87 percent of federal forfeitures were civil, not criminal, so the government didn’t have to charge or convict anyone to take property.

CAF 101

It has been called “one of the most controversial practices in the American criminal justice system.” But civil forfeiture was, until the 2010s, largely unknown to the public, to pundits and even to elected officials, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in property being seized and forfeited every year across the United States. Civil forfeiture is a mechanism by which law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property on the mere suspicion that it is connected to a crime.

In contrast to criminal forfeiture, where property is taken only after a criminal conviction, civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to take property from innocent people who have never been formally accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one. This evasion of the criminal justice system is based on a legal fiction in which property thought to be connected to an alleged crime is considered “guilty” of having somehow assisted in the commission of that crime. In criminal forfeiture, the government proceeds against a person charged with a crime; in civil forfeiture, the government proceeds against property. The civil forfeiture process generally includes two distinct actions: seizure and forfeiture. Seizure occurs when law enforcement officials—police officers, sheriff’s deputies, federal agents—confiscate property they suspect is related to criminal activity. Practically anything can be seized by law enforcement—cash, vehicles, airplanes, jewelry, homes, musical instruments, farm implements, home furnishings, electronics and more. Once property has been seized, prosecutors file civil actions against it in order to forfeit, or keep, it. This process that often produces odd-sounding case names like State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado or United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster.

Because such actions are against property, not people, and because they are civil actions, not criminal, owners caught up in civil forfeiture proceedings lack rights afforded the criminally accused, such as the right to counsel. And under civil forfeiture, the government usually faces a lower evidentiary threshold to forfeit property than it does to convict a person of a crime. Even people who had nothing to do with an alleged crime can lose their property through civil forfeiture unless they can prove their innocence—flipping the American legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty on its head. Most troublingly, civil forfeiture laws in most states and at the federal level give law enforcement agencies a financial stake in forfeitures by awarding them some, if not all, of the proceeds. This financial incentive creates a conflict of interest and encourages the pursuit of property instead of the pursuit of justice.

Kentucky’s Law & Practices

Kentucky earned among the worst grades in the nation for its civil forfeiture laws according to IJ’s rankings. Kentucky civil forfeiture law affords inadequate protection to property owners. The state must only show that the property is related to criminal activity and can be forfeited by a preponderance of the evidence, a standard significantly lower than that required for criminal guilt. And property owners have the burden of proof in an innocent owner claim unless it is real property, such as a home or land. Moreover, law enforcement agencies receive 100 percent of the value of any forfeited assets, creating an incentive for law enforcement to focus on forfeiture rather than crime prevention. This report found that law enforcement officials are now required to collect forfeiture data in Kentucky, but the information provided was unreliable. Click here for an analysis of Kentucky’s ranking.
Kentucky’s Law & Practices

Legal Origins

Civil forfeiture has a history dating back several hundred years with roots in British maritime law to the British Navigation Acts around the middle 1600s. These laws required ships importing or exporting goods from British ports to fly the British flag; ships that failed to do this could be seized regardless of whether the ship's owner was guilty of doing any wrongdoing. It was easier to seize a vessel than try to apprehend an owner on the other side of the ocean, as explained by Supreme Court justice Joseph Story.

Prohibition Era

Government used forfeiture during the Prohibition years 1920–1933. Police seized vehicles and equipment and cash and other property from bootleggers. When Prohibition ended in 1933, much of the forfeiture activity ended as well, and modern forfeiture was an "infrequent resort" until the last few decades.