Civil asset forfeiture is a legal mechanism that grants law enforcement the power to seize and permanently assume ownership of private property linked to crime to disrupt the illegal activities of criminal entities. The forfeiture occurs even without a criminal conviction. Civil asset forfeiture laws exist to fight crimes like drug trafficking. However, the laws have recently come under scrutiny because of increased abuse by authorities at the state and local levels.

If you have been a victim of abuse of civil asset forfeiture, you should consult an experienced attorney for guidance. At Asset Forfeiture Attorney, we will provide the legal advice and expertise you require to contest the illegal seizure of your property in California and nationwide.

Legal Definition of California Civil Asset Forfeiture

Asset forfeiture enables authorities to confiscate money, assets, or property belonging to private citizens and assume ownership. The seizure occurs if the law enforcers believe the property or money is linked to crime.

Asset forfeiture can be civil or criminal. Criminal forfeiture requires law enforcement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property or money has been used to commit or is a product of unlawful activity, like money laundering or drug crime. In criminal forfeiture, the process occurs together with the criminal trial, and the property is only seized after you have been convicted. By contrast, in civil forfeiture, law enforcement does not need a guilty verdict to seize property.

In civil forfeiture, the burden of proof often shifts to the property owner, who must prove that the property is not connected to crime. The forfeiture occurs “in Rem,” meaning criminal charges are not a requirement for property seizure. The government agency seeking to seize the property only needs to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the money or property is related to an illegal activity. This enables the government to confiscate your assets without trial. To recover the assets, you must initiate the legal process and prove that the property is unrelated to crime.

The steps involved in a civil forfeiture include:

  • The government confiscates property, including cash, assets, or real property associated with criminal activity
  • The government agency in question notifies you, the owner, of the seizure and the right to challenge the process within 30 days.
  • Determination of the kind of forfeiture in question, whether it is judicial or administrative
  • Submission of your forfeiture petition
  • Presentation of evidence linking the property with crime by the seizing agency
  • Contestation of the confiscation by the property owner
  • A court proceeding where a judge rules whether the forfeiture process should proceed
  • Default judgment okaying the forfeiture if the property owner does not contest the legal procedure within 30 days.
  • Distribution of the proceeds from the seized property if the court approves the forfeiture

Despite the law providing procedures for civil forfeiture, there have been widespread cases of abuse of this legal mechanism by authorities. The abuse entails confiscating property from innocent property owners.

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) 2015 Report on Civil Forfeiture

In April 2015, DPA published the results of a study on California civil forfeiture practices. The results showed widespread violation of federal and state civil forfeiture laws. The results from the survey showed that law enforcement agencies confiscated property, including vehicles, real property, and money, from innocent private citizens who had not been charged or found guilty of any criminal violations. These actions were carried out under the framework of civil asset forfeiture, but amounted to abuse of the process. Because civil forfeiture does not require criminal charges or a conviction, authorities were technically acting within the law, but using it in ways that unfairly targeted innocent citizens.

Per the report, law enforcement agencies have been assigning proceeds of the seizures to their own initiatives or programs. Others have recruited new asset-forfeiture unit members while reducing investigations and patrol personnel budgets. All these are indicators of the police's misplaced priorities. The initial aim of civil asset forfeiture was to deny organized crime and drug cartels money or resources to continue with their illegal activities. However, the mechanism has now become a tool to generate income for law enforcement consistently.

In Los Angeles County, the municipalities leading in civil forfeitures per capita were:

  • Beverly hills
  • South Gate
  • Vernon
  • West Covina
  • Baldwin Park

Some of these mid-level cities were found to be creating budget projections using assets they planned on confiscating or giving misleading information to the Department of Justice regarding forfeitures.

The 2015 DPA report draws attention to the widespread abuse of civil forfeiture by government entities that has converted it into a primary source of revenue. The weaknesses identified in the civil asset forfeiture research led to calls for reforms at the state and federal levels. Even though many law enforcement entities are not well-funded, civil asset forfeiture should not be used as a tool to generate revenue and bridge the gap created by inadequate funding at the expense of innocent property owners.

Mechanisms Law Enforcement Employ to Abuse Civil Forfeiture

Government agencies can confiscate your assets or funds under civil asset forfeiture without you being charged or convicted of a criminal offense. Civil forfeiture is an effective mechanism in the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking. The mechanisms of civil forfeiture that have encouraged abuse by the government include:

Low Evidentiary Standard for Law Enforcement and Placing the Burden on the Property Owner

One major weakness in civil forfeiture that has encouraged abuse is the low burden of proof. In criminal asset forfeiture, the prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the property in question was used in the commission of or is a proceeds of the crime for the court to allow the seizure to continue. Nevertheless, in a civil forfeiture, the government must only prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the property is linked to criminal activity. It means they only have to show that it is more likely than not that the property facilitated a crime or is the proceeds of a crime. This is a low evidentiary standard and very easy for the authorities to prove, enabling seizure of property even from innocent owners.

