Modern Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional

By Budasoff, Christine A. | Texas Review of Law & Politics, Spring 2019 | Go to article overview

Modern Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional


Budasoff, Christine A., Texas Review of Law & Politics


Introduction

Civil forfeiture is one of the most powerful law enforcement tools possessed by the government. It is a civil proceeding in which the government seizes property suspected of being involved in criminality.1 Through civil forfeiture, states and the federal government seize several billion dollars in property annually.2

Despite the prevalence of civil forfeiture and its long acceptance by the courts, its present-day iteration should be held unconstitutional. The Due Process Clause protects individuals from governmental deprivation of property without due process of law.3 Yet, civil forfeiture today often takes place without any process before or after the government seizes property.4 This violates the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, both of which require notice and a hearing before the deprivation of property. under civil forfeiture, seizure and confiscation of property can occur based merely upon a preponderance of evidence, and no process is required for the seizure to be permanent.5

Defenders of civil forfeiture offer two justifications for the practice. The first is historical. Civil forfeiture in the United States arose from English common law, and the practice has existed in various forms for thousands of years.6 Because civil forfeiture existed before, during, and after the ratification of the Constitution, it has been assumed to be constitutional and accepted in modernjurisprudence.7 But today's civil forfeiture bears only a slight resemblance to the civil forfeiture known at the time of the founding. Civil forfeiture today is used more often, and in more varied situations, to seize a wider range of property than its predecessor. Additionally, the historical policy for civil forfeiture-to enforce the law against distant ship owners who could not otherwise be reached8-does not apply to most civil forfeitures today. Finally, the incentive structures that underlie modern civil forfeiture are inconsistent with historical practice and encourage abuse by law enforcement.

The second justification for civil forfeiture is to provide government with needed revenue. Civil forfeiture generates revenue because the government keeps most of the value of the property seized. In theory, property taken from criminals serves to further the rule of law for the benefit of law-abiding citizens. But the ends do not justify the means. Constitutional rights limit government power, and the right to due process is no exception. Arguing that due process should not pose an obstacle to civil forfeiture because it is necessary to fund the government turns the Constitution on its head.

This Article argues that modern civil forfeiture is unconstitutional by describing how the practice has survived judicial scrutiny and explaining why it should be abolished. Part I discusses the history and evolution of civil forfeiture. Part II explains how civil forfeiture today differs from its predecessor, and why modern civil forfeiture is an unconstitutional violation of citizens' right to due process.

I. History of Civil Forfeiture

In modern civil forfeiture, the government files an in rem action against a person's property, such as money, a car, or a house.9 Instead of alleging that the owner has committed a crime, the government alleges that the property has violated the law and is guilty.10 Historically, governments have practiced both in rem and in personam forfeiture.

Most scholars agree that the practice of forfeiture found in English common law grew out of Biblical traditions.11 The Book of Exodus states: "if an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten."12 The Talmudic commentary explains that the flesh of the animal is not to be eaten, so no one benefits from the animal.13

The biblical prohibition against profiting from a forfeited animal is consistent with two rationales found in English common-law forfeiture. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Modern Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.