Alabama gets an ‘F’ for its civil asset forfeiture laws

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A recent study by FreedomWorks grades the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws, and the Yellowhammer State doesn’t score so well.

First, what’s civil asset forfeiture? According to the study, it “is an obscure area of the law that allows the government to take your property without convicting, or even charging you with a crime.”

In other words, if you go to your bank, withdraw a large amount of cash from your savings account, and get pulled over with the cash, law enforcement can keep that money until you prove that you didn’t obtain it illegally.

This is something that has happened in Alabama. According to the Heritage Foundation, Ming Tong Liu, a Chinese-born American from Newnan, Georgia, was stopped on I-10 in Alabama for driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit while heading to Louisiana to buy the Hong Kong Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles for himself and his investors (two daughters and another relative). He was detained for nearly two hours, and the authorities found and seized $75,195. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

Originally established so that law enforcement could seize funds suspected to be obtained illegally, the abuse of civil asset forfeiture by both federal and local agencies has become more high profile in recent years, thanks in large part to public interest law firm the Institute for Justice.

The study found that federal forfeiture revenue has increased from under $95 million in 1986 to over $1 billion in 2008 and subsequent year.

Now, even pop culture icons like Jon Stewart and John Oliver have begun talking about it.

So why did Alabama earn an F?

The standard of proof is extremely low; the government must only make a prima facie case to forfeit property. The property owner bears the burden to prove his innocence to get his property back, unless the forfeited property was real property, then the burden is on the government to prove the owner was not innocent. Law enforcement agencies keep 100% of forfeiture funds, and there are no collecting or reporting requirements

In order to improve the state’s score, FreedomWorks recommends the following policy changes:

1. An individual should actually be convicted of a crime before the government can seize any property.
2. Reforms should address due process concerns in two ways. First, the burden of proof that the property was used in connection with a crime should all on the government. Second, the standard of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing.
3. Proceeds from seized property should be placed in neutral accounts, such as a state’s general fund, not the police budget. This would adjust the incentives driving the use of this practice.
4. Reforms should prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program as a way of bypassing state reforms.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015