Mar 11, 2019 3 min read

Like most government agencies, police departments would like to have more money for people and equipment. Unlike most, they have at their disposal a potentially pernicious avenue for revenue generation – asset forfeiture.

Forfeiture is a civil process by which law enforcement agencies can seize money, vehicles, real estate or other assets connected to criminal activity. The process is frequently abused, however, and that’s why a recent Supreme Court ruling imposing some restrictions on the practice is welcome, if overdue.

No one wants criminals to benefit from the proceeds of their illicit activity. Forfeiture is supposed to turn that situation on its head by taking criminals’ ill-gotten booty away from them and giving it to law enforcement to use instead. Forfeited money can be spent on a police department’s material needs, while a seized car might be used for an undercover operation or sold for cash. The short-lived television series “Graceland” portrayed a group of undercover federal agents living in and working out of a California beach house taken from a drug dealer.

Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels abuse the practice in various ways. Sometimes, they go after property belonging not to criminals but to people innocently in their lives – say a house belonging to a drug dealer’s parents. Or they try to hang on to property even if a person is never convicted of the alleged crime that gave rise to the forfeiture proceedings.

In some instances, police overreach and take far more than they should given the crime in question. In the state of Indiana, Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to selling $225 of heroin and was sentenced to house arrest and probation. The offense didn’t even warrant incarceration. But state officials seized his $42,000 Land Rover. They argued it was drug-trade largesse, but Timbs claimed he bought it with proceeds from his father’s life insurance.

The Supreme Court sided with Timbs, ruling that seizure of the vehicle violated his constitutional protection against excessive fines. As important as the ruling was the court’s unanimity. Although the justices are ideologically divided on many issues, they voted 9-0 in this case, signaling that improper forfeitures are a serious constitutional issue of broad concern.

Forfeiture has its place, but law enforcement agencies must use it narrowly so they reasonably punish the guilty without harming the innocent. One Supreme Court ruling won’t cure all of the problems with forfeiture. But it does help a little and sends the message that the court is watching.