Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bradleyjg 4531 days ago
Civil forfiture doesn't require a criminal conviction. In fact there's hardly any process at all. Just one more twisted doctrine justified by the War on Drugs.
1 comments

To expand on this, from wikipedia:

"In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. The burden is on the Government to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture by a "preponderance of the evidence." If it is successful, the owner may yet prevail by establishing an "innocent owner" defense.

In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the Government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender.

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $2.4 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States

Since the Government sues the property itself, and since property itself has few if any rights, you can understand how the entire process becomes rather... one sided.

You have to admit, whoever came up with that law was being pretty clever. If only they would use some of that cleverness to just send me a bill for my taxes.