Henry and Minh Cheng, a couple from California, run a jewelry store. Earlier this year, they sold a large order of gold chains to a retailer based in Virginia, who agreed to send $43,000 for the shipment. However, the money never arrived.

While the package passed through a FedEx facility in Indiana, the police intercepted the cash. According to the nonprofit law firm representing the Chengs, neither the couple nor the Virginia retailer faced any criminal charges, yet the government claimed the seizure was justified, arguing that large cash transfers are often linked to illegal activities.

Now, the Chengs, with the support of the Institute for Justice, are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the state, alleging that there is a growing pattern of unjustified package seizures happening at that facility.

This money grab was made possible by a controversial procedure known as civil asset forfeiture, which opponents argue is essentially sanctioned government theft that disproportionately affects innocent individuals.

However, some officials defend this power, contending that allowing cash, vehicles, and even homes to be seized helps dismantle criminal enterprises and deters illegal actions, particularly regarding drug trafficking.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who broadened the practice in 2017, stated it assists law enforcement in dismantling organized crime by reclaiming illegally obtained assets and preventing future crimes, thereby weakening criminals and their networks.

Nonetheless, critics argue that civil asset forfeiture has become a lucrative venture for law enforcement agencies, allowing them to retain most of the profits seized.

In one case from 2020, Jerry Johnson had nearly $40,000 in cash taken from him at Phoenix airport while he was en route to purchase a semi-truck for his shipping company. It took him two and a half years of legal challenges before he was able to recover the money.

“Normal citizens who have done nothing wrong are at risk,” stated Louis Rulli, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He emphasized that even if you haven’t committed any offense, you are still vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture, and fighting against the government can be extremely daunting and expensive.

What is civil forfeiture? Why does it exist?

The idea of civil forfeiture in the U.S. dates back to the country’s early days when it was common for European ships to engage in smuggling and other customs violations. Since the owners could evade U.S. courts, this practice allowed the government to impose penalties directly on the property.

Over time, its purpose has evolved, with civil forfeiture often being applied to everyday individuals rather than just targeting major criminal organizations. According to Rulli, it now generates billions in annual forfeitures, stemming from both significant drug busts and smaller amounts confiscated from private citizens during routine stops.

In the 1970s and 80s, civil forfeiture became a key tool in the “war on drugs.” Law enforcement expanded its use to seize cash and belongings from suspected drug offenders, in addition to drugs and drug-related paraphernalia.

Civil forfeiture laws differ from state to state, but in general, they permit law enforcement to confiscate property or belongings suspected to be involved in criminal activity. The owner doesn’t need to have been convicted, or even charged, with a crime to have their property seized.

Commonly, police seize cash, vehicles, and homes, but they have also taken unusual items like tattoo guns, night vision goggles, and entire sets of washing machines.

In Aiken County, South Carolina, deputies seized a $24,000 tractor belonging to a landowner after finding 29 marijuana plants on his property, claiming the tractor had been used to water the plants.

The owner, Dennis Ruff, spent three years trying to retrieve his tractor, ultimately without success, and had not faced any charges as of 2019.

A peculiar aspect of civil forfeiture is that it targets the property itself rather than the individual, according to Rulli. This leads to case titles like “State v. $10,000.” This means that property owners lack the right to legal representation and often must spend more on legal defenses than the value of what has been seized. Typically, the burden of proof for the government is not as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt” as it would be in a criminal trial.

Can innocent people have their property taken by police?

Rulli, who operates a legal clinic for low-income individuals in Philadelphia, has encountered many civil forfeiture cases. He noted that a frequent scenario involves police conducting routine traffic stops on highways, where they may seize cash found in vehicles with no evidence of wrongdoing.

There is also a concerning dynamic involving race and poverty in civil forfeiture cases, he added.

“Since much of civil forfeiture stems from stops on the highway, it is known that minorities are stopped at significantly higher rates,” Rulli stated.

He also highlighted numerous cases in Philadelphia where elderly homeowners have had their properties taken because a relative may have unknowingly engaged in illegal activities near their home.

Research from the Institute for Justice indicates that property owners rarely contest these seizures. Rulli explained that this is often due to the high costs, extensive time commitments, and the intimidation factor involved in opposing the government. The nonprofit has surveyed numerous individuals whose possessions were taken, revealing that most were never charged with any crimes.

