Civil asset forfeiture is wrong
Few people have any argument with the government seizing property owned by a drug trafficker. Often, houses, cars, boats, etc., not to mention the pusher’s cash, were obtained by breaking the law.
But what about someone merely accused of a crime? We Americans are innocent until proven guilty, right?
Only in a way. The government cannot send us to prison without convicting us of crimes. Sometimes, it can take and keep our property, however.
Welcome to the world of civil asset forfeiture. Under both state and federal laws, the authorities can seize property they believe was used in criminal activities. Not infrequently, they use the proceeds to buy law enforcement equipment.
Prosecutors can file motions to take property even if no one has been convicted of a crime. Once that happens, it is up to the owners to argue against the motion in court. In other words, the person whose possessions have been taken must go to court, usually by hiring an attorney, to prove he or she has not used the property in a crime.
That simply isn’t how things are supposed to happen in the United States of America.
Under no circumstances should police and prosecutors be permitted to take possessions unless proof has been provided in court that crimes have occurred – and that the owners of the property in question are guilty.