NCJ Number
206590
Journal
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: 2004 Pages: 220-240
Date Published
2004
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This paper argues that, contrary to expectations, the Federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000 will not produce significant change in the practice of civil asset forfeiture.
Abstract
Criminal forfeiture and fines can only follow a criminal conviction under the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil asset forfeiture targets property and does not require a criminal proceeding. Forfeiture means that ownership is relinquished. Under an administrative civil forfeiture (one of three types of civil forfeiture), the property is typically first seized, then the property owner is given a certain amount of time in which to challenge the seizure. Civil asset forfeiture is sometimes used as a plea bargaining mechanism; in exchange for cash seized in a forfeiture, some prosecutors will reduce the charges and/or forego prosecution altogether. Some scholars have claimed that nearly 80 percent of the property owners whose property has been forfeited are never prosecuted. Critics of civil forfeiture have argued that sometimes inadequate notice has been given to property owners that their property is targeted; that there are insufficient defenses from forfeiture for "innocent owners;" that the standard of proof for seizures is questionable; that there are possible constitutional infringements; and the motivations for forfeiture by law enforcement officials are questionable. After reviewing the provisions of CAFRA, this paper argues that although it has ushered in some important procedural changes, CAFRA does not address several of the problems associated with civil asset forfeiture, among them being a questionable standard of proof, equitable sharing of forfeiture proceeds among law enforcement agencies, and the so-called "taint doctrine." The latter doctrine justifies the immediate seizure of property that law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe was involved in a crime. This means that persons whose property is targeted for forfeiture are assumed guilty prior to any criminal proceeding or conviction. Critics argue that civil forfeiture and even the seizure that precedes it should only follow a properly conducted criminal trial. 5 notes and 55 references