According to Rulli, there is a process known as criminal forfeiture, which allows authorities to confiscate someone’s property once they have been convicted of a crime.

“People generally understand that there are times when it is justified to take property, but only after a person has been found guilty,” he noted.

It remains uncertain how many people in the U.S. are affected each year because different states have different systems for tracking and reporting this data.

Average Americans caught in civil forfeiture

In 2014, Nassir Geiger, a resident of Philadelphia, stopped his car in a parking lot to greet a friend who had recently been arrested for drug-related charges. The police approached Geiger, searched his vehicle, and despite discovering no drugs, they confiscated his car along with approximately $580 in cash.

“I hadn’t broken any traffic laws; my license was current,” Geiger remarked in an interview with YSL News. “There was no reason for them to take my car.”

About ten years ago, Rozina Javis battled against the seizure of her home, which was only resolved when she hired an attorney. Law enforcement officials told the grandmother that there was excessive criminal activity occurring on her property, involving her relatives and visitors. While she managed to keep her home, it led her into bankruptcy because the legal expenses to contest the forfeiture were overwhelming.

“This is all I’ve got,” Javis told the Greenville News, part of the YSL News Network, years later.

Malinda Harris from Massachusetts shared in a YSL News opinion piece how police took her car after her son, who was borrowing it, was accused of drug dealing. She described it took years to get her vehicle back, detailing her experience in 2021.

“Everyday Americans find themselves unjustly caught up in civil forfeiture, which stretches the limits of the Constitution,” Rulli stated.

Supporters of civil forfeiture argue it’s needed to fight crime

Despite numerous attempts by states over the past ten years to reform civil forfeiture laws, the practice still has backing from law enforcement and district attorneys, who argue it is essential for fighting crime.

A former official from the Reagan administration’s Department of Justice acknowledged in a YSL News opinion piece from 2017 that while civil forfeiture can be misused by police, the system is fair because property owners are notified and given an opportunity to reclaim their belongings.

“The knowledge that money can be seized and not returned acts as a strong deterrent against further crime,” stated Alfred S. Regnery.

The procedures for seizure vary by state and at the federal level. Typically, when law enforcement takes money or property, they must file a court motion to justify their actions based on a suspected crime. Property owners are usually notified, have the chance to challenge the seizure, and a judge makes the final decision.

If the government retains the seized property, the funds are typically allocated to law enforcement or state budgets. In South Carolina, for instance, seized assets must be sold at a public auction, with the proceeds divided among the police, the prosecutor, and the state.

An officer from South Carolina clarified why confiscated items may not solely include drugs or cash: “Drug dealers don’t always deal in cash,” explained Chad Brooks, a captain in drug investigations at the Pickens County Sheriff’s Office, in an interview with the Greenville News, part of the YSL News Network. “Someone might trade a TV for drugs, and they often admit to such exchanges.”

The Institute for Justice, which opposes civil forfeiture, found that crime rates did not rise in the years following when Nebraska abolished the practice in favor of criminal forfeiture.

Is change on the horizon?

Civil forfeiture has been practically eliminated in just four states: North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Maine, based on data from the Institute for Justice. However, many other states have sought to reform their laws. Some have raised the burden of proof required for law enforcement to seize property, while others have enhanced the clarity of their processes, according to Rulli.

A gap in federal law allows law enforcement agencies nationwide to bypass state reforms. The federal government does not have to follow state laws, which enables local law enforcement to coordinate with federal authorities to seize assets and subsequently share the proceeds.

Congress is currently evaluating a proposal known as the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act. This measure would increase the burden of proof for the government, mandate legal representation for individuals unable to afford it when their property is being seized, and close off avenues for evading state regulations.

Rulli mentioned this issue has garnered rare bipartisan agreement between liberal and conservative factions.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that property owners are not entitled to a preliminary hearing when their belongings are seized by police. However, some justices hinted at the possibility of a broader conversation regarding civil forfeiture. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a member of the court’s conservative majority, concurred with the ruling but expressed that there are “unresolved questions about whether, and to what extent, current civil forfeiture practices align with the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.”