Theft is Still Legal

Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to seize property with little or no judicial oversight. “Policing for profits,” as the practice has been called, allows law enforcement agencies to use strong-arm tactics to obtain property, often when criminal charges aren’t filed.

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case in which an individual plead guilty to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. He was sentenced to a year of home detention and five years of probation. But then state officials moved to seize the individual’s $42,000 Land Rover, even though the maximum fine was $10,000. The Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was “excessive.”

According to the Court, it’s acceptable for law enforcement to seize property through asset forfeiture, but the seizure should not be “excessive.” In other words, it is acceptable to take property so long as the value is only “moderate.”

No rational person would claim that a criminal should benefit from his transgressions. Criminal asset forfeiture is a matter of justice, but a conviction is required before property can be seized. Civil asset forfeiture does not require a conviction, or even the filing of charges. In some jurisdictions, little more than suspicion of a crime is required to legally seize property. And the property owner must then prove his innocence in order to reclaim his property.

Given that out-of-state travelers are often targeted for these legal muggings, many surrender their property because the time, hassle, and expense of fighting for their property simply isn’t worth it. The Court did not declare this onerous practice unconstitutional. It simply said that such seizures should not be “excessive.”

Increasingly, the Court has provided narrow rulings that apply only to specific situations. It has abandoned its primary purpose–to identify and articulate legal principles. It is “excessive” to seize a $42,000 Land Rover, but what about a $35,000 Ford Explorer? Without principles, nobody can answer that question until the Court rules.