Civil Forfeiture: How Everyday Americans—Not Kingpins—Pay the Price

Civil asset forfeiture was originally intended to combat crime by seizing property tied to criminal enterprises—but in practice, it often hits ordinary people more than high-level criminals. The article from Reason (April 2025) discusses out how forfeiture has become a revenue tool for law enforcement, rather than a weapon used only against serious offenders.

1. Civil Forfeiture’s Original Intent vs. Today’s Reality

Originally crafted as a tool to cripple large criminal enterprises, civil asset forfeiture now frequently targets ordinary people with small sums or modest property—far from the “drug kingpin” narrative.

2. How the Process Stacks the Deck Against Owners

Because forfeiture cases are “against the property” rather than the owner, the usual criminal-law safeguards don’t apply. Owners face low burdens of proof, confusing paperwork, and costly litigation to win back what’s theirs.

3. Real-World Examples Show the Harm

The article recounts cases where innocent owners lost vehicles and cash savings. One Alabama woman had to fight for months to recover her car after a third party used it without her knowledge; another man lost $92,000 in life savings seized during a routine stop.

4. Follow the Money: Profit Incentives Drive Seizures

In many states, police keep a large share of forfeiture proceeds. Federal “Equitable Sharing” programs let local agencies bypass stricter state laws and still profit. This leads to “Policing For Profit” by creating a built-in motive for cops to seize assets first and try to justify it later.

5. Reform Efforts and Remaining Loopholes

States have begun to raise standards of proof, require criminal convictions, and redirect proceeds away from law-enforcement budgets. Yet loopholes remain—especially in federal partnerships—that keep the incentives alive.

6. Why Defense Counsel Matters

Navigating forfeiture procedures is complex and costly. A knowledgeable forfeiture defense lawyer can challenge the seizure, push for prompt hearings, and exploit weaknesses in the government’s case.