Frank Alegria, Patriot Academy Alumni
Meeting with members of the National Sheriff’s Association early this month, President Trump reiterated his belief in the supremacy of our nation’s laws, as well as his respect for law enforcement. And when certain attendees began to complain of lawmakers’ efforts to curb their powers, namely in the area of asset forfeiture, the president immediately made promises to highlight the issue and outright pressured Congress to scrap such plans to limit police powers, if they had had any. But given how asset forfeiture is, at best, a controversial method used to enforce the law, aren’t legislators justified in their endeavors to restrict this currently unchecked power?
Some may argue that asset forfeiture is required to circumvent the hassle of a courthouse to obtain a search warrant. And the truth is, they’re right – it is much more efficient. But most of the time in doing so, the limitless power to search and seize has been abused. Instead of using this power solely to bust the Pablo Escobars of the world using land within the United States for illegal activities, it is instead used to confiscate the private property of everyday Americans. The reason for seizure? Nothing other than mere suspicion of it’s relation to criminal activity.
Additionally, when forced to prove whether or not the objects in question have actually been used in a crime, prosecutors don’t have to bring crystal clear evidence that they were. They have only to prepare suggestive arguments which meet the standard of preponderance of evidence, (meaning “more likely true than not,”) almost ensuring the government will retain the property in question. And to add insult to injury, the forfeiture cases are so minor in comparison to the Pablo Bust that they are rarely worth the financial or legal hassles for the average Joe to appeal.
Having just suffered such abuses of what was then called “writ of assistance” by the British in the times leading up to the American Revolution, this was exactly what the Founding Fathers were thinking of when passing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. To curb the potential for wrongdoing by law enforcement, a process for asset forfeiture was put in place by the “search & seizure” clause of the Fourth Amendment. Instead of acting on suspicion and possibly abusing their power of confiscation, law enforcement must first present evidence supporting the necessity of the requested warrant and then, if accepted, secure one from the judge. Only then, would they have the right to seize property related to criminal activity.
Likewise, the Fifth Amendment also protects against power abuse. The main component, the “due process” clause, ensures that no one will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without having first received a fair trial in a court of law. Sadly, in most instances of asset forfeiture abuse, particularly in civil cases, property owners don’t have a right to representation in court.
Instead of the owner being charged with an offense, it is as if the property itself is personified and charged with the crime instead, automatically limiting the owner’s options. The only course of challenging such head-scratching nonsense is an expensive and prolonged legal battle in which the expenses vastly outweigh the value of the property in question. In other words, it’s not worth it.
Many are quick to assume that efforts to curb the abuse of asset forfeiture are simply out of pure political motivation. But in looking at the facts and listening to those who have suffered because of its abuse, we find this is not so. It seems that in our efforts to enforce the many laws within our nation, we have done just the opposite by forgetting the core document of our country. As a friend once told me, “It is just as important what we enforce as how we enforce it.” If we are truly to uphold the laws of the United States, we must take care that we do so through the powers granted us by the supreme law of our land – the Constitution.
