In 2014, Philadelphia police seized the home of Christos and Markela Sourovelis. Their son, who lived with them, had been arrested for selling forty dollars of drugs. The Sourovelises were kicked out of their home, the doors were screwed shut, and the utilities were cut off. Though they had done nothing wrong, they were homeless because their home presented an inviting target—it was paid off and the police would retain all of the proceeds when it was sold. Though the Sourvelises were eventually allowed to return to their home, they were the victims of a process called civil asset forfeiture.
Civil asset forfeiture is one of those rare issues that unites conservatives, libertarians, and “Progressives.” Horror stories abound about innocent owners having their property seized without ever being charged with a crime. Outside of law enforcement, nearly everyone is calling for reform of asset forfeiture laws. And, while a few states have enacted reforms and the Department of Justice has revised some of its policies, the practice continues virtually unabated. Why, despite widespread support for reform, has the practice expanded? The answer lies in the very purpose of civil asset forfeiture.
Even the most conscientious and honest law enforcement officials cannot avoid abusing innocent property owners when civil asset forfeiture is invoked. The fundamental reason for forfeiture abuse is the type of actions that are regarded as a crime, and thus, the laws that forfeiture is used to enforce.
Click here to download the entire policy paper.