Former Congressman Justin Amash Calls for End to Civil Asset Forfeiture

Former Congressman Justin Amash recently took to social media, tweeting a concise call to action: > "End civil asset forfeiture." This statement reignites the ongoing debate surrounding the controversial legal practice that allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being involved in criminal activity, often without a criminal charge or conviction against the owner. Critics argue the practice infringes on due process and property rights, while proponents maintain its necessity as a crime-fighting tool.

Civil asset forfeiture permits authorities to confiscate cash, vehicles, and other assets based on the suspicion of their connection to illicit activities, such as drug trafficking or money laundering. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires a conviction, civil forfeiture targets the property itself, meaning owners often face the burden of proving their property's innocence to reclaim it. This distinction has led to numerous legal challenges and public outcry over perceived abuses.

Law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, advocate for civil asset forfeiture as a vital mechanism to dismantle criminal enterprises by targeting their financial infrastructure. They argue it effectively disrupts illegal operations and prevents criminals from profiting from their illicit gains. For instance, recent federal actions have utilized civil forfeiture to seize millions in smuggled artifacts and billions in cryptocurrency linked to transnational fraud.

However, civil liberties advocates and a growing number of lawmakers contend that the practice creates perverse financial incentives for law enforcement, leading to "policing for profit." Reports indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice's civil asset forfeitures reached $1.3 billion in 2022. Furthermore, a federal program known as "equitable sharing" allows state and local agencies to bypass stricter state-level forfeiture laws by partnering with federal entities, often receiving a significant portion of the seized assets.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in cases like Culley v. Marshall, has addressed aspects of civil forfeiture, ruling that a separate preliminary hearing is not constitutionally required for seized property. Despite this, several justices have expressed discomfort with contemporary civil forfeiture practices, suggesting potential future constitutional reviews. Many states, including Washington with its upcoming HB 1440, have implemented reforms to raise the burden of proof for seizures and enhance property owner protections, though the push for outright abolition, as voiced by Amash, continues to gain traction.