Civil asset forfeiture laws allow the police to take and keep large sums of cash or property suspected of either being used to commit crimes or obtained through criminal means such as goods purchased with “dirty” money. Civil asset forfeiture laws differ by jurisdiction, but generally don’t require proof of the property owner’s guilt, although some state laws do require a conviction. Washington does not require a conviction before assets can be forfeited.
Unlike criminal asset forfeiture — a less-common action in which property used or derived from a crime is forfeited only after a conviction for that crime — civil asset forfeiture does not require a conviction or even criminal charges. The majority of such forfeitures are related to suspected illicit drug or organized crime activities. Technically, it involves a lawsuit by the government against the property itself — or, in legal terms, in rem. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property (whether it’s a yacht or a bag of cash) is the defendant in such a proceeding.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but typically the police (the plaintiffs in such a proceeding) are only required to show that there is a preponderance of the evidence suggesting the seized property was involved in wrongdoing. This is a much lower standard of proof than what is required for a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt), which is why property is so often seized from individuals who are not convicted of (nor charged with) a crime. Even if the owner of the property is tried for a crime related to the seized property, there’s no guarantee they’ll get their property back upon acquittal.
The seized property is usually sold at auction, with a majority of the proceeds (as well as any seized cash) going straight into the police department’s coffers. State laws differ in this regard, although some states allow 100 percent of the seized property to be used for law enforcement and others earmark the proceeds for education or other purposes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and other federal agencies use civil asset forfeiture laws when investigating crimes. The legal authority for these actions is found in Title 18, § 981 of the U.S. Code and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under federal law, the government must send written notice to “interested parties” (i.e. property owners) within 60 days of the seizure, although deadline extensions are often granted by courts. If a claimant (typically the property owner) sends a claim to the agency seizing the property, the government has 90 days in which to either file a formal civil complaint (“in rem”) against the seized property or obtain a criminal indictment for a criminal forfeiture. Failing either of those actions, the government is required to release the property.
Since the action is against the property, the owner (or “interested party”) generally has no right to counsel in these proceedings. One exception is if the seized property is the owner’s primary residence.
In July 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced plans to revive the Equitable Sharing Program, allowing greater collaboration between federal agencies and state and local police. The program allows federal agencies to take control of the assets seized through such federal/local collaborations and then return 80 percent of those funds back to the state agency (typically a state or local police department). This controversial program effectively allows local agencies to get around state laws that often limit the percentage of seized assets they’re allowed to keep.
State laws regarding civil asset forfeiture differ quite a bit from one another and also are subject to frequent changes. Two of the defining characteristics of these laws are the burden of proof required for seizure and how the proceeds are used. For instance, Texas police must show a preponderance of the evidence for a seizure and may keep up to 70 percent of the proceeds for their department.
If you or a loved one is in a bind as a result of a criminal charge, immediately contact a Seattle Criminal Attorney. A Criminal lawyer is not going to judge you, and understands that everyone makes mistakes. Hiring a Seattle Criminal Lawyer to help can – at a minimum – reduce penalties, and can help direct people on how to best deal with their criminal charge, and many times even get them dismissed. So it should go without saying that someone cited for a misdemeanor or felony should hire a qualified Seattle Criminal Lawyer as soon as possible. Criminal charges can cause havoc on a person’s personal and professional life. Anyone charged with a crime in Washington State should immediately seek the assistance of a seasoned Seattle Criminal Lawyer.