California laws on forfeiture are nuanced. For law enforcement to seize property valued under $40,000, there must be a criminal conviction. Nevertheless, the government does not need a guilty verdict to confiscate property valued over $40,000 if it can prove it is more likely than not that the property is associated with a crime. Authorities can meet this evidentiary standard easily and exploit this weakness to confiscate and permanently own property from innocent individuals who do not file petitions, leading to default judgments.

The vulnerability of the legal process is further exposed by the requirement that innocent property owners not be associated with a crime. Shifting the burden to the owner instead of those making the allegations undermines the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. It also enables authorities to bypass several rights the law provides to defendants, as they hold the property guilty and not its owner.

Forfeiture Offers a Profit Incentive to Law Enforcement

The structure of the California civil forfeiture system encourages policing for profit, which is why the DPA report cites some municipalities that project their budgets based on their targeted revenue from asset forfeiture. 76% of revenue generated from these legal processes goes to the relevant prosecutor and police department. However, the element of revenue generation negates the aim of the mechanism, which is to deny resources to criminals to undermine their activities. The income that authorities gain from the legal procedure creates a conflict of interest that leads to abuse, as the government is more focused on generating revenue than delivering justice. The lack of accountability in California's use of funds from asset forfeiture increases the risk of misuse.

Seizure in the Absence of Charges or Guilty Verdicts

One aspect of civil asset forfeiture that has enabled continued abuse is the confiscation of property and permanent ownership without requiring a criminal charge or guilty verdict on the property owner. The law treats the property as “guilty” and not the property owner, giving them powers to take your property when you have not been arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime. The law, therefore, presumes that you are guilty until proven otherwise. Innocent property owners lose their property, meaning they are punished before undergoing the due process of law.

Civil forfeiture establishes procedural barriers that make it challenging for the average citizen to contest an illegal forfeiture. The property owner must take the initiative to file a petition challenging the seizure and pay the filing fees within 30 days of being notified. The filing fees plus the attorney fees can sometimes exceed the value of the seized asset, discouraging the owner from contesting the seizure. Others do not have the money for the petition or legal counsel, meaning the filing deadline lapses, resulting in a default judgment in favor of the government.

Lack of Transparency

California provides little transparency regarding how forfeiture funds are used, making public oversight difficult. The police are free to use the money, creating an incentive that encourages them to abuse the system for their benefit at the expense of justice.

Targeting of Minority or Vulnerable Communities

Civil forfeiture disproportionately affects the vulnerable and poor, with most of the proceeds from seizures going to law enforcement agencies in these communities. Also, a report from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) shows that counties with the highest per capita seizures had families with an annual income below the median. Families that do not have the money to fight seizures become easy targets for the police. They seize property from people who do not understand the legal process of fighting the seizure or have the funds to hire legal counsel and pay the filing fee.

Legal Reforms After the DPA Report

The increased abuse of civil forfeiture has led to many reforms to protect the rights of innocent property owners.

In 2015, New Mexico passed a law that effectively abolished civil asset forfeiture, requiring a criminal conviction for most forfeitures. This reform significantly reduced the risk of unjust seizures and provided stronger protections for property owners.

Similarly, in 2016, the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 443 introduced numerous reforms in the California civil asset forfeiture. SB 443 was enacted to protect innocent individuals from illegal seizures. The law introduced the need for a criminal conviction before a property seizure for any property valued at $40,000 or less, including cash. Besides, the bill introduced restrictions on equitable sharing of forfeiture proceeds between the federal and state governments when forfeiture cases are transferred to the federal government. The bill barred state agencies from transferring confiscated property to federal law enforcement unless its value exceeds $40,000.

Also, SB 443 eliminated procedural barriers that made it difficult for property owners to contest seizures. The reforms further protect innocent third parties, unaware that their properties were being used for criminal activities.

Lastly, those who successfully challenge property seizures should be reimbursed for the attorney fees. With recovery of the fees possible, the poor and minority communities whose properties are illegally seized can fight the seizures, knowing that if the court’s decision is in their favor, they will be compensated for the costs incurred.

SB 443 strengthened protections by requiring higher standards of proof in many forfeiture cases, particularly those involving property valued under $40,000.

If you face a civil forfeiture, you may risk losing your property even if you have not been convicted of a crime. Therefore, having an experienced attorney on your side is crucial. An attorney will help you file a petition to contest the seizure on time to prevent a default judgment. Additionally, they will ensure you satisfy the burden of proof in these legal proceedings to retain the property.

Find an Experienced Civil Forfeiture Attorney Near Me

It is challenging for an average citizen to contest an illegal property seizure by the government, considering the abuse of civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement. You require the help of a competent and affordable attorney. Affordability of an attorney is crucial because most victims of illegal seizures are targeted because of a lack of funds to defend themselves or knowledge of the legal process of contesting a seizure. At Asset Forfeiture Attorney, we provide uncompromised and affordable defense to increase your chances of regaining your property. Call us at 888-571-5590 to evaluate your case in California and nationwide.