The Government's Legal Theft Racket
San Diego Union-Tribune, December 29, 1995 (& Omaha World-Herald,
January 2, 1996)*
By Michael Fumento
Copyright 1996 by Michael Fumento
Think you've had a hard week? Consider what happened to Mrs. Tina Bennis
back in October of 1988. One day she finds out that her husband, appropriately
named John, was arrested by Detroit police for having sex in a car with
a prostitute. Then a few days later, adding insult to injury, the city
seized the car as a "public nuisance." And it didn't give it back, even
though the car was half Tina's. This case is exceptional only in that its
being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be decided later this year
whether Mrs. Bennis gets her car back. It is not exceptional in the sense
of being like those laws you hear about forbidding eating cherry pie in
the bathtub on Sunday or some such. Indeed, property forfeiture laws are
routinely employed by states and localities around the country as well
as by the federal government. Under the federal and most state civil asset
forfeiture statutes, law enforcement officials can seize a person's property
without a notice or hearing if they merely have probable cause to believe
it has somehow been involved in a crime. Proceeding against the property,
the government need not file criminal charges against the owner or anyone
else. Because of the fiction that the property is guilty, not the owner,
cases to retrieve forfeited items have such quaint names as One 1958 Plymouth
Sedan v. Pennsylvania and United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee. (No information
available on whether Mrs. Olson was called to testify.) "Involvement" may
mean anything from a belief that the property is contraband to a belief
that it represents the proceeds of crime (even if it is in the hands of
someone not suspected of a crime), that it is an instrument of crime, or
that it somehow facilitates crime.
In one famous case the oceanographic research vessel Atlantis was seized
off the coast of Massachusetts because a single marijuana cigarette was
found in the ship's crew quarters. In another, authorities seized a Scripps
Oceanographic Institute research vessel because a marijuana cigarette was
found in the locker of a sailor who had long since been fired.
But it appears that most forfeiture victims are not big guys like Scripps
who can afford attorneys to take back their property, but average Janes
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Michigan Association for the
Preservation of Property found that in 1992 Michigan law enforcement agencies
used civil forfeiture in 9,770 instances, confiscating an average of only
$1,434 per seizure. Property taken included 54 private homes with an average
value of only $15,991 and 807 cars with an average value of merely $1,412.
Poor Tina Bennis's car was worth only $660.
While these confiscations were probably crushing to those who suffered
them, they are not enough to justify the thousands of dollars it would
take to hire an attorney to get the property back. You see, once the property
is seized, the burden is upon the owner to prove its "innocence."
As Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) points out in his 1995 book Forfeiting Our
Property Rights, "In more than 80 percent of asset forfeiture cases the
property owner is not even charged with a crime yet the government officials
can and usually do keep the seized property."
One of the most pernicious aspects of civil forfeiture law is that the
property seized often benefits the seizer. During the Holy Inquisition,
many a person went to his or her death because some official coveted their
property. Unfortunately, that's not entirely a thing of the past as the
Donald Scott case shows.
In 1992, federal, state, and local law enforcement officials raided
Scott's Malibu home on his 200 acre ranch under the pretense that he might
be growing marijuana. Brandishing a gun to stave off what he thought were
criminal intruders, he was shot to death.
In fact, Scott was passionately anti-drug. His "crime" may have been
his repeated refusal to sell his scenic ranch to the National Park Service.
The Ventura County district attorney concluded that "the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize
and forfeit the ranch for the government."
Civil forfeiture has allowed state and federal agencies to line their
pockets with loot. The amount deposited in the Department of Justice's
Assets Forfeiture fund has increased from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million
in 1993. The Treasury Department's Forfeiture Fund took in $198 million
Civil forfeiture needs to be seen for what it is, an end run around
constitutional protections that begs for abuse. The notion that property
can commit crimes is absurd. (Cars don't solicit prostitutes; people do.)
Forfeiture can be a valuable weapon in sucking the profits out of a criminal
enterprise. But the fair way to seize these is through something already
on the books called criminal forfeiture. This procedure requires a criminal
conviction before seizing property, eliminating much of the injustice of
True, this will eliminate those amusing case names like United States
v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms. People who thumb through court reports
in search of humor will just have to get their kicks some other way. We
need to fight crime without taking the lives of Malibu millionaires or
the clunkers of Detroit housewives.
*Appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune, December 29,
1995, as "When governments can take property," and in the Omaha World Herald,
January 2, 1996, as "Government's Legal Theft Scheme".
Visit Michael Fumento's website
Back to Overlawyered.com articles
library / to top page
Reprinted by author's permission.
All rights reserved.
Original contents of site ©
1999 and other years The Overlawyered Group.
Technical questions: Email