radio Free Acton: The Stewardship of Art, Part 2
Last week, we posted part 1 of our podcast on the proper Christian stewardship of art; for those who have been waiting for the conclusion, we’re happy to present part 2. David Michael Phelps continues to lead the discussion between Professors Nathan Jacobs and Calvin Seerveld, who previously debated this topic in the Controversy section of our Journal of Markets & Morality. The first portion of that exchange is available at the link for part 1; the remainder of the...
Work as if It Mattered
The conversations over the last few weeks here on work have raised a couple of questions. In the context of criticisms on the perspectives on work articulated by Lester DeKoster and defended by menter John E. asks, “…what is it that you hope readers will change in their lives, and why?” I want to change people’s view of their work. I want them to see how it has value not simply as a means to some other end, but in...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved