June 27, 2023

In February 2022, during the Canadian crackdown on the truckers’ Freedom Convoy, the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, announced he would sell the confiscated vehicles and use the funds to help pay for the illegal crackdown. Watson’s edict caused a ruckus, including in America. The reality, though, is that this shakedown operation has been ongoing for decades in America. In fact, it is an annual multi-billion-dollar racket enforced by all levels of government: local, state, and federal.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

Over the last 20 years, this racketeering scheme, which is often called “civil asset forfeiture,” has netted over $68 billion for local and federal governments. In fact, over a 20-year period, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has seized (and kept) more than $203 million in cash from travelers at O’Hare International Airport and, in most cases, no charges were ever filed.

In the United States, the government can raid citizens’ homes and keep property even though the citizen has never been convicted of a crime! Welcome to the murky world of civil asset forfeiture, where the government needs only a preponderance of evidence to seize your belongings, including cash. This is because the proceedings are civil, not criminal, and the higher standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) does not apply. Criminal asset forfeiture kicks in only when someone has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime from which they profited directly.

Even if an alleged criminal is found not guilty in a criminal trial, is it possible for the government to keep that individual’s property? The answer to that question is a frightening yes. Furthermore, many of the cases involve situations where the accused must prove innocence, flipping on its head our system of innocent until the government meets the burden of proving guilt. Many times, proving innocence involves proving a negative.

Image of a police officer taking money by Pixlr AI.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

For example, consider the scenario in which someone is accused of having grown marijuana in a remote corner of a large tract of land. If he doesn’t wish to lose his property, the landowner must prove that he did not cultivate the crop or work with a third party who, unbeknownst to the owner, did cultivate the crop.

In Philadelphia, an elderly lady with end-stage renal disease had to rely on her neighbors just to make it through the day and consequently never locked her door. One day, police were pursuing a drug suspect who entered her front door and ran out the back. Afterward, they found in her home a small quantity of drugs that the fleeing suspect had obviously dropped. That didn’t stop the District Attorney from trying to seize her house. No wonder the aptly named Institute for Justice (IJ) has tackled civil asset forfeiture—i.e., policing for profit—with a vengeance.

America’s Founders clearly understood that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Today that cherished notion is under savage assault.

According to the Institute,

The federal government and most states use civil forfeiture to take cash, cars and more without charging owners with a crime. The proceeds often flow into accounts controlled by law enforcement, sometimes including the same police and prosecutors who seized and forfeited the property.

The IJ sternly warns that,