NCJ Number
117711
Journal
University of Detroit Law Review Volume: 62 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1984) Pages: 87-108
Date Published
1984
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This article contends that the Federal civil forfeiture scheme is unfair to innocent interest holders in the conveyance, since the scheme considers the conveyance used in unlawful activity to be the offender.
Abstract
The Federal Government can seek civil forfeiture of a conveyance when that conveyance has been involved in illegal activity. An innocent party can seek remission of a forfeited conveyance, although there seems to be a long-standing policy of disregarding a party's innocence when applying forfeiture statutes. Most courts hold that a claimant's innocence is no defense to a forfeiture and that remission is an innocent claimant's only possible remedy. Many innocent claimants continue to have their interests forfeited based on the legal interpretation that it was the conveyance which committed a crime. The most common State forfeitures occur under controlled substance laws. Most State forfeiture laws are modeled after the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (the Uniform Act). This act provides that any conveyance used to transport or facilitate the sale of controlled substances for the purpose of a sale is subject to forfeiture. Unlike the Federal scheme, however, simple possession of a controlled substance does not render the conveyance subject to forfeiture under the Uniform Act. The Uniform Act has two important advantages over the Federal forfeiture scheme. First, innocence is a defense to the Uniform Act forfeiture proceeding. Second, the Uniform Act provides for judicial determination of an innocent claimant's interests during the forfeiture proceeding. Congressional action is needed to change the Federal forfeiture scheme so that it is similar to the Uniform Act followed by most States. 176 references.