Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2257314
 


 



Forfeitures Revisited: Bringing Principle to Practice in Federal Court


David Pimentel


Ohio Northern University - Ohio Northern University College of Law

2012

Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2012

Abstract:     
Dramatically expanded use of federal forfeitures since the 1980s has raised persistent concerns about government overreaching in the seizure of private property. The Supreme Court failed to address the problem in Bennis v. Michigan (1996), upholding the forfeiture of property of an entirely innocent owner, relying on the ancient and unconvincing principle that the property itself is guilty. Congress stepped in to curb law enforcement’s worst abuses of this lucrative practice in 2000, but the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was a patchwork effort that tweaked the rules without revisiting the unsatisfying policies behind them. Thus a comprehensive, policy-based re-examination of forfeiture doctrines is overdue. This re-examination reveals three distinct and dissimilar categories of forfeitures — (1) contraband, (2) proceeds of crime, and (3) property used to facilitate crime — which are lumped together into a one-size-fits-all procedure. Because each of these types of forfeitures is based on distinct policy objectives, and because each poses different risks to the legitimate interests of property owners, separate procedures are required for each. Contraband forfeitures, which protect public health and welfare, can be effected on probable cause alone. Proceeds forfeitures, which effect a nonpunitive deterrence under the principle of unjust enrichment, raise factual questions that require stronger procedural safeguards and a higher burden of proof. Facilitating property forfeitures, which give rise to the worst abuses of the procedure, and which serve the most dubious of policy objectives, are difficult to justify under any procedure. A clearer articulation and understanding of the policy behind each type of forfeiture will set the stage for a more comprehensive and coherent reform. In the meantime, it can help courts to interpret and apply existing standards — including Eighth Amendment excessive fines analysis — in a more principled way. A policy-based approach, under a new taxonomy of forfeitures, is essential to address the persistent problems with federal forfeiture procedure and bring coherence and equity to the practice in federal court.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 63

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: April 28, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Pimentel, David, Forfeitures Revisited: Bringing Principle to Practice in Federal Court (2012). Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2257314

Contact Information

David Pimentel (Contact Author)
Ohio Northern University - Ohio Northern University College of Law ( email )
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 201
Downloads: 21

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.344 seconds