The Supreme Court has ruled four times this term to rein in the scope of forfeiture, emboldening judges to criticize its abuses and excesses. Now, even former Justice Department officials and federal prosecutors are joining the chorus of critics, according to the Times. Former federal prosecutor David Smith, the author of the leading treatise on forfeitures, says forfeitures have become an institutionalized and corrosive influence on law enforcement. Because law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep all or much of the seized booty, the process becomes an inherently self-serving conflict of interest for the agencies involved. And because asset seizure reverses the burden of proof, requiring the accused to prove that the property was not the proceeds of or used to facilitate a crime, there is little pressure on law enforcement to build strong cases before moving to seize assets.
Most cases involve drug crimes.
Michael Zeldin, former head of the Justice Department's asset forfeiture office, said he saw the policy distorted by budget concerns. We had a situation in which the desire to deposit money into the asset forfeiture fund became the reason for being of forfeiture, eclipsing in certain measure the desire to effect fair enforcement of the laws as a matter of pure law enforcement objectives.