The idea of civil forfeiture violates the basic ideas of property rights which form the basis of a government by consent. Although society, through a fairly elected government, has some responsibility to protect other members of society, a person’s property should not be taken arbitrarily by government officials without due process and without a legitimate government interest.
First, in civil forfeiture, a police officer may seize property the officer suspects has an illegal purpose. For example, this could include a house or car in which drugs are found even if the owner of the property was not involved in a crime. The forfeiture does not require any type of probable cause or conviction. Additionally, the government only has to have a civil, instead of criminal – beyond a reasonable doubt – level of proof. Current news reports are full of examples of greedy law enforcement officials using civil forfeiture laws to unfairly take property from citizens, even law-abiding citizens. A government which starts to take away property from its citizens has gone far beyond its limited purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.
To give a better understanding of the criticism of civil forfeiture laws, I have posted links to a video critical description by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight and articles from the liberal Texas Observer and the more conservative New American.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/
I agree that the government has some responsibility to protect members of our society. And, sometimes that means removing property that endangers law-abiding members of society. For instance, the government could lawfully destroy a house that creates some type of serious danger for others. As a result, in some cases, we have consented to government authority to take a person’s property, liberty and even life. But the authority to take a person’s life, liberty or property is limited by the consent of the governed. I know that these civil forfeiture laws were passed by an elected government, but this law has become a tool for the government to take property away from people who are not guilty of a crime. The only purpose in many cases is to create additional funds for the government. Law enforcement officials should not be allowed unchecked discretion to take a person’s property. Our government must be limited to protection of property rights, and discretionary civil forfeiture simply allows the government to take property from citizens and to give it to the government. It is very different from the protection of life, liberty and property which is the basic foundation – and limit – to a just government.
The reasonable limits to civil forfeiture laws are set out in our society’s basic contract, which is set out in our Constitution. The government may not take any person’s property without due process of law. Members of our society have natural rights, including the right to protect our property. We consented to give up some rights to form a limited government, with the main purpose of protecting our property laws. Now this government power is being used to unjustly take property from its citizens.
And finally, I understand that a person may forfeit his or her rights to property in certain situations. However, many of these civil forfeitures are done in the name of the War on Drugs. Often the forfeiture is claimed to be justified over small amounts of recreational drugs or paraphernalia, and sometimes even for cash in the house or car. Clearly, the amount of protection for society does not justify the taking of a person’s